George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

I am pleased to present the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016, to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

The bill proposes to:

A strong electoral system is one that is open and transparent, and allows for the clear expression of voter intent.

The parliament has been well served by the work of its Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, or JSCEM, which regularly examines aspects of our electoral system, and issues that arise from the conduct of national elections.

This bill responds to key elements of the interim and final reports of the JSCEM inquiry into the 2013 federal election, which were tabled on 9 May 2014 and 15 April 2015 respectively.

To support the changes proposed in the bill, the Australian Electoral Commission will be provided with additional resources, including some minor new funding, to ensure their systems can address these reforms, and voters are made aware of, and understand, the changes. Let me deal with the provisions of the bill.

Part 1—Senate voting

Voters' dissatisfaction with the complexities of the current Senate voting system is well described in the JSCEM's report on the 2013 federal election. The committee concluded that the current Senate voting system lacks transparency, is overly complex, and is in need of simplification.

At the 2013 election, over 96 per cent of formal votes for Senate candidates were made above the line. The current Senate ballot paper encourages above-the-line voting, with voters relying on a complex, and often opaque, system of individual and group voting tickets to allocate their preferences according to a pattern determined by parties or grouped candidates. Individual candidates and political parties can register up to three voting tickets that determine preference allocation. While voting tickets are required to be displayed at polling places and on the AEC website, the JSCEM inquiry concluded that most voters are unlikely to understand where their preferences flow. This has led to some Senate candidates being elected on a very small first preference vote.

The bill will introduce optional preferential voting above the line, with voters to number at least six squares in sequence (except where there are fewer than six squares above the line). Advice will be printed on the Senate ballot paper to guide voters on this.

Consistently with the recommendations of the JSCEM inquiry into this bill, the government will also be moving an amendment to allow for optional preferential voting below the line. The amendment will provide for instructions to voters to number at least 12 boxes from one to 12 in order of their preference when voting below the line, together with a related savings provision that any vote with at least six boxes numbered from one to six below the line will still be considered formal.

The bill proposes the abolition of individual and group voting tickets. This will return the control of preferences back to voters themselves. The abolition of group voting tickets will not impact on the ability of candidates to group their names for the inclusion of a square above the line on the Senate ballot paper.

To reduce the risk of increased informal votes, as the proposed changes amend voting rules that have now been in place for some 30 years, the bill includes changes to vote savings provisions. These allow for a vote to remain formal even where voters have numbered fewer than six squares above the line. The objective is to capture voter intention by enabling voters to allocate their own preferences on the Senate ballot paper. This will improve the franchise and support the democratic process.

Taken together, the introduction of optional preferential voting above and below the line, the abolition of the voting ticket system and the enhanced savings provisions for voters will improve voter control over preference flows, support transparency and simplify the Senate voting system.

Part 2— Registered officers and deputy registered officers

Consistent with the JSCEM's recommendations, the bill proposes changes to remove ambiguity around the accountabilities, affiliations and alliances of political parties by removing the capacity for an individual to be a registered officer or deputy registered officer of multiple political parties. This does not prevent a person from being the registered officer of a federal political party and the registered officer of a state branch or division of that party.

Part 3— Party logos

In its final report on the conduct of the 2013 election, the JSCEM considered the confusion that arises when political parties with similar names appear on ballot papers. The JSCEM suggested that the printing of party logos could help to overcome this confusion.

Therefore the bill proposes to allow for political party logos to appear, in black and white, on the ballot papers for both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The Australian Electoral Commission will determine the most effective method for registering, authenticating, reproducing and printing party logos on ballot papers. The bill also proposes a new provision in the Electoral Act to protect the AEC against any action in relation to the reproduction of party logos.

Conclusion

This government is committed to an open and transparent voting system that has integrity, is simple and clear, and provides voters with the ability to express their will to the greatest extent possible and to have their voting intention upheld. The JSCEM is to be commended for its work in identifying the changes that need to be made in our current voting arrangements to achieve this objective in relation, in particular, to Senate elections.

The bill addresses the JSCEM's concerns and further improves Australia's democratic processes by placing more power in the hands of voters.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens support the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill. It is long overdue and it is welcome that it is now before the Senate. It is a bill that many people have put a great deal of effort into.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Mr Deputy President, I wish to acknowledge at this point that it is traditional for Labor to follow the government. I waited here looking for Labor to jump. I am not going to lose my speaking place, but I acknowledge that Labor normally come second.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rhiannon, I called you because you sought the call and no-one else sought the call. You have the call.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just wanted to explain that. Thank you, Deputy President, for clarifying that. It is very welcome that at last we are debating this important legislation. As I was saying, it is overdue. The measures set out here with the above-the-line reform and below-the-line reform are a way to ensure that the intent of voters is reflected in how our electoral system works. At the moment, the essence of the problem we have is that when people vote above the line for the Senate—as we know, by far the majority of people do vote above the line—their preferences may end up somewhere that may not fit with their values. By far the majority of people do not know where their preferences end up, and that is the case because of group voting tickets.

Group voting tickets are part of the system. I acknowledge that, to get the box above the line, one has to go into those negotiations. Party representatives sit down and negotiate that and it is signed off—it is called a group voting ticket—and it is lodged with the Australian Electoral Commission. But over time we have come to realise, particularly in recent elections, that that system can be abused. That is why we are now debating this legislation.

The above-the-line changes and the below-the-line changes mean that no longer will people have to number all the boxes, but there will be a very clear requirement that a number of boxes have to be filled in—above the line, 1 to 6. I give emphasis to that because there has been a lot of misrepresentation about the bill before us and about the whole issue of how Senate voting reform is playing out. One of the accusations has been that it will wipe out small parties.

Remember, the only change—the significant change—with this legislation is that, rather than preferences being negotiated behind closed doors, with deals done and the voter not knowing that and not being able to determine their preferences, preferences will still be allocated but it will be the voter who determines those preferences. We now have reforms that can really drive a much healthier democracy—a democracy where candidates, parties, get up there with their election platform and engage in the political process. They get up with the courage of their convictions for their election platform to win votes. Surely that should be something that Labor recognises, because we do have to deal with Labor's position on this. Although we have not heard them formally here, we have heard their representatives in the House of Representatives, and there have been many debates in recent days about this very issue.

I notice that Labor's tactics change from day to day. In his contribution Senator Dastyari acknowledged that the system needs to change, but he wants more time for that. Let's remember it has been nearly two years since the first JSCEM report came down and that report, which advocated optional preferential voting, came off the back of considerable work. So much more than two years has already been put into this effort, and further delay is ridiculous. I want to go back to Senator Dastyari's comments, because they show that Labor has shifted. They can probably see the sand is moving under their feet on this one, they are losing some traction and they have to acknowledge that the system needs to change.

The proposal that is now outlined in a very well structured bill for optional preferential voting is the way to go. A cornerstone of our democracy should be the right of all citizens to run for election, either individually or collectively as political parties, regardless of wealth or background; another is that elections should be fair. This is the basis for the Greens' approach to Senate voting reform. I am very proud that the Greens have a democracy portfolio; I appreciated it enormously when former Senator Bob Brown asked me to take on that portfolio. The Greens have worked the Senate voting reform for a long time. Since 2004 it has been a key part of our work—2004, 2008, 2010 were the years when we introduced Senate voting reform legislation. Former Senators Bob Brown and Christine Milne put enormous effort into it, because they recognised how fundamental this reform was. You do not bring electoral reform forward because of the advantage it will give your party; you bring it forward because it will enhance the democratic process. That is what former Senators Brown and Milne recognised so deeply and that is why they continue to advocate for it up to today. The Greens won similar reforms in the New South Wales parliament: to end the backroom deals and to ensure voters can decide their own preferences. I would also like to note that Senate voting reform was a condition of the Greens support for the 2010 minority Labor government. While Labor agreed with that—and it was in the formal agreement—they failed to deliver.

Why the Greens and many others have worked so hard for Senate voting reform is clearly apparent when one considers the current voting system. As we all know, voting above the line leads to the problem of the backroom deals deciding the outcome, which I outlined earlier. The essence of the change here is that it will be voters who have the final say in allocating their preferences. The group-voting ticket system results in some candidates being elected with less than one per cent of the vote; I would argue that that does not reflect the intent of the voters—when a candidate needs to get to 14.3 per cent of the vote for a quota. The current system is not democratic; you could call the current Senate voting system a lottery in which the will of the voters goes untranslated. You may vote for one party but end up electing another—that is how preferences currently work.

I go back to the intent of the voter: when voters consider their preferences they look for a party that has values similar to their own party, and that is what gets lost—what gets wiped out—under the current system. There are several examples in Senate elections that reflect this problem. In 2004 Labor preferences elected former Senator Steve Fielding from Family First. Labor's preference deal with Fielding helped him win a seat, despite only receiving 1.9 per cent of the primary vote. Mr Fielding ended up being a firm supporter of the Howard government since he held various conservative views—and that is not unusual in this place—but most infamously he compared marriage equality to incest. I reckon a lot of the Labor people, who voted 1 Labor and found out that through backroom preference deals,, their votes ended up helping Mr Fielding become a senator, would not be too keen on the way that played out. Another example was the WikiLeaks Party preferencing the Nationals ahead of Scott Ludlam in Western Australia. Again, do we think the voters interested in internet freedoms and transparency were happy to have their votes go to the conservative National Party rather than a champion of internet freedoms like Senator Scott Ludlam? Could they even have known that this is what happened? Anthony Green in his testimony to the recent inquiry noted that even through thorough research of group-voting ticket arrangements, it is in practice near impossible for voters to know with 100 per cent certainty where their preferences will flow.

There is naturally some concern that reform might raise barriers to small or emerging parties. This is an issue that the Greens have given a great deal of attention to—we have debated it in the chamber before and we will continue to work on it. The Greens have stood firm in our longstanding support for the vital role of small parties in our democracy. We did this when Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals voted together to double the nomination fees to run in an election. It was clearly a move to try to knock out smaller parties, and some people have come to realise that that is not the fair way to enhance our democratic process. There was also the controversial attempt to raise the number of members needed to register a party, which the Greens did not agree to with, because we recognised that most parties start small with little money and there should not be barriers such as large memberships or high nomination fees put in their way.

The Greens have a bill before this parliament, called the Reducing Barriers for Minor Parties Bill, which takes up these issues and we will continue to work on that. We believe other measures need to be put in place to ensure that new and emerging parties can come through in our democracy. We will continue to ensure that the Senate voting reforms do not create barriers for small parties. That needs to be an important part of our considerations. In 2013 the liberal national and Labor parties did vote for those increases to nomination fees and I want to remind the Senate that they were sizeable increases—for the Senate they went from $1000 to $2000 and in the House of Representatives from $500 to $1000.

The Senate voting reforms that the Greens back do not reduce the rights of small parties to run to the Senate. Again, I want to emphasise this: the only change in this bill concerns who determines preferences, and parties can get out there and campaign strongly. The Greens support Senate voting reforms that would require above-the-line voting from one to six. That is a very important measure—requiring preferences above the line not to be according to the old system, so we get rid of group voting tickets, but then the voters will be required to vote at least one to six and there will be very clear instructions about that. With below the line, we welcome the recommendation coming through from the JSCEM inquiry that the bill needs to be amended so no longer will voters voting below the line have to fill in every box, which as we know is very onerous and turns a lot of people off. Below-the-line now would be a minimum of one to 12. You can obviously number more boxes, but at least one to 12 have to be filled in.

While we are speaking about the inquiry, I would like to put on the record my thanks to the secretariat, who worked very hard to bring forward that inquiry and organising the witnesses and preparing the report. It was a very useful process and that has been demonstrated by the fact that we now have this amendment. There was very strong evidence that we needed to change that aspect of the bill because of an inconsistency in how it would be presented to the voter, that above the line you were required to number a certain number of boxes—as we know, up to six—and filling in the rest was optional, so it was partial preferential, whereas below the line you had to fill in all the boxes. That would have been a confusing message. Some said it could even have been challenged down the track. Certainly the importance of that reform has been recognised, and it is good to see that that will now be in place. Again, because the whole validity of that inquiry has been so attacked by Labor, I did very much want to put that on the record and again note that for all the huff and puff and loud noises and undermining et cetera that went into setting up that inquiry, once we got there the Labor members did not have that many questions and even Senator Conroy, who is pretty famous for being able to talk for a long time, ran out of puff and handed over his time for non-Labor members to ask questions. That is clearly significant—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a misrepresentation, and you know it.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As always I am happy to take the interjections—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Rhiannon, ignore the interjections. Senator Rhiannon has a right to be heard in silence.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As always I am happy to take the interjections and one just had to read the Hansard from the debate yesterday to see that the time was given over.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Rhiannon has a right to be heard in silence.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I think this is the time when we need to move on to the situation that has happened with Labor. Remember that Labor has had a long period of solid support for Senate voting reform—Senate voting reform that gets rid of group voting tickets, not half measures but dealing with the problem in a responsible way. The JSCEM inquiry into the 2013 election—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind senators in the chamber that interjections are disorderly, and Senator Rhiannon has a right to be heard in silence.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The JSCEM inquiry into the 2013 election was very thorough, as these inquiries are. It brought down a number of reports, and one of those reports was into this issue of Senate voting reform. Labor, Liberal, National, Greens and Senator Nick Xenophon worked very thoroughly on this and brought down a united position—one recommending Senate voting reform. There was a submission from Labor to that inquiry. It is very interesting that yesterday Labor senators were downplaying Labor's role there, saying it never went through the Labor caucus. It would be useful to read that in detail in Hansard, because here you have Labor senators downplaying the role of their own party when it was having input on such an important issue, and even giving leadership because at that point there was no voice of opposition. They now say it never went through caucus, but that was never reported. They came in, the report was presented in the House of Representatives and here, we debated it thoroughly and there were no Labor voices of opposition. Until very recently we thought that we were working together for Senate voting reform. But what has happened in recent months? Senator Dastyari and Senator Conroy have led a very strong campaign to undermine the report, briefing journalists and getting in the ear of other senators. Obviously you can do that in politics, but it certainly has not given the leadership that is needed in resolving this issue.

Let us remember what Labor are doing here. Labor are defending their patch. They are defending a patch from last century, when their politics was about backroom deals. It was about working out deals, and Senator Conroy gave it away when he said 'it did not go through caucus—that was the party's position.' Surely they should be working with their own members through their own party and respecting that process, but here they were, negating—it is all about what the politicians think. When he says that he is talking about Senator Conroy and Senator Dastyari giving direction—no leadership from the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, on this important issue. They are protecting Senate voting tickets because it is through those Senate voting tickets that over the years Labor have gained so much of their power. They are two backroom dealers themselves—that is where they came from and that is what we have seen play out again.

We should remember that there are a number of Labor people who continue to speak for this, including former Labor MP and former leader of the ACTU Jennie George. Former Senator John Faulkner in this place made many speeches on the need for Senate voting reform, but here we have just a couple, Senator Dastyari and Senator Conroy, misleading Labor. The reforms urgently needed are now in this bill. It is now time to get on with a thorough debate and pass the bill. I hope Labor do not just avoid debating the issue but come in on it in a very thorough way. We have worked together in the past and I urge Labor at this late stage to come on board—do not continue with the backroom deals, start being democratic and start working with the community for Senate voting reform that is long overdue.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given where we are in this second reading debate at the moment and before I commence with the remarks that I intend to make on behalf of the Labor Party, let me address a few process issues. I was somewhat surprised to see the circulating speaking list with Senator Rhiannon listed first as if she is now the major opposition party. I suspect it more reflects the fact that the Greens are now in coalition with the Liberal Party and the National Party, and they were the only ones that were told that the government was not proceeding with its normal process and adjourning this matter off before it then continued to follow what was indicated in the red.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

Let me remind senators, as Senator O' Sullivan is interjecting, that listed on the red, after we deal with the message regarding the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016, is that we move to the corporations amendment bill. At no point did the Manager of Government Business advise us that it was now your intention to move into the second reading debate on this bill, but, obviously, the Greens were advised. I want to paint a slightly broader picture for anyone listening to this debate. What we are talking about here is the very important issue of electoral reform. The Labor Party will treat this matter in that context. The issues that this fix has left off the agenda, such as the very important issues around political donations, we will seek to further in this debate. I will get to some points about that later.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

Senator O'Sullivan, I would like to acknowledge that interjection—dangerous territory, is it? This is how you deal with these issues that Senator Rhiannon is seeking to claim some moral high ground on. I encourage anyone to listen to her contribution and see if that really is the case. I was very pleased to hear the full government second reading. We did not provide leave as would be customary for the minister, and it was interesting that the minister at the table at the time was Senator Brandis and not the minister who had circulated the revised explanatory memorandum or, indeed, the minister responsible for this legislation. I was interested to hear the second reading contribution of the government in this matter. It is a very important issue and the pace in which we are moving here is more than alarming. It highlights the point that Senator Rhiannon is so desperate to try to hide that what has occurred here is a Greens-coalition fix and you are seeking to just ram this through with unprecedented poor process.

It was the second or third time I have heard Senator Rhiannon prattle on about, 'Senator Conroy didn’t use all of his questioning time.' That is no cover at all for what you have agreed to. Five minutes in a round is what? Labor senators were given equal time with the Greens in a committee inquiry that was an absolute farce. Let me give one example of that farce, because I will not have time to talk further on this. At 9.20 pm last night, I received an email from the secretariat of this inquiry—it must be really embarrassing for this very new chair to have to have managed this process—telling me that the chair's draft report was on commdocs. You cannot access commdocs unless you are on a PC in the building, which I was not at 9.20 pm last night.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was still here.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Eventually the secretariat forwarded me an email with the report attached. We then had until 8 am this morning to digest that report and provide any additional comments or dissenting remarks. We met that time frame, but I want everyone in this place to understand how ludicrous that process was. I have finally managed to get a copy of the Greens' additional comments to that report. Examples of how ludicrous are illustrated by a couple of things represented in their comments. In the Greens' comments to the chair's report they reflect on the issue that some people are raising the concern that there may be an advantage to the coalition in this deal. Do you know what they do not deal with in this report? It is the advantage to the Greens. The issue that former Prime Minister John Howard raised which is: this dirty deal will entrench the Greens Party. The Greens did not even have enough time to deal with that issue in their report. They have the former Prime Minister highlighting the consequences of this deal and they cannot even try to mount some counter except, 'Senator Conroy didn’t use all of his questioning time.' How absolutely ludicrous.

The committee process was a farce, and I made that point with a message. I have never, in 20 years in this place, participated in a committee inquiry where the government refused to allow the relevant department to appear, and I wonder why. Senator Cormann would not allow his department to appear and, indeed, he is not dealing with his own legislation. What is this government hiding? That is the real question.

The other issue, which is entertaining about the Greens additional comments, is that when they talk about resourcing and preparation they say, 'We're going to make sure that there's enough time.' They are not even allowing the full three months that the AEC said was absolutely necessary to implement these changes. They make recommendations that the Department of Finance be instructed to do some things, and we have not even heard from the department.

This process has been a joke and it is a joke that has been perpetrated by this coalition and naively accepted by the Australian Greens. The naivety that is involved here is highlighted time and time again as we get new amendments.