John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the Senate last sat, I was making the point that the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012 will lead to important machinery reforms to electoral law. The amendments in schedule 1 of the bill will simplify and improve the administration of postal voting. Of course the framework of our Australian electoral system is built around Australians voting in person at their local polling booth on election day, with any other form of voting being the exception. The simple fact is that this pattern is slowly but surely changing with every election.

For example, according to AEC data, in the 1993 federal election there were 308,412 postal votes cast. Two federal elections later, in 1998, there were 502,372 postal votes cast. In the 2004 federal election there were 613,277 postal votes cast, and in the last federal election there were 854,726 postal votes cast. So from 1993 to 2010 the number of postal votes cast has almost tripled.

The total number of provisional, absent and pre-poll votes has also risen significantly. According to AEC data provided to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, there were 377,831 pre-poll votes in the 1993 federal election. The number of voters pre-polling had almost doubled by 1998 when 727,071 pre-poll votes were cast. In 2007 it was well over a million—1,110,334 pre-poll votes—and the AEC's submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2010 election stated:

Just 1.5 million pre-poll votes were cast at the 2010 federal election, representing an increase of 37.9 per cent on pre-poll votes cast in 2007.

Increasingly busy family lives and broader economic and social change mean that Australians work and travel on weekends, including on election weekends. Also, with our ageing population, I expect many Australians are likely to take advantage of more convenient voting options in the future. There is a clear trend in how the community wishes to engage in the electoral process and it is important that Australia's electoral laws facilitate Australians exercising their democratic rights.

This bill will make practical changes to modernise the postal voting provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. The bill will facilitate the use of technology and improve the ability of the AEC to efficiently and safely process postal vote applications. The AEC has assured the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that these changes are needed and that they will not compromise key integrity provisions such as the matching of returned postal votes to an application, the initialling of ballot papers and the preliminary scrutiny provisions.

The amendments in schedule 2 of the bill will increase the nomination deposit paid by Senate candidates from $1,000 to $2,000 and increase the nomination deposit paid by House of Representatives candidates from $500 to $1,000. The last time deposits were increased was in 2006. These increases were recommended by Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and are supported by the government. The amendments in schedule 2 will also increase the number of electors required to nominate an unendorsed candidate for the Senate or for the House of Representatives from 50 to 100 electors. I think it is reasonable to expect that a fair dinkum candidate in a seat of 60,000 to 80,000 electors should be able to get 100 of those electors to nominate them. The amendments strike a balance between providing the opportunity for all eligible citizens to stand for parliament while at the same time putting in place some reasonable threshold of support for a candidate to meet for nomination.

The amendments will, hopefully, deter vexatious candidates and stop the size of the Senate ballot paper unnecessarily ballooning. At the 2010 election, in the state of New South Wales the Senate ballot paper contained the names of 84 candidates across 33 columns.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A tablecloth!

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The 'tablecloth' was the name given—as you would know, Senator Xenophon—to a ballot paper for the New South Wales Legislative Council.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Faulkner, you will address your remarks through the chair.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for drawing Senator Xenophon to order, Mr Acting Deputy President, for that very unruly interjection that he made! I was making the point that in the 2010 election the ballot paper for the Senate in New South Wales was 1,020 millimetres wide, so over a metre wide, and the print—and this is important—was down to 8.5 points in size. My understanding is that effectively a ballot paper of 1,020 millimetres is the widest that can be physically printed. I am concerned that if we have more groups on the New South Wales Senate ballot paper we are going to have to supply magnifying glasses to voters! But I do say that these amendments will impose a slightly higher but still a modest requirement on candidates standing for parliament to demonstrate some threshold of community support.

This bill contains a number of practical measures to improve the electoral process in Australia. I am very pleased that there is broad support in the parliament for these changes. I commend the bill.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012. This bill will build on the strong record of electoral reform already delivered by the federal Labor government. Since coming to office we have made a number of changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and associated pieces of legislation to improve the transparency and strength of the Australian electoral system. It is also worth putting on record that those opposite have opposed many of these changes every step of the way and that they are still opposing legislation that would reduce the threshold before political donations are required to be declared, as well as other key measures proposed to strengthen and enhance Australia's electoral system. But I understand that those opposite will support this piece of legislation that makes a number of changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984.

The bill before us will enact a number of recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, JSCEM, of which I am a member, in its report on the 2012 federal election. The first schedule of the bill will see a modernisation of the postal vote process used in elections. As the Special Minister of State, Mr Gary Gray MP, has pointed out, 110 years ago the Commonwealth Electoral Act provided for postal voting in much the same way that it is conducted today.

Currently, the act provides that applications for postal voting are made to the divisional returning officer who processes the applications before the postal vote packages are sent to the elector. These postal votes are then returned to the divisional returning officer for processing and counting. This process has worked well in the past when there was a limited amount of postal votes, but in today's modern society more and more people are using the postal vote service to cast their votes in elections. The evidence backs this up. At the 2010 federal election the Australian Electoral Commission, the AEC, processed over 800,000 postal votes. This was a significant increase on the number processed at the 2007 federal election.

It is time for a modernisation of the process, and that is exactly what this bill does. It allows for the AEC to send out postal vote applications to electors and for them to return their postal vote applications to the Electoral Commissioner or an assistant returning officer. This will streamline the process to deliver an improved manner for processing postal vote applications and the issuing of postal vote ballot papers. As well as improving the application and processing arrangements for postal votes, the bill will also make amendments to the Electoral Act to allow for voters to make an application for a postal vote online.

These amendments are expected to help facilitate a greater number of Australians to use postal votes in future elections, which can only be a good thing as we should be doing everything possible to maintain the franchise and ensure that Australians have the opportunity to have their say in the political process. These amendments have also been written to allow for future technological changes.

The bill will increase the deposit required to nominate for the Senate from $1,000 to $2,000 and from $500 to $1,000 for candidates standing for House of Representatives elections. These changes have been made to address the increasingly large number of Senate groups contesting elections. They are designed to discourage those candidates who are not serious in their pursuit of public office and thereby reduce the number of candidates on the ballot paper.

I must say the Senate ballot paper has not been a huge problem my home state of Tasmania since we saw off the National Party in Tassie, but at the 2010 federal election in New South Wales there were 84 candidates across 33 columns. I imagine this would have made for an incredibly large ballot paper. Of those 84 candidates, 42 received fewer than 200 first preference votes. That means that the total formal votes polled by those candidates was only 2,697 or 0.006 per cent of the total formal vote.

None of these candidates came from a group that had a candidate elected and they all lost their nomination fee. With the increasing number of candidates, we have seen significant complexities with the Senate ballot paper, making it more difficult for electors to cast their votes. The last time the nomination fee was increased was back in 2006. These increases have been recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and are something that this government is supporting through this legislation.

The bill will also make complementary amendments to increase the number of nominators for an unendorsed candidate from 50 to 100 electors, as well as requiring each candidate to have the nomination form signed by 100 electors. This measure was not a recommendation of the JSCEM report but it is based on additional advice provided by the AEC that an increase in the nomination fee in itself would not necessarily address the issue of the increasing size and complexity of the ballot paper. There is no change to the requirements for endorsed candidates.

These changes strike the right balance between providing the opportunity for electors to run for public office while at the same time putting in place some reasonable threshold to preserve the integrity of the process. Without these amendments we are also faced with a number of practical problems including the size of the Senate ballot papers, particularly in New South Wales, and the process of printing these ballots. There have also been electoral issues with the increased number of candidates and subsequent increased size and complexity of the ballot paper. The informality rate is on the increase in New South Wales.

Finally, the bill will make a number of minor and technical amendments to the act to correct errors, update language and increase the efficiency of the electoral process. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012 builds upon the federal Labor government's strong commitment to electoral reform. This bill is the next step in that process and will deliver a significant modernisation of the postal-voting process, a process that has been largely unchanged for over 100 years. It will also change the nomination fee for candidates and the number of electors unendorsed candidates are required to have to nominate for parliament. These are welcome changes and ones that were recommended in the JSCEM report on the 2010 federal election. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that I do support in broad terms the measures in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012, but I think the bill needs to go further and that is why I will be moving a number of amendments, particularly in relation to issues of transparency. At this stage we are told by the Prime Minister that the election will not take place until Saturday, 14 September but who knows what may happen between now and then? It is not a sure thing, despite what Centrebet or Sportsbet have said about the odds that there will be an election on that day. I think it is more likely than not, but we may find this to be one of the last opportunities we have for some electoral reform. I think it is important that we seize the opportunity, particularly in relation to transparency and in respect of the disclosure of donations, because our current disclosure laws are woefully inadequate.

In respect of the proposals in this bill, I think it is worth reflecting on the simplifying and facilitating of the application of technology to postal-voting arrangements. I welcome that, but I also think it is worth reflecting on what some key stakeholders have said about the current postal-voting arrangements and how these favour incumbents and the major parties. I do not think that is such a good thing in a democracy.

In line with Senator John Madigan's amendment from the DLP, I do have some concerns about the increase in the nomination deposit. I believe it would be beneficial to phase this in, given the nearness of the next election and that is why I will be supporting Senator Madigan's amendment.

Beyond the provisions in this bill, there are serious and significant problems with the Electoral Act itself. I acknowledge the work the government has done in this area so far, but a number of reforms proposed by Senator Faulkner when he was Special Minister of State have not been followed through. I do not blame Senator Faulkner for that. It was because it was delayed in the Senate.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was not for want for trying.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I make it absolutely clear that it was not through want of trying—through the disorderly interjection of Senator Faulkner—and it was not through lack of trying. I acknowledge and applaud the work that Senator Faulkner has done on electoral reform as Special Minister of State. We do need to go further. We have an election coming up in the next few months. Senator Joyce, who has just entered the chamber, may know more about this—14 September is the nominal date but who knows whether the election will be held before then.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will tell you later.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He will tell us later on. In particular, the provisions relating to disclosure of donations are a mess. They are unclear, they are inconsistent and they are almost contradictory. There are loopholes in those provisions big enough to drive B-triple through and that is an area of real concern. I believe that voters have the right to know where candidates, parties and sitting members get their funding from in accordance with appropriate thresholds in respect of donations. It is a basic matter of transparency. Currently the disclosure requirements in the act change depending on whether you are the donor or the recipient, whether the donation is to a party or an individual and whether the donation is 'personal use'. There are many loopholes in what I think is a fundamental part of a democracy. It reminds me of a quote by a man called Mr Hanna who was the campaign director for President McKinley over 100 years ago in the United States. He said there are basically two rules in politics: the first is money and he could not remember the second. I think that basically sums up the importance of getting the transparency provisions right.

For example, parties only have to submit annual returns to the AEC, the Australian Electoral Commission, whether or not there has been an election. Candidates have to submit an election return, but many party endorsed candidates simply state that all their donations went to their party and submit a nil return. Independents once elected do not have to submit another return until they come up for re-election three or six years later. To put it mildly these provisions are a dog's breakfast and it is voters who are forced to eat Chum.

Senator Joyce interjecting—

I am sorry, Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, Senator Joyce has been amused by that and is distracting me. Other countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom have much stricter rules about disclosure, including requirements for campaign accounts where each transaction can be tracked. They also have disclosure laws relating to other organisations that accept donations for campaigns on political issues, such as the notorious PACs in the United States. These rules apply across the board and apply to everyone equally—politicians, parties, candidates and other organisations. There have been many attempts to capture and disclose multiple donations made by associated legal entities in other countries, but we are lagging far behind the rest of the world. In a democracy as advanced, as robust and as sophisticated as ours, we ought to be doing better.

To try and address some of these issues I will be moving amendments relating to the time period for donation disclosures. Under these amendments political parties, candidates and members of parliament will have 30 days to disclose donations to the AEC outside an election period. The AEC then has a week to post that disclosure on their website. At the moment we have a situation where, if a donation were made on 1 July 2011, we do not get to find out about it until 1 February 2013, some 19 months after that donation was made. Surely that time lag is simply unacceptable and is not in the interests of a transparent democracy. For instance, in the course of the poker machine reform debate of last year, I think it would have been quite interesting to find out how much money was given by various interest groups from the poker machine lobby, from hotels, from clubs and from others who have key interests, such as Mr James Packer's corporate entities, for instance. It would have been interesting to find out, within a timely manner, what donations they made and not have to wait a number of months until after the dust had already settled in the course of the debate. I think it is legitimate for us to know about that. During an election period parties, candidates and members of parliament will have 24 hours to submit their disclosure to the AEC. The AEC will then have 24 hours to post that disclosure on their website, and there is no reason why we cannot and should not be doing that.

These amendments can also capture aggregate donations where the total amount of more than one donation from the same source exceeds the threshold amount, which is currently in the order of just under $12,000. An offence provision is also included which states that an offence occurs where the disclosure requirements are not met. In this case the Commonwealth may recover an amount equal to the donation or gift, so there is a very real disincentive for not complying with the laws. This is in line with similar offence provisions that already exist in the Electoral Act, so it borrows from our current framework. The intention of these amendments is to bring some clarity and consistency to disclosure. The amendments also make disclosures much more timely which means that voters have access to current information. Postelection disclosures mean that it is all too late and no matter what voters find out there is nothing they can do.

There are many more changes we need to make to this part of the act and these amendments are a start. I note that the government currently has a bill before the Senate that aims to address some of these issues, but I hope we can get some safeguards in place before the next election. We need to get these reforms in place before another cycle passes and the political will of change disappears.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank advisers from the Special Minister of State's office and officers from the AEC who took the time to brief me on the complexities of the act. That was very useful and I am genuinely grateful for, in particular, their professionalism and the impartiality of the Australian Electoral Commission. I think we can be very proud of them on a global basis in terms of the way they conduct themselves. I think—and it is not a criticism of the AEC—they do have one hand tied behind their back under our current legislative framework. They do not have the necessary legislative tools in order to do their job as well as they could because of the inconsistencies, the complexities and the loopholes that exist in our current disclosure laws.

In relation to the issue of postal voting it is worth reflecting on a concern that was expressed by the Democratic Audit of Australia, a major interest group in relation to this. The Democratic Audit of Australia has recommended the repeal of certain provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act dealing with the handling of postal vote applications. I am referring to a very good summary in the Bills Digest provided to members of parliament. It says:

In particular the Audit objects to 'the practice whereby political parties harvest postal vote applications and use the party's post box as the return address' for the PVA. The Audit considers that this unfairly favours incumbents and offends the principles of non-partisanship in electoral administration.

…   …   …

The Audit is 'in general support' of the amendments contained in Schedule 2 of the proposed Bill. It also believes that Schedule 3 of the Bill provides for 'important amendments'—although the Audit raises some questions about the scope and qualifications of those whose opinion is to be relied upon concerning a voter's capacity to make a voting decision.

The Democratic Audit of Australia, which, I believe, is well regarded and highly regarded for the forensic work that it does in looking at our electoral system, does recommend the bill. My question to the minister and to the government in relation to this is: to what extent are the concerns of the Democratic Audit of Australia about the practice whereby political parties harvest postal-voting applications and use the party's postbox as a return address for the postal-voting application being dealt with?

I was, as part of a thwarted parliamentary delegation into Malaysia just a few days ago, to look at these matters with my colleagues: Senator John Williams, who was formerly an election observer for the Republic of Georgia's elections late last year; Dr Mal Washer, a highly regarded member of the lower house and a coalition member; and Steve Georganas, a very highly regarded member for Hindmarsh in South Australia and a government member. We were invited to visit Malaysia and look at their electoral system by Bersih, the clean elections movement, the umbrella civil society organisation.

Whatever relatively minor problems we have with postal votes here in Australia are nothing compared to the concerns raised by Bersih in relation to what is happening in Malaysia. I do support this bill; I will be vigorously pursuing amendments for greater transparency because this may be one of the last opportunities we have to fix up issues of transparency in terms of donations.

Ultimately the aim of this bill is to smooth out some of the bumps in our electoral processes, but, given that we are facing another election this year, I believe this is an opportunity to make significant and meaningful changes. Another area of reform in this bill relates to the issue of the nominations to increase from 50 to 100. I note a very interesting submission from Family Voice Australia, which believes that:

… some constraints on the nomination procedure may be necessary to avoid manipulation or abuse of the electoral process. FVA considers that the proposal that, to be grouped, Senate candidates each need 100 unique endorsements, is problematic. FVA argues that groups of between two and four candidates … enjoy 'the privilege of a "group voting square", with much lower endorsement requirements than political parties who require at least 500 members to receive registration.

On the other hand, a group of six or more candidates would be required to deliver 600 or more signatures more than a political party and Family Voice Australia regards this as unfair. In their submission they say that group candidates get the same advantages as registered political parties of an above-the-line box. Registered political parties need 500 current members, and this bill should be amended to require any application for grouping on the Senate ballot paper be accompanied by a total of at least 500 unique endorsements, regardless of the number of candidates applying to be grouped. I think that there is some merit in that.

If we do get an opportunity to revisit the Electoral Act before the election, it would be worth dealing with that. The problem that I faced when I ran as an Independent candidate for the Senate in 2007 is that, whilst I was grouped because I had the requisite 50 signatures, my name or any identifying features were not above the line. It was just box S. That is a real disadvantage for an Independent candidate. I think there ought to be some consideration given. An issue I will take up with the Special Minister of State, the Hon. Gary Gray, as a matter of some urgency is whether there ought to be a mechanism where you can be grouped with a high threshold but have the right to have the name of the candidate or the name of the group you represent above the line. This occurs in South Australia for the Legislative Council, where I think you need only a couple of people to nominate you, but have a stricter requirement of at least 500 people, similar to a political party, but you then have the right to have your name above the line for the group that you represent or the cause that you represent. I think that would be a fair and sensible reform, because it does put Independent candidates at a real disadvantage and I think that is fundamentally unfair in respect of the current rules.

I look forward to discussing the provisions of this bill and the proposed amendments further in the committee stage. There is a lot more that needs to be done, but I do indicate that the priority that I have is to make sure we have much greater transparency in the issue of political donations. I believe that the Australian Electoral Commission with appropriate resources should be able to ensure that there is a much more timely disclosure of political donations, because, quite frankly, the current timelines for political donations are beyond a joke. They lack transparency and robustness, and that is something that we as a parliament have an obligation to remedy in the interests of greater transparency of Australian democracy.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to start by welcoming back Senator Xenophon. When I heard he had been detained in Malaysia I went on an immediate hunger strike and I was not going to eat again until they released him. As you can see, I have wasted away to a shadow, because 17 hours later they kicked him out. I was there with you in spirit. I think it will go down as one of the biggest political fights of modern time.

On a more serious note, I do concur with the message of Senator Xenophon in wanting transparency. There is always the battle that exists between, to be honest, the party structure—which likes to have the party's name as premier and the individual's name as secondary—and the reality of politics which is ultimately driven by the desires of an individual even within the party. There must be the understanding that you are voting for an individual. It has always been a concern of mine that here in the Senate we are the states house, but the discussion is always around party blocs and not around the states, which you would think it should be. When people talk about the discourse that happens in this chamber, and sometimes it is not professional, I always believe a great way to fix that would be to have people sit in state blocs rather than party blocs. It is very hard to yell at somebody who is sitting beside you. I know that idea is never going to go anywhere, but it does go to show that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has an immense responsibility. That is, they have to put aside their party beliefs and focus on what is in the interests of the Australian people—in delivering back to them the proper representation of their intentions without presuming that their intentions are our intentions, because our intentions are about the survival of our parties and the Independents. What we have to focus on is: is this individual getting an authentic representation of their desires in the way they vote?

You see another classic example when people vote above the line for the Senate. No-one actually knows where their preferences go. Their preferences are allocated, but no-one knows where they go. I think many people do not even understand that there is an allocation of preferences if you vote above the line. I cannot help myself. I always vote below the line in the Senate—and they say that is a great recipe for an invalid vote—because I like to allocate my own preferences for who should be last and who should be first—which is generally me.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you get satisfaction as to who you put last?

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I get great satisfaction. I actually work out the numbers, Senator Xenophon. I work out who should go last. Nigel Freemarijuana was up there for a long while, because I could not quite work out what he was up to. It is all about transparency and it is about being authentic to the Australian people, because this is their greatest right. In this reflection we have to understand the nefarious imbroglio that sometimes follows at the back of elections.

I do not know whether anybody at the time of the last election believed that Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor were going to support the Labor government. If they had known that, they may not have voted for them. I have some understanding of the seat of New England, seeing that I grew up there. I have a pretty good understanding of the seat of Lyne because it was next door to me. I think people were pretty frustrated and surprised; a vital decision, a vital form of transparency, should have been delivered back to them. These members should have given a warrant saying, 'If there is a balance of power situation, we intend to cast our vote with the Labor Party.' If they had said so, then they would have been totally entitled to do that. But I strongly believe that there was a belief in the community that they were going to go with the conservative side of politics. There was a period of deliberation, after which they went with the left-hand side of politics—the socialist side of politics, the Labor side of politics—and people felt that they had been exploited. There was no transparency in that. They kept on saying it was their own personal decision, like they had some sort of personal fiefdom and they could therefore play havoc with people’s lives by letting people in New England and Lyne find out they were responsible for the delivery of a Greens-Labor Party-Independent government—the GLI club. I do not think that was fair.

Transparency is so important. After the election we had the signing of the register—that is the only thing you could call it. There was Prime Minister Gillard and Bob Brown, who had a piece of wattle in his lapel, and the guests—the bridal party—behind them. They all stood in front of that book and signed it and said that this was going to be an agreement, that this was how the country was going to be run. There were happy shots taken and off they went.

In the last week we have heard that the marriage is over—it is all finished. If it were transparent, you would say, 'That will mean there is now a dissolution of that partnership and the effect of that will be a dissolution of this parliament.' That would be the natural inclination. However, that is not the case. The Greens are still going to give them supply and there will be no votes of no confidence. So what does this mean? Both of them are revelling in this new independence, but they are living in the same house. They are both out on the town, but they are cohabitating. It makes no sense, unless you are trying to be a little bit sneaky and thinking, 'Oh well, if we both present in a form that says we are independent of one another, we will both be able to collect a larger vote.' But this is not being transparent. This is not a proper reflection back to the voters of the realities of the situation and therefore it is deceiving them, and that just mounts the frustration.

Mr Swan talks about transparency in his role as Treasurer. He says, 'We have to be transparent in our figures.' This is the person who has never been transparent in his figures. Not one figure that the Treasurer has given us has ever been right—not even close, not within a bull's roar. And we have got the deficit coming. We all know that surpluses do not pay back debts and that deficits just add to debts. We have got this massive debt and now we are going to get another massive deficit. If they were transparent—and they know the figures—they would come out and tell us. They would be factual; they would be honest. They would tell us the truth and say, 'This is the reality,' because they have known the reality for quite some time. But they have been cunning, shrewd and manipulative. With the guile of a snake they have managed to obscure from the Australian people the proper and transparent portrayal of our nation’s financial position. This is not good. This is not what a transparent government is supposed to be doing.

Then there was the other orchestrated scheme within the Labor Party. A couple of years ago the Australian people believed that the Prime Minister who was holding the reins, Mr Kevin Rudd from Nambour, from the seat of Griffith, would remain as Prime Minister. They had a reason to believe that. Of course, that was taken away from them. The voter never got the right to make that decision. It was taken away by a person who is not even in this parliament—Mr Paul Howes, amongst others. Where did he come from? Where did he pop up from? I would like to say he is obscure, but fortunately enough Paul Howes has written lots of books—about Paul Howes. He writes about one a week about himself. Mr Paul Howes, in his deliberations, decided for the Australian people that he would be part and parcel of changing the Prime Minister of this nation.

My advice to Mr Paul Howes is: if you want to be involved with politics, sign up. Come on in. Otherwise, it looks like there is some sort of nefarious proposition that people in the background, who were never, ever voted for by the Australian people, have an immense say in the direction of our nation; that someone who has never darkened the doors of this place as an elected member of parliament or as a senator has determined who our Prime Minister is going to be. And he revelled in it. He bravely wrote a book about the life of the faceless man. I wish it were the case. He has a big face. You see it all the time; he cannot get it off television. This is very peculiar.

We heard Senator Xenophon talking about alliances, allegiances and things you do not know about that happen behind scenes, about who is mates with who, who is going to dinner with who and who is going to certain parties in certain towns with certain people who are very powerful. What does this relationship mean? The trouble with Mr Howes is that we do not get disclosure on that. He does not have to fill out a senators' or members' interests statement.

So we do not quite know what is going on there, yet he has the capacity to affect the direction of this nation. That is something that truly concerns me, because that is not democracy. We are the ones who stand at the table with our hands on the Bible or the Constitution and swear an oath of office. The idea that people outside this place could have an effect on the direction of this nation is not humorous; it is totally and utterly wrong. It is contemptible. Then they openly state it. There is something that is just not right there.

So what is the point? We have the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to try and get proper representation for the Australian people: 'When you elect this person, these are the people who will hold the reins of government. This is where the influences will come from. This is the opposition. This is the treasury bench. These are the powers they have.' If that is the case then surely the greatest corruption of that is somebody who is not even on the ballot paper having power in the direction of our nation, and it is there for all to see in Mr Paul Howes. What a disgrace that is. Why are the Labor Party proud of it? How could you possibly be proud of someone corrupting the whole electoral process? There is something decidedly wrong about it.

The reason it is topical is that it is all on again. We see Mr Kevin Rudd, the member for Griffith. He pops up everywhere. Every time the Prime Minister is out at an event, up comes Mr Rudd. He says he is just getting around; he is just having a yarn to people. He is a friendly type of guy. He likes to help out. He is from Queensland, apparently. He seems to be helping out rather a lot. Some would think that possibly he is making a move to reclaim his old job. So, as is right, the fourth estate ask Mr Rudd, 'Are you intending to have a tilt at the leadership?' 'No.' He says something about cryogenic freezing—the next lot of cryogenic freezing since Walt Disney. What is this all about? He apparently says something about cryogenic freezing, and we are led to believe him. It has to be believable. 'Of course not.' Of course Kevin—the member for Griffith—is just a friendly guy helping out. Could it possibly be that he is not telling the truth? Could that possibly be the case? Could it possibly be that people are actually stacking up the numbers? Could it possibly be that we are going to see another change in government? To be honest, I would prefer that, because that would say that at least the view of the Australian people is somehow authenticated by his actions. But if it is not then we have this absolutely self-indulgent act of a sulky person running around the place throwing mud on everybody.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Joyce, I just remind you about standing order 193, about imputation of improper motives or personal reflections on members of either chamber.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly. I accept your admonishment. I hope it is not a sulky person throwing mud. I hope that, if a person is for real, they would stand up and say, 'I'm for real; I'm going to have a go here.' If they are not then for goodness sake get out of the way so someone else can. That is the only thing: get out of the way. Go away. Go hide under a rock somewhere and let somebody else do it, because this nation used to be on autopilot but there is no autopilot anymore. The last thing we saw was two parachutes leaving, and that was Julia Gillard and that person who is impersonating the Treasurer, called Wayne Swan.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Joyce, I remind you again of the requirement to address members by their correct title, and I also draw your attention to relevance to the bill in question.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly. The Treasurer, Mr Swan, who represents a seat in Queensland—

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Called Lilley.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lilley. Well, what can one say about that, except—dear me—when the time comes to change the sheets in the Labor Party, do not forget to change both of them? Please do not leave us with the bottom sheet. If you are going to take the top one—the Prime Minister—please take the bottom one with you as well. Let us have new linen and all sleep in a nice, crisp bed, because we cannot go on like this. This is absolute insanity.

So we need proper transparency, and I commend the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for trying to move towards it. I have concerns about messing around too much with postal votes, because out in remote areas it is extremely important for us. As we have compulsory voting, we have to be deliberate in trying to make sure that everybody gets at least their chance to vote. I have concerns that in this nation we still do not get the proper transparency. As Senator Xenophon was talking about, who is pulling the strings with whom? We do not understand. If Mr Paul Howes is a major political player then how do we bring him into these discussions? He should swear an oath with us. If he is the one that can change a Prime Minister then what is the point of this place? If it is all happening outside, why do we need this? I have to say that Senator Feeney and Senator Farrell are also numbers people but at least they are actually in the Senate, and that is fair enough.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take that as an endorsement.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can hold you to account. You can actually be called to account and we can ask you questions. You are answerable to the Australian people. But I am very dubious about this idea that people outside, external to the political process, can have influence. When people vote for the Australian Labor Party on a ticket, there should be a little disclaimer down the bottom which says, 'By the way, a person called Paul Howes who is not elected to the parliament, likes to write lots of books about himself and runs with the fox and hunts with the hounds, to say it politely, may at a point in time decide to change the Prime Minister, and everything you voted for will be meaningless.' That little disclaimer should be put in there. Maybe that is something for the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to look at next time: those who have undue influence and were never actually elected members of parliament.

The most precious thing the Australian people have is their right to go into that little white box and decide how our nation is going to run. It is the only time when they are really the boss and run the show. So we have to make absolutely certain that that right is sacrosanct and cannot be corrupted or manipulated by people outside.

We must absolutely make sure that that right is reflected by the people for whom the Australian people vote, in a myriad of ways, in the other place and here in the Senate. People ultimately vote for an individual who is a member of the party. They never vote for parties; they vote for individuals who are members of parties and they vote for senators who are supposed to represent states.

If people vote for someone who allocates their preferences, they should know how those preferences are allocated. In the legislation, it says that, if you do not get four per cent of the vote, you do not get your refund. I can assure you that there are members of the Senate who get in here with less than four per cent of the vote. I have no problems with that, because, with the allocation of preferences, that is how the game works. What I do have a problem with is when we do not know where the preferences go. Any person who votes above the line in the Senate does not know where the preferences go. I suppose you can look it up, but it is not evident. This is where games can really be played by parties, when people might think they know where the preferences go but it is not actually where the preferences go.

I commend this bill. Thank you very much for your attention.

John Madigan (Victoria, Democratic Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst I acknowledge some of the issues that the government has attempted to address in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012 in relation to the participation of many people across the country who have tended to fall through the cracks, I have some serious concerns about the section of the bill that increases the nomination fees for candidates by 100 per cent in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. For the House of Representatives the fee will increase from $500 to $1,000 and for the Senate it will increase from $1,000 to $2,000. These increases, I have been told, have been introduced supposedly because the ballot papers in New South Wales were getting too big. Another argument that has been put to me is that it is to stop nutters or fringe groups from running for parliament. Well, who do you think you are to say who are the fringe and who are the nutters? In a democracy, all people have the right to participate in that democracy, whether you like it or not.

It seems to me that more and more people are voting for the so-called minor parties, the smaller parties, and Independents—or the fringe or nutters, as some people in this place call them—because they are sick to death of the way the parliament is run. They are taking democracy back into their own hands because they are fed up. They are taking it back where it belongs, and that is with the people. The Australian parliament is the parliament of the people. Parliament House is the house of the people, contrary to what some people may think.

I have spoken to almost half the minor parties on the Australian Electoral Commission website and, without fail, every one of them sees these increases—increases that they were largely unaware of—as a deliberate attack on the ability of small and medium parties and Independents to participate in the democratic process. Representatives of groups as varied as the Christian Democratic Party, the Socialist Alliance, the Liberal Democratic Party and Family First all stood together in opposing these increases and in stating that they see the deliberate attempt behind these increases by the duopoly of Australian politics and they will not forget it when the parties come on their three-yearly crawl for preferences. They are not going to forget it. The fact is that the major parties on both sides in this place want the preferences when it comes to election time, but they want to curtail the ability of the smaller parties and Independents to participate in the political process. Quite frankly, I can see why there is a lack of will to deal with the duopoly in this country, when now we have a situation where we are going to install the duopoly in the political process.

We heard earlier today about the party machines. I agree with Senator Joyce about state representation. Personally I do not believe senators should even be ministers. I believe ministers should all be in the lower house so that the Senate can actually do its job and represent the states. I am sure there will be plenty of people in this place who would not like that opinion. There are plenty of people in the coalition and the ALP—and we have heard Paul Howes from the AWU mentioned—who will not have any trouble with the nomination fees. We do not hear much talk about these increases in fees and the fact that they are going to come in as of 1 July this year. And you wonder why the smaller parties and Independents view this increase in the fees with some cynicism, when we are on the verge of a federal election.

We in the DLP and the other minor parties support Senator Xenophon's amendments for the transparency of political donations. The Constitution talks about taxes. Maybe the Senate Select Committee on Scrutiny of New Taxes should have had a look at this bill, because I wonder whether this is a tax on smaller parties and Independents to drive them out of the democratic process.

As I said earlier, while I acknowledge the government's attempts to engage people who now fall through the cracks, I think there are major inconsistencies with what is being said in this legislation. You are telling people A, B and C, and you are doing X, Y and Z. Let me assure you that the smaller parties will not forget what is being foisted upon them with this bill.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been taken aback by the brevity and the eloquence of the previous speaker, Senator Madigan! I rise to speak on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012. I heard, while I was on my way here, about how this bill might reinforce some sort of duopoly when it comes to the political market. I do not believe that that will be a result of this bill. It is true that the Australian electorate historically has largely looked to two great political blocs—the Labor Party and the coalition in its various forms—over the years as to who would form the government. It is true, if we go back to the Cold War era, that it could be said that something like 40-plus per cent of the electorate were rusted onto one side or the other, and the rest were somewhere in the middle and in play.

Those days have gone. I really believe those days have gone. There are fewer and fewer rusted-on supporters. In some ways that can be a good thing because it means that we all have to work harder in the political market to earn their vote. Some say, 'Oh, but it means there is a lack of ideology today; that politics becomes too much a managerial game. It is about who can best manage the system—there is no fire of ideas'. I disagree with that latter point, and I can come back to that later.

Today, I think that people do want authenticity in politics. That is what they are looking for and they will look for it wherever they believe they can find it, whether it is in the independents or in the major parties. It is an obligation on all of us. If I look at the returns from various elections in recent times it is clear that people are prepared to move, and move very sharply—often at odds with their previous voting patterns—if they believe they need to send a message to one side of politics or to the other. I believe that when it comes to the role of independents that, frankly, sometimes independents are—particularly in the Senate context—thrown up as a result of the vagaries of the voting system. That can happen, as we saw in a previous parliament with a senator who from Victoria was not expected to win but did because of the quirk of certain preferences. That can sometimes be a bit of a surprise, but at the end of the day everybody gets judged on their performance whether they are the major parties or the independents.

Therefore you can argue about monetary limits, or the number of people who have to agree for someone to be put forward as a candidate to be nominated; you can argue over specific amounts, but I do not believe that any of those levels in any way militate against the participation of anybody in politics who wants to participate. I believe that we have a system that allows people from lower incomes to participate. I do not believe that the system has become entirely the preserve of the most moneyed groups whether they are corporate interests or trade union interests. The issues around who the major parties represent are important issues in their own right, but I do not think they are necessarily issues for this bill.

I have a particular view about where I think the Labor Party should go, but any advice I give them on that subject is obviously gratuitous. They are not going to listen to what I have to say, they will treat it as self serving. But I honestly believe that the future of Labor is to go down the route of some of the suggestions that have been made in various reports over the years, including by distinguished people who have since joined this house, like the junior senator from New South Wales and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Carr, and by Senator Faulkner, who has been a long-standing believer in reform of that party. I say that in all humility because I believe that all parties should be very careful about becoming in any way too beholden to any one particular group. That is why within the coalition, or certainly within the Liberal Party, I have always supported—perhaps not as consistently as I should have—the idea of being a grassroots party that keeps its doors open to everybody to the maximum extent possible so that you are not beholden to any one interest. I think that is very important when you are selling your wares to the public.

In today's world, where you have far fewer rusted-on supporters, you have to be able to make your case to a much broader centre. Senator Feeney may know more about this than I do, but sometimes in research, for example, you find very significant groups in the middle who are swingers. Those people do not swing on ideology; they swing on outcomes. They swing on results. They swing on sending a message when they think one side of politics or the other is getting too far ahead of itself, or has done something wrong and deserves a particular period in the sin-bin. I am broadly optimistic about the future of Australian democracy. I think we have a very robust democracy. I do not believe any of the machinery aspects of this particular bill will do any damage to our democracy per se.

There are some broader issues that we all have to confront, and it is true that often confronting our own self-interest is possibly the hardest challenge of all. I remind people of the words of Kevin Rudd when he talked about the test of reform. He said that the test of reform is the capacity to take on your own supporters. We saw this with the coalition with gun control in 1996; the major issue was not being in favour of gun control, because the populace at large were in favour of it—there was no doubt about that. There was a wellspring of support for doing something in light of the Port Arthur massacre. That was not the issue; rather, the issue for the coalition at that stage was how to deal with its own supporters—particularly in the bush—who were worried that some of the restrictions being put on firearms would particularly disadvantage them. That was an issue on which John Howard and Tim Fischer—the then leaders of the coalition—to their credit, were prepared to take on their own constituencies, argue the toss and argue the case through. I believe that the Labor party, in matters like industrial relations, should take on its own base the way it did in the 1980s and 1990s when that great reform surge was based on the fact that you had trade union leaders like Bill Kelty and leaders like Hawke and Keating, who were prepared to take the Labor movement through a process of reform and greater transparency which, in the early 90s, resulted in the first moves toward enterprise bargaining.

I think it is very important that these are the tests for reform but, as I say, those particular tests do not apply to the particular provisions in front of us. In the main, I believe they are reasonable provisions and I see no reason why we would not be supporting them.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also support the legislation before the chamber, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012, but there are some issues around electoral and referendum amendment which need to be aired in debates such as this. This bill, others related to it and the acts that this bill amends are all about elections in Australia. Of course, Australia has the enviable reputation of being one of the most democratic countries in the world where everybody has the opportunity of voting on and having a say as to their government. It does to a degree, as other speakers have mentioned, raise this question as to the Australian public, who I think in their foolishness—but it was an election and it is a democracy—in 2007 did select Mr Kevin Rudd to lead the country as Prime Minister. He was, as senators would know, the leader of the Labor Party at the time and he confused and confounded a lot of commentators by actually leading the Labor Party to a victory over what history will show was one of the best governments that Australia has ever seen, the Howard government. I think Australians became too complacent and too relaxed and comfortable and thought they could have a bit of a flutter on a new approach, so Mr Rudd led the Labor Party to a quite significant victory. But in this democracy most Australians cannot understand how the Prime Minister they elected could suddenly overnight not be the Prime Minister anymore.

At that time Mr Rudd had offended some people; his polling was not showing too much in the way of support and most Australians could not understand him when he spoke in a language that was foreign to many Australians, but they had elected him. So Australians having elected Mr Rudd had this view that, if they did not like him anymore, if they thought he was doing the wrong thing or if they thought he did not quite live up to the promises he had made, then they, as voters in a democracy, would have the opportunity to get rid of Mr Rudd. But, lo and behold, Mr Rudd did not even face the voters at the next election as the Prime Minister and many Australians still raise with me—they stop me in the street and say this—how this can happen in a democracy.

We know about the faceless men and the way the Labor Party operates and it does raise the issue of this question: for all the time that we spend on electoral bills, electoral reform and this electoral and referendum amendment bill, what is it all about when some unelected people can decide that the person that the Australian public elected as Prime Minister should no longer be there? You also have to worry about our democracy when you see, by reading NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption reports, that a person—regrettably my namesake and I hasten to assure senators and anyone who is listening to this debate that it has nothing to do with me and that he is a Labor Party person from New South Wales while I am—

John Madigan (Victoria, Democratic Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, there is the Australian Labor Party and there is the Democratic Labor Party and this generic slurring of the word 'Labor' is unacceptable.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Madigan. I am sure Senator Macdonald will be mindful of that in his further contribution.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the point and I apologise to Senator Madigan and members and supporters of the Democratic Labor Party. Forgive me, Senator Madigan. You would appreciate it is a common but inaccurate description and I very much take your point. Certainly on the issue that I was talking about I want to absolutely make it clear to those listening that my namesake in New South Wales is a member of the Australian Labor Party. I am sure the Democratic Labor Party would never have even countenanced his membership.

He was a man selected by the Labor Party and the unions to represent New South Wales. They expected that he would act in the interests of New South Wales but it would appear—and I stress that there have been no charges and no convictions—from a reading of the evidence that that member of the Australian Labor Party did anything but look after the interests of New South Welshmen. He certainly seems to have looked after the interests of a select few people in the Australian Labor Party. That brings me back to this bill. Why do we spend all this time on this when we find that those in the Australian Labor Party, who currently hold government federally and until recently held government in every state of Australia, are elected not by the people as such, pursuant to the legislation before us, but by the union movement? We all know that the union movement currently represents less than 17 per cent of Australian workers, so you have a group that represents less than 17 per cent of Australian workers—not Australians but Australian workers—actually controlling and running the Australian Labor Party and who then decide, at the flick of a knife, whether it is Mr Rudd or Ms Julia Gillard who is the Prime Minister of our nation.

My advice to the people of Australia who might be listening to this is that, when you look around as you approach the next election, you have a decision to make as to whom you want to be running your country. Do you want some faceless men—do you want some unionists who represent less than 17 per cent of working Australians—to run the country or do you want a decent, open and accountable government of the type we had with John Howard and his team? John Howard and his team were not perfect but they were pretty good compared to this lot. I say to people: this election coming up is too important for you to fiddle with your votes. I say this particularly to Queenslanders, those in my own home state, because in Queensland there are minor parties running around—the Greens political party, the Katter party and independents. I say to Queenslanders: if you think Ms Gillard and her team have done a good job then you should vote Labor at the next election but if you do not think that and you want to get Australia back on track there is only one way that you can vote: for Tony Abbott and his team.

We do not have the luxury in today's day and age of being able to fiddle with parties like Katter's Australian Party or the Greens. This election will set the direction for Australia. It will attempt to bring Australia back from the brink. I have to confess, for the first time in my life I am now worried about where Australia is heading—economically, certainly, but even socially and culturally Australia seems to be being changed by the present dysfunctional government of the Australian Labor Party, the Greens and the Independents who currently run this country. We do need accountability.

I have listened to the contributions of other senators on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedures) Bill. I was impressed by what Senator Madigan had to say, though there are other issues to be taken into account. I have raised in the Senate before the issue of electoral boundaries in Queensland and people being able to vote for a lower house member who can represent their interests. I do not think the boundaries favour one party or another so this is not a partisan political comment; it is a comment about citizens being able to vote for someone they believe can represent them. We have the strange situation in Queensland where the suburb of Annandale, which is almost an inner-city suburb of Townsville, is not in the electorate of Herbert, which includes Townsville—the electorate is very well represented by Ewen Jones, the LNP member for Herbert—but is in an adjoining seat based in Mackay. I have to say the member for that seat, Dawson, is Mr George Christensen, who also does a fabulous job. He represents the people of Annandale very well. But citizens of Townsville, including the suburb of Annandale, cannot understand why their suburb, which is, as I say, almost inner-city Townsville these days, has a member of parliament who is based in Mackay, some 400 kilometres away.

To make the issue even more ridiculous, the electorate of Dawson, which covers Mackay, Proserpine, Bowen, Ayr, where I live, and parts of Townsville, does not include that part of Mackay which is called upriver from Mackay. We have the member for Dawson, based in Mackay, representing someone in an inner Townsville suburb 400 kilometres away and yet he does not represent people who are part of the Mackay community, in the upriver areas of Mackay, in the Pioneer Valley. How stupid is that? Anyone in Mackay's Pioneer Valley would naturally think George Christensen was their local MP. I know Mr Christensen does a lot of work for those people, even although they are not in his electorate.

As an aside, one of the reasons he has to do a lot of work in the Pioneer Valley is that that part of Mackay is in the electorate of Capricornia, which is currently represented by Kirsten Livermore. I can barely remember her name. Most of the electors in the electorate of Capricornia cannot remember who their representative is, because it is so long since any of them have seen her. They cannot wait to elect Michelle Landry, the LNP candidate for Capricornia, to that seat so they can have some decent representation. I like Ms Livermore as a person—she is a nice lady—but she has announced she will not be standing, and for her that is it. You just do not see her. There have been a lot of floods in Rockhampton recently and the only person on the political scene that seemed to be doing anything for Rockhampton people was Michelle Landry, the LNP candidate. We are still awaiting some decision from the Labor government on the category C assistance to small business people and farmers in the Central Queensland region. Ms Livermore should have been jumping up and down until they got that assistance, but she has been doing nothing—and the Labor government has been doing nothing. Small businessmen and farmers can get this category C assistance everywhere else in Queensland, but in Central Queensland, in the electorate of Capricornia, it is not available. Who can understand the reason, except that they are not being properly represented by their current member?

I have diverted from the bill before us. The electorate of Dawson includes part of Townsville but it does not include part of Mackay. Then we have the electorate of Capricornia, which I just mentioned, which is not represented by Ms Livermore but she is the current member. Then there is a suburb of Rockhampton, which is the base for the seat of Capricornia, that is not in the electorate of Capricornia—it is in the electorate of Flynn, which is based in Gladstone, and which I might say is well represented by Mr Ken O'Dowd, the LNP member for Flynn. How can we have a suburb of Rockhampton in the Gladstone electorate, a suburb of Mackay in the Rockhampton electorate and a suburb of Townsville in the Mackay electorate? It just does not make sense.

I know the electoral commissioners always have trouble getting the right quotas and drawing the boundaries, and I guess it is easy for people like me to sit back and criticise. But people right throughout that part of the north—an area I regularly visit—always ask why it is that if they want something in Annandale they cannot go two blocks to Ewen Jones's electorate office; they have to go 400 kilometres down to Mackay to see their member? I use that as an example only, because Ewen Jones will see them and help them; besides which, George Christensen is often in Townsville looking after that part of Townsville which is in his electorate. But it should not happen that way. I would ask the electoral commissioners to take heed of this.

It is not—I am repeating myself, but I want to because it is so important—just the suburb of Annandale that is in the Townsville electorate; it is the suburbs or localities of the Pioneer Valley that are not in Dawson, the Mackay-based electorate. There are suburbs in Rockhampton that are not part of the Rockhampton electorate of Capricornia, but are part of the adjoining electorate based on Gladstone. It is crazy. I have a feeling that at times, the electoral commissioners, in their wisdom, start in the capital cities where they live and where most Australians live, work out the numbers there and just go out from the capital cities. Of course, when you get up north where we are, we just take what is left over.

I think it is very important that the electoral commissioners and those charged with the responsibility of having boundaries should actually seriously look at representation, because this bill before us and all of our electoral laws are about representation. They are about people electing a local member to look after their interests. The way the boundaries are drawn, particularly outside the capital city area in my home state of Queensland, are such that it is very difficult to properly administer and look after those electorates. I again pay tribute to Mr Ewen Jones, Mr George Christiansen and Mr Ken O'Dowd for the work they do in representing their areas, even those areas far away from their bases. Really, governments should do something about this.

I conclude my remarks on this bill, again, with a plea to the Australian public. This bill and the acts which the bill amends are all about democracy and accountability. They are about voting in a government you want. They are about voting in a prime minister you want; a prime minister like Hon. Kevin Rudd. The people of Australia elected him—I think they made a mistake—but that is what the people of Australia did and Australia is a democracy. We all accept that is what the people of Australia did. If we are going to have a democracy, how can you have this situation where the Australian people, having chosen Mr Rudd to be their prime minister, get to the next election and he is no longer there? Was he overturned by a vote of the Australian people? Was he overturned by a vote of elected members of the Labor Party? The answer to both those questions is 'no.' We all know, and hopefully no-one in the Labor Party will dare to challenge this, that he was overturned because of some faceless men in the Australian Labor Party administration and some of the union chiefs—I have heard Mr Paul Howes mentioned, and I would throw in Mr Bill Ludwig from Queensland, two individuals who can practically run Australia.

How is that for democracy? Two individuals; people from the AWU who have such influence on the Australian Labor Party they can determine who should be the prime minister and who should be ministers in the government—no doubt either relatives or friends. You only have to look at the mess that has happened in New South Wales. It all started when Senator Carr was the premier there: you have these faceless men running the country. I and many other Australians sit back and say: 'Why are we debating electoral bills? This country can be run, effectively, by a couple of union heavies.' That is a worry.

I think there is a better way forward. I would hope that the Australian people might come to the same conclusion and do something about that when we next go to the polls federally. Having said that, I do, as I indicated earlier, support the bill before us.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012 implements three of the recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its report into the 2010 federal election, specifically recommendations 12, 31 and 32. I note that the opposition members of the committee did not oppose these recommendations in their dissenting report.

Schedule 1 to the bill will modernise the postal-voting provisions to facilitate the use of technology to improve the way in which postal vote applications are made and processed. These amendments implement the government response to recommendation 12 made by JSCEM in its report into the 2010 federal election.

At the 2010 election, the Electoral Commission processed over one million postal votes, some 17.8 per cent increase on the number processed at the previous election, and I am sure that everyone in this place will agree that this is a very significant number indeed. The amendments in schedule 1 to the bill simplify the postal vote arrangements by enabling all applications to be made either to the Electoral Commissioner or to an assistant returning officer. The current requirements of the Electoral Act require that all applications must be made to a divisional returning officer, who is unable to delegate that responsibility.

These changes will facilitate a centralised processing of these postal vote applications. Assistant returning officers who may receive postal vote applications from overseas voters will be located outside of Australia at such places as the Australian high commissions and embassies or certain Australian Defence Force operations. Upon receiving an application, a delegate of the Electoral Commissioner or an assistant returning officer will then send or arrange for the sending of postal vote packages to the applicant. The amendments do not fundamentally change the existing policy underpinning the current arrangements for postal voting.

The amendments made by schedule 2 to the bill seek to address concerns arising from the increasingly large number of Senate groups contesting elections. They are primarily focused on addressing concerns about large ballot papers leading to an increase in informal voting. The Senate election in New South Wales in 2010 provides some context for these amendments.

In the 2010 federal elections there were 84 candidates distributed across 33 columns on the New South Wales ballot paper. Of the 84 candidates, 42 candidates received fewer than 200 first preference votes—a very significant finding. None of them came from a group which had a candidate elected and all lost their nomination deposits. A total of 2,697 persons voted for these candidates.

The increasingly large number of Senate groups contesting elections has an impact on formality due to the large and complex ballot paper particularly in a voting system that requires that every single box be numbered below the line if the elector chooses that voting option. At 1,020 millimetres wide, the Senate ballot paper for New South Wales is already the largest that can be printed in Australia using currently available print technologies. If more Senate groups contest the next election than was the case in 2010, the font of the ballot paper will have to be reduced. Reducing the font size further affects the readability and therefore further increases the risk for informal voting.

Schedule 2 to the bill will increase the nomination deposit that must be paid by, or on behalf of, a candidate from $1,000 to $2,000 for all Senate candidates. It will increase the nomination deposit that must be paid by, or on behalf of, all candidates for the House of Representatives from $500 to $1,000. It does occur to me as an aside that we should never cease to remind our colleagues in the House of Representatives that theirs is a cheaper chamber to run for. The last time the deposits were increased was in 2006. The increases were recommended by JSCEM, recommendations 31 and 32, and are supported by the government.

Schedule 2 to the bill will also increase the number of electors required to nominate an unendorsed candidate from 50 to 100 electors. Unendorsed candidates are those candidates who are either not endorsed by a registered political party or they are a sitting Independent candidate. Further, for unendorsed Senate candidates who have made a request to be grouped, each candidate will require 100 unique electors to nominate. For example, if two Senate candidates have made a request to be grouped, the group will need 200 unique electors. There is no change to the number of nominators required for endorsed candidates of registered political parties or sitting Independent candidates as defined in the act. The amendments to increase the required nomination and to increase the number of nominators required for unendorsed candidates seek to strike the right balance between providing the opportunity for all eligible citizens to stand for parliament while at the same time putting in place some reasonable thresholds that candidates are required to meet—thresholds that will contribute to ensuring the effectiveness of the electoral process.

There are also a number of minor and technical amendments to both the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. I thank all of those senators who have contributed to this debate on this bill and I now commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.