David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to indicate my support for this amendment. The claim that is being made by the government and by the Greens that voters should be in control of their votes is handled very well by this amendment. It is actually very similar to what exists in the Victorian Legislative Counsel system for elections. If a voter trust their party to deal with their vote appropriately, they can vote above the line and the party will deal with it as it judges, based on a group-voting ticket, and it will not exhaust—it will go to the next party that the initial party supports, and the one after that, and the one after that. It will end up landing at one of the two last candidates for election. That individual, who has trusted that party, assuming that party has dealt in good faith with that individual's vote, will ensure that that vote counts. That is giving power to the voters.

If they do not trust their party, all they have to do is vote to 1 to 12 below the line. In fact, in Victoria, they have to vote only 1 to 5 below the line, because that is how many vacancies there are to be filled. In my opinion, for Senate elections we should have 1 to 6 below the line in a normal half Senate election, as a minimum, and 1 to 12 below the line in a full Senate election, as a minimum.

This amendment maximises voter choice without wiping out the effect of their vote if they do not vote for one of the major parties that will ultimately end up winning the seat. This empowers voters. If they trust their party they can vote above the line. If they prefer to control their preferences themselves, they can vote below the line and go for the minimal vote or vote for as many as they wish. This amendment is what gives voters maximum choice.