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

I move amendment (1) on sheet 7853 standing in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 26 (after line 26), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 4—House of Representatives voting

96 At the end of section 240

  Add:

(3) A vote may be marked on a ballot paper by:

(a) writing at least the numbers 1 to 6 in the squares printed on the ballot paper (with the number 1 being given to the candidate for whom the person votes as his or her first preference, and the numbers 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 being given to other candidates so as to indicate the order of the person's preference for them); or

(b) if there are 6 or fewer squares printed on the ballot paper—numbering the squares consecutively from the number 1 (in order of preference as described in paragraph (a)).

Note: See also section 268A for when the vote is formal.

97 Subsection 268(1)

  Omit "section 239", substitute "section 239 or 240".

98 Paragraph 268(1)(c)

  Omit "in a House of Representatives election", substitute "subject to section 268A, in a House of Representatives election".

99 After section 268

  Insert:

268A Formal votes—House of Representatives election

(1) A ballot paper in a House of Representatives election will not be informal by virtue of 268(1)(c) if:

  (a) a voter has marked the ballot paper in accordance with subsection 240(3); or

  (b) the voter has marked the number 1, or the number 1 and one or more higher numbers, in squares printed on the ballot paper.

(2) For the purposes of this Act:

  (a) a voter who, in a square printed on a House of Representatives ballot paper, marks only a single tick or cross is taken as having written the number 1 in the square; and

  (b) the following numbers written in a square printed on a House of Representatives ballot paper are to be disregarded:

     (i) numbers that are repeated and any higher numbers;

     (ii) if a number is missed—any numbers that are higher than the missing number.

101 Schedule 1 (Form F)

  Omit "[here insert number of candidates] in the order of your choice", substitute "6 (if there are 6 squares, if not such number of squares as there are) and, if there are more than 6 squares, such further numbers as you wish, in the order of your choice".

102 Schedule 1 (Form F)

  Omit "Remember….number every box to make your vote count."

103 Application provision

  The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to elections the writs for which are issued on or after the commencement of this item.

This amendment introduces optional preferential voting for the House of Representatives. It replicates the provisions in the government's bill relating to above-the-line voting in the Senate. As such, when voters vote in a House of Representatives election, they will be instructed to write at least the numbers 1 to 6, or fewer if there are fewer candidates, but votes marked with just a 1, tick or cross will still be considered formal. This will make the voting task for the House of Representatives the same as when voting above the line for the Senate. It will also generate a similar degree of vote exhaustion. Those voters who fill in fewer squares than six, or the number of candidates, will end up having no say if the last two candidates vying for election are not in the voter's top six or fewer.

I note that this effect of optional preferential voting particularly disenfranchises supporters of minor parties, because their top six are less likely to include the candidates who are the last candidates standing in the battle for the vacancy. The Liberal-National-Green coalition clearly do not care about vote exhaustion, so I expect them to support my amendment. In fact, this is the only coherent path for the Liberal-National-Green coalition to follow. If the coalition do not support my amendment, the Australian public deserve an explanation: why is optional preferential voting good for the Senate but not for the House of Representatives? I would particularly like the coalition to allay my fear that we are getting optional preferential voting in the Senate because this would help both the Liberals and the Greens but we are not getting optional preferential voting in the House of Representatives because this would hurt the Greens, who rely on people expressing their second, third or fourth preference in order to get elected. I fear this entire reform has nothing to do with the principle and everything to do with entrenching incumbents.