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

I am going to ignore the interjection. It would seem that this would not benefit the majors, so why was it not even discussed by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters? Either that or this is more evidence that, even with this so-called committee oversight, it was missed by the major party political geniuses. This is more reason why I am calling for a proper process in relation to this bill, not just the Greens claiming that, because they have been discussing a topic for 10 years, the first bill proposed should be rammed through parliament, gagging important debate and oversight on the issue. This just highlights that there is something to hide and they are treating the public of Australia with contempt.

This deal has shown how those who have opposing ideologies sometimes unite around a common cause, albeit a dirty cause this time. The deal between the government and the Greens has shown how these differences of opinion are put aside to unite around a common—yet misguided in this case—view so much so that the government will not discuss its own Australian Building and Construction Commission legislation, which the government has been publicly saying is the most important legislation it needs to present to the parliament. More to that, the Greens have proven that opposing parties will work together on common issues to the extent of opposing their own legislation in relation to marriage equality, twice in one week, and their bill to allow landholders the right to refuse gas and coalmining on their land.

So much for this rubbish that when you vote for a minor party you may get someone who does not have the same values as who you voted for. It appears that it is okay to vote for the Greens and get the LNP, or vote for the LNP and get the Greens. It seems that the government is happy to let the Greens steer their direction while the LNP are now the ones lost in the wilderness. This deal has shown how the voters have trusted their favourite choice under the current system to make these decisions for them. It has also highlighted that, when voters are gravely concerned about the nature of the process, they are not happy to listen but push spin upon them to push their own agenda. This deal has shown how polar opposites on the political spectrum—the conservative coalition and the once progressive Greens—can unite over an issue.

This bill, this debate, is all based around the argument about the need to remove individual and group-voting tickets. Those supporting the removal of group-voting tickets have followed this approach to ensure that these changes are passed in the Senate. Let us think about this for a moment. Let us consider what these parties from opposite sides of politics have done. They have done the exact thing the minor parties did with their group-voting ticket negotiations at the last election. The minor parties from opposing ideologies united around a common cause. That cause was to save the Australian Senate—save the Senate from being either a rubber stamp for the government or a tool of hostile opposition for opposition's sake. Engaged minor party voters agreed, with around one in four voters choosing to vote against the coalition, Labor or the Greens. They trusted their preferred political party to negotiate in their interests. The voters put forward their voice. The voters wanted something different in the Senate. If you consider for a moment that the concept is around minor parties and their supporters uniting against the established major parties and the Greens then this is what the results delivered. But somehow all of a sudden, when the established major parties and the Greens are challenged, the rules are wrong. All of a sudden, the media is enlisted to whip up voter outrage—and don't I know it. How dare minor parties put their political ideology aside to unite! That is only allowed if you are the Liberal or National Party member, Senator Xenophon or the Greens. How dare they pass their preferences amongst themselves to get a political outcome at the expense of the established parties! So what do those with the most to lose do? They unite against the minor parties and Independents to effectively try to wipe them out. Votes will exhaust. Same process, different deals—that is politics, it seems.

The Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party and others worked within the rules, and I make no apology for that. This resulted in me being elected on a full quota of near half a million votes—votes not directed to any of the major parties. These are the rules the major parties were happy with so long as their minor party cousins did not break ranks and continued to funnel their preferences to the majors.

One thing the minor parties have done is keep both the government and opposition accountable during this parliamentary term. They highlight the failings of both sides of politics in this house of review. The government has to win over a diversity of views in the Senate, something that is easily possible if you negotiate and communicate. The government claim that this makes things hard for them. The government are forced to keep up the spin during their whole term, rather than just at the end of it. As a result, the government are accountable during the whole parliamentary term rather than afterwards like they are used to.

This government has failed to be agile and has struggled to adapt. The government has struggled to understand the concepts of negotiation and consultation. The fact of the matter is the government does not have a clue how to deal with the crossbench nor has it any desire to listen to the voices of the people. We saw that with ex-Prime Minister Abbott and we see it still today with Prime Minister Turnbull. I, like others, had very high hopes that Prime Minister Turnbull actually understood. He talked the talk but, for some reason, cannot walk the walk, unless, of course, there is a 'selfie' involved.

I do not attack like this too often. I am generally against political tit-for-tat and am quite vocal about that; however, I feel justified in highlighting the failings of a government and a Prime Minister who have failed to live up to expectations, especially when I am often told by members of the public how I have grown into the role and how they are pleased with my performance. Now that the Prime Minister's failings are starting to show, he wants to divert attention away from myself and my crossbench colleagues completely by attempting to have us removed. He wants to do this with threats and coercion—all the things, ironically, that he seeks to remove from the construction industry. I would always rather play the ball and not the man. It is a shame the Prime Minister of this great country is not willing to do the same.

I will also direct some comments towards the Greens. To their credit, they have adapted. For most of this parliament, they had simply been an irrelevant, minor-party opposition voting bloc on most issues. They began this parliament unwilling to compromise, unwilling to negotiate, and, as a result, would have rather seen children left in detention on Christmas Island. Thankfully, I was able to negotiate and have them removed, even if the process took a bit longer than I expected. I suppose if these issues are actually resolved, it is hard for the Greens to go to an election and gather votes by promising to reach a resolution for these innocent, desperate, vulnerable people—thank God we have a diverse crossbench.

Raising false hope, with complete disregard to how it will affect those it is aimed at, through motions which the Greens know will not get up is a disgusting tactic that needs to be called out. What we see now, however, under the new leadership of Senator Di Natale, is a senator who is actually willing to negotiate and play for the middle. So the Greens are now doing what minor parties have been accused of doing—that is, working with each other from opposite sides of the political spectrum. What worries me is that Senator Di Natale is effectively trying to trick that middle-ground swinging voter to vote for the Greens at the expense of their grassroots supporters, not because he actually wants to represent the middle ground but so that the Greens might increase their power and influence. So finally, under new Greens leadership, they have been able to return to the table and actually become a non-government force. The price for this shift towards the middle is yet to be paid by the Greens, so we will have to wait and see how that plays out.

Let us now turn to the bill itself. Put simply, the bill is rushed and the bill is flawed. The bill fails to address many of the issues introduced by above-the-line voting. We have already established this bill has been introduced to benefit political operatives rather than the people of Australia. I have highlighted many of these concerns in my 30-page dissenting committee report. I encourage voters to read it. I have publically spoken about the token sham process in which this bill has been introduced. The below-the-line omission from the legislation was, it seems, an intentional flaw. It was done to make it appear that the committee process actually found something. It was done so that it would appear that consultation had taken place. I think it was also done so the Greens could run around and crow about yet another fake achievement. I find it very hard to believe, with the seasoned politicians who put this bill together, with all the legal advice that was sought when drafting the bill, that this omission was not intentional. They insult our intelligence, and that of all Australians, thinking that we would fall for such an obvious trick.

The government would continue to insult our intelligence by thinking that Australians are unable to count to twelve. Why would we accept the marking of six boxes below the line to record a formal vote when the minimum is 12 is beyond me. If the majority of Australians are not able to count to 12, and we have to make it easier by allowing a 50 per cent pass mark to cast a vote then I think that screams volumes about the various governments' leadership in education over the years.

Above-the-line voting has turned a pure candidate based system into one where people are voting for a party and not for the candidate. We often hear complaints about the ballot paper and the amount of microparties that form. Nobody is talking about how the number of Independent candidates has declined over the years. Has anyone bothered to consider that these are symptoms of the same problem? That problem is above-the-line voting. Above-the-line voting was designed to allow for the use of group or individual voting tickets. If we are to scrap these then perhaps we should scrap above-the-line altogether. All we need to do is simply make it easier to cast a formal vote. Knowing that political self-interest always wins ahead of the interests of the people, I have quickly given up on this approach to reform.

So how can we make this butchered system better? For a start, let's actually give all preferences back to the voter, not just the preferences exchanged between political parties. Stop saying that this is the intention of these so-called reforms publically, but then presenting a bill which does not do this. I would also like to see the preferences exchanged within a party group go back to the voter. But if we did that then the major parties would oppose it. Why? Because they would no longer be able to help out a mate would who otherwise be a dud candidate. That dud candidate can currently be dropped into the first spot on the ticket. For a candidate to shine above the others, they would need to actually be a candidate of quality. But that would make them accountable to the voters and take power away from the party hacks that put them there. Well, I say, 'Let the people choose.' They can make that choice at the ballot box by voting below-the-line for that candidate.

The problem is that they are not going to do so unless they are encouraged to do so. There is a way to encourage this engagement between candidate and voter by encouraging below-the-line voting. We have established, however, that this will only be done if it is in their self-interest and not the interest of the voter. We will need to make them work for their vote. This could be achieved by rotating the order of groups on the ballot paper. This system of rotation is known as the Robson rotation, and it is used in the Hare-Clarke system that exists already in some of the Australian elections. This will mean that those parachuted in by party hacks will have to get out there and work for their vote. Other candidates in the other spaces on the ticket would have a fighting chance to build a strong local following and earn their seat. This encourages accountability over self-interest.

I should, however, return to the issue of the rise of microparties and the fall of the Independent candidates. Once this bill is passed, it will be impossible for any ungrouped Independent candidate to be represented above the line. Let us consider that for a moment. Around 97 per cent of votes are cast above the line. This bill fails to allow all candidates to be represented above the line. Only grouped, party based candidates are able to access this pool of votes—that is, unless two Independents group together on a ticket, they are not able to be represented above the line. So we have just doubled the number of candidates that will now appear below the line. It is no wonder that people are voting above the line.

To stand a chance, an Independent needs to group above the line for just one available seat. In order to group together, each member of a group must gather 100 different nominators in the state they are nominated in. That is a lot of work for just one seat that will be declared via preferences.

Now consider what you need to do to register a political party when you can centrally nominate. You only need to gather 500 signatures from all over the country. You can then run as many candidates as you like, in whatever state you like, without having to demonstrate any local support at all. You can be a resident of Victoria and run in Western Australia when you are in a political party. If you are in a team of two Independents, you have to have 200 local nominators in that state in order to run. This bill does nothing to address this. Why? Because it means that the political parties would have to work a little bit harder.

If I had been invited to be part of a genuine reform process, my focus would have been on restoring accountability between a candidate and the voter. I would have sought to address all the problems that above-the-line voting has introduced into the system, not just change the rules around the ones that the established major parties, Senator Xenophon and the Greens find to be a threat to themselves. Most importantly, I would have made the system fair again so that small political groups did not need to form a political party just to have a chance. I would have made sure that people stood a fair chance as Independents in their own right. I would hope that any High Court challenge to this bill and perhaps above-the-line voting would consider how there has been a significant shift away from candidate based voting to party based voting. I would hope that they would consider how it is impossible for a single Independent candidate to be directly elected by the people, because of the party based voting above the line.

This bill has been rushed through parliament with little to no oversight for a reason: it does not deliver what those who want it claim. We may well find ourselves with a rubber-stamp Senate after the imminent double-dissolution election, and the Greens will be the ones who will have to answer for it. I am buoyed by the support I have received from across Australia over the past three weeks from coalition supporters disappointed with the coalition and from Greens supporters bitterly disappointed with the Greens. Of course, it is not too late for the Greens to realise the error of their ways and withdraw their support for this ill-considered bill.

Yesterday, Senator Rice mentioned in her speech: how would somebody who votes for the Bullet Train for Australia or the No CSG Party feel with me being elected via their preferences? I suspect they feel pretty good, considering that I have been very vocal about the right for farmers to veto mining companies' access to their land. The question has not been raised about a train from Melbourne to Sydney via Canberra, but—I tell you what—it sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

If I can come to this debate and highlight clear flaws, it shows one thing: Senator Lee Rhiannon is no longer for the grassroots Greens supporters, who are against a political machine; she is part of that machine and allowing the minority Liberal government, who would be nobody without a coalition, to lock diversity out. If this is so important, where is the plebiscite? Why aren't the people having a chance to vote on this? Why is it being rushed through the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, locking everybody else, who might actually have an intelligent contribution to add to it, out of the debate? I would have to say what the Labor Party may have just said: you are running scared.