Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016. You will have to forgive the speed at which I am speaking because I have a lot to say and not enough time to do it. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the ALP's contribution to this debate, noting the possible impacts of this legislation in the future and highlighting that even the government has got amendments at the last minute. It goes to show how great this process has been. I commend you for your support of the crossbench and the 25 per cent of voters who are choosing to vote outside of Labor, Liberal, the Nationals and the Greens, who are the instigators of all of this.

My election is largely used as justification for this bill being presented to the parliament. To quote some of the rhetoric, 'It is undemocratic that somebody can be elected on 0.51 per cent of a quota.' This is a commonly used statement. Those who preach this forget that to be elected I had to receive 14.5 per cent of the vote. As it turns out, I did not get elected on 479 votes below the line nor on 17,122 votes above the line but on 483,076 votes after receiving preferences. I started gathering preferences after receiving 0.51 per cent—the common number that gets spread around. These are the exact same rules which the major parties play by and have used to their advantage for 32 years.

In the current make-up of the Senate there are 13 senators who received significantly less of a primary vote than I did—as low as 0.01 per cent before receiving preferences and ending up being elected at the required 14.5 per cent. Nobody is speaking about that of course because it does not suit the agenda. It seems that this bit of information is regularly missing in this debate. Why? Because it highlights exactly how the major parties and the Greens have been using this system to their advantage and pulling the wool over the eyes of voters for 32 years.

I might be called the accidental senator but I am a duly-elected Australian senator nevertheless. I was elected under the rules that have served this country well for 32 years. What is different now is that the minor parties have figured out how to use the rules the exact same way the major parties do and have levelled the playing field by doing just that. If minor parties had been directing their preferences to the major parties or the Greens above other minor parties, we would not be having this debate because they would still be the beneficiaries of the system designed by them to benefit them 32 years ago.

The reality is that one in four voters have become unimpressed with the way they have been represented—or, in reality, unrepresented—by the major parties and the Greens. They are looking elsewhere and that is the only way minor parties are receiving enough votes to stay in the game. If the major parties were passing the pub test by the voters, I would still be blissfully disenfranchised of politics while milling timber in country Victoria.

I note that in Senator Back's contribution to this debate he made some good points in relation to the need for some form of electoral reform. I am not actually saying that things need to or have to stay as they are. I am opposing the so-called reform in its current form as it strips democracy from the people and empowers certain parties. Senator Back quoted section 7 of the Australian Constitution, which highlights that parliamentarians should be elected directly by the people. Senator Back, I agree. Where is the debate about removing above-the-line voting, which encourages party voting and internal party preferences? On Senator Back's assessment, why are we not encouraging below-the-line candidate based voting?