Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (20), (21) and (23) to (59) together:

(20)  Schedule 1, after item 61, page 17 (after line 27), insert:

61A  Section 211

Repeal the section, substitute:

211 Indication of preferences

In elections for the Senate, squares for the indication of preferences on each ballot paper shall appear only alongside the names of individual candidates.

(21)  Schedule 1, after item 61, page 17 (after line 27) insert:

61B  Section 211A

Repeal the section.

(23)  Schedule 1, after item 72, page 19 (after line 26) insert:

72A  Subsections 239(1),(2) and (3)

Repeal the subsections, substitute:

        (1)    In a Senate election a person:

             (a)    shall mark their vote on the ballot paper by placing consecutive whole numbers starting at ‘1’ in the number of candidate squares equal to the number of candidates to be elected so as to indicate preferences; and

             (b)    may place further consecutive whole numbers in additional candidate squares so as to indicate additional preferences.

(24)  Schedule 1, after item 72, page 19 (after line 26) insert:

72B  Subsection 268(1)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

        (1)    A ballot paper shall be informal if

             (a)    subject to subsection (2), it is not authenticated by the initials of the presiding officer or by the presence of the official mark;

             (b)    in a Senate election, it has no vote indicated on it, or it does not indicate the voter’s first preference for 1 candidate;

             (c)    in a Senate election:

                   (i)    if a ballot paper contains 2 or more squares in which the same number is written or marked — the numbers and any higher numbers written or marked in other squares are to be disregarded; and

                  (ii)    if there is a break in the order of the preferences indicated in writing or marks in the squares on a ballot paper — any preference after the break is to be disregarded

             (d)    it has upon it any mark or writing (not authorized by this Act or the regulations to be put upon it) by which, in the opinion of the Divisional Returning Officer, the voter can be identified:

             (e)    it has upon it any mark or writing (not authorized by this Act or the regulations to be put upon it) by which, in the opinion of the Divisional Returning Officer, the voter can be identified:

                      Provided that paragraph (e) shall not apply to any mark or writing placed upon the ballot-paper by an officer, notwithstanding that the placing of the mark or writing upon the ballot-paper is a contravention of this Act; or

              (f)    in the case of an absent vote — the ballot-paper is not contained in an envelope bearing a declaration made by the elector under subsection 222(1).

(25)  Schedule 1, after item 72, page 19 (after line 26) insert:

72C  Section 269

Repeal the section.

(26)  Schedule 1, after item 72, page 19 (after line 26) insert:

72D  Section 270

Repeal the section.

(27)  Schedule 1, after item 72, page 19 (after line 26) insert:

72E Section 272

Repeal the section.

(28)  Schedule 1, after item 72, page 19 (after line 26) insert:

72F  Paragraph 273(5)(c)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute

             (c)    arrange the unrejected ballot-papers so scrutinized, together with the ballot-papers scrutinized pursuant to subsections (3) and (4), under the names of the respective candidates by placing in one parcel under the name of each candidate all the ballot-papers on which a first preference is indicated for that candidate;

(29)  Schedule 1, after item 72, page 19 (after line 26) insert:

72G  Subparagraph 273(5)(d)(i)

Repeal sub-sub paragraphs (A) and (B)

(30)  Schedule 1, after item 72, page 19 (after line 26) insert:

72H  Paragraph 273(5)(f)

Omit ‘marked otherwise than in accordance with subsection 239(2)’.

(31)  Schedule 1, after item 72, page 19 (after line 26) insert:

72I  Paragraph 273A(3)(a)

Repeal the paragraph.

(32)  Schedule 1, after item 72, page 19 (after line 26) insert:

72J  Subparagraph 273A(3)(c)(i)

Repeal the subparagraph.

(33)  Schedule 1`, after item 72, page 19 (after line 26) insert:

72K  Subparagraph 273A(3)(f)(i)

Repeal the subparagraph

(34)  Schedule 1, after item 72, page 19 (after line 26) insert:

72L Subsection 273A(10)

Repeal the subsection

(35)  Schedule 1, after item 72, page 19 (after line 26) insert:

72M Subsection 282(4)

Repeal the subsection.

(36)  Schedule 1, item 75, page 20 (lines 13-14) omit the item.

(37)  Schedule 1, page 20, after item 77 (after line21) insert:

77A  After section 294

Insert:

294A  Payment not to exceed funding cap

        (1)    Subject to subsection (2), the sum of money payable for each first preference vote given for a candidate in a House of Representatives election or a Senate election must not exceed $50 000.

        (2)    If an electorate for the House of Representatives falls within the category of the largest electorates as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal in its most recent review before an election, the sum of money payable for each first preference vote given for a candidate in an election for the electorate must not exceed $72 500.

(38)  Schedule 1, after item 77, page 20 (after line 21), insert:

77B  After Division 3 of Part XX

Insert

Division 3A Limitation of electoral expenditure

302A  Interpretation

        (1)    In this Division

electoral expenditure  in relation to an election, means all expenses incurred by or on behalf of a candidate, and gifts or donations received by or on behalf of the candidate in connection with the election and includes expenditure incurred and gifts or donations received in connection with the election (whether or not incurred during the election period) on:

             (a)    the broadcasting, during the election period, of an advertisement relating to the election; or

             (b)    the publishing on the Internet or in a journal, during the election period, of an advertisement relating to the election; or

             (c)    the display, during the election period, at a theatre or other place of entertainment, of an advertisement relating to the election; or

             (d)    the production of an advertisement relating to the election, being an advertisement that is broadcast, published or displayed as mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

             (e)    the production of any material (not being material referred to in paragraph(a), (b) or (c)) that is required under section 328 or 332 to include the name and address of the author of the material or of the person authorizing the material and that is used during the election period; or

              (f)    the production and distribution of electoral matter that is addressed to particular persons or organisations and is distributed during the election period; or

             (g)    the carrying out, during the election period, of an opinion poll, or other research, relating to the election.

candidature includes the actions in connection with a candidate’s attempts to be elected as a Senator or as a Member of the House of Representatives.

        (2)    For the purposes of this Division, electoral expenditure incurred by or with the authority of a candidate shall be deemed to have been incurred by that candidate.

302B  Limitation of electoral expenditure

                 Subject to sections 302C and 302F, a candidate must not, in respect of any candidature, incur or authorise electoral expenditure exceeding in the aggregate $50,000.

Note:   The dollar amount mentioned in this section is indexed under section 302F.

302C  Larger electorates

                 If an electorate for the House of Representatives falls within the category of the largest electorates as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal in its most recent review before an election, the limitation on electoral expenditure is $72,500.

Note:   The dollar amount mentioned in this section is indexed under section 302F.

302D  Expenditure on behalf of candidates

                 Any person incurring or authorising any electoral expenditure on behalf of a candidate without the written authority of the candidate shall be guilty of a contravention of this Act.

302E  Returns of electoral expenditure

        (1)    Within 15 weeks after the polling day in an election every candidate at the election shall sign and provide to the Electoral Commission a return of the electoral expenditure incurred or authorised by the candidate showing

             (a)    all electoral expenditure paid, and

             (b)    any disputed and unpaid claims for electoral expenditure, and

             (c)    the names of persons or organisations who have made gifts or donations to the candidate in connection with the election, and the details of the gifts or donations received.

        (2)    The return must be in accordance with a form set out in the regulations.

        (3)    The Electoral Commission must ensure that returns or certified copies of returns are available for public inspection at an office of the Electoral Commission for a period of 6 months after they have been received by the Commission.

302F  Indexation of amounts

        (1)    This section applies to the dollar amounts mentioned in sections 302B and 302C.

        (2)    The dollar amount mentioned in the provision, for an indexation year whose indexation factor is greater than 1, is replaced by the amount worked out using the following formula (rounded to the nearest $100):

        (3)    The dollar amount mentioned in the provision for an indexation year is not replaced in respect of a disclosure period in relation to an election if the indexation year begins between the issue of the writ for the election and the polling day for the election.

        (4)    The indexation factor for an indexation year is the number worked out using the following formula:

        (5)    The indexation factor is to be calculated to 3 decimal places, but increased by .001 if the fourth decimal place is more than 4.

        (6)    Calculations under subsection (4):

             (a)    are to be made using only the March index numbers published in terms of the most recently published reference base for the Consumer Price Index; and

             (b)    are to be made disregarding March index numbers that are published in substitution for previously published March index numbers (except where the substituted numbers are published to take account of changes in the reference base).

        (7)    In this section:

indexation year means the financial year commencing on 1 July 2006, and each subsequent financial year.

March index number means the All Groups Consumer Price Index number, being the weighted average of the 8 capital cities, published by the Australian Statistician in respect of the 3 months ending on 31 March.

(39)  Schedule 1, item 79, page 20 (line 33), omit ‘$10,000’, substitute ‘$200’

(40)  Schedule 1, item 79, page 21 (line 18), omit ‘$10,000’, substitute ‘$200’.

(41)  Schedule 1, item 79, page 21 (line 32), omit ‘$10,000’, substitute ‘$200’

(42)  Schedule 1, item 82, page 22 (lines 16-17), omit the item.

(43)  Schedule 1, item 84, page 23 (line 14), omit “$10,000” substitute “$200”.

(44)  Schedule 1, item 84, page 24 (line 5), omit “$10,000”, substitute “$200”.

(45)  Schedule 1, item 84, page 24 (line 17), omit “$10,000”, substitute “$200”.

(46)  Schedule 1, item 128, page 35 (lines 12-13), omit the item.

(47)  Schedule 1, item 130, page 36 (lines 13-14), omit the item.

(48)  Schedule 2, item 1, page 38 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item.

(49)  Schedule 2, item 2, page 38 (lines 7 and 8), omit item.

(50)  Schedule 2, item 4, page 38 (lines 13 and 14), omit item.

(51)  Schedule 2, item 5, page 38 (lines 15 and 16), omit item.

(52)  Schedule 2, item 7, page 38 (lines 21-2), omit item.

(53)  Schedule 2, item 9, page 38 (lines 27-28), omit item.

(54)  Schedule 2, item 10, page 39 (lines 1-2), omit item.

(55)  Schedule 2, item 12, page 39 (line 16), omit “$10,000”, substitute “$200”.

(56)  Schedule 2, item 12, page 39 (line 33), omit “$10,000”, substitute “$200”.

(57)  Schedule 2, item 13, page 40 (lines 9-10), omit item.

(58)  Schedule 2, item 15, page 40 (lines 15-16), omit item.

(59)  Schedule 2, item 17, page 40 (lines 21-22), omit item.

The remainder of my amendments focus on improving the integrity of our electoral system and removing the contradiction inherent in the title of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005, given its outrageous provisions. Amendments (20), (21) and (23) to (35) improve the transparency of the Senate voting system by re-empowering the voter by putting control of their preferences back into their hands by removing above-the-line voting and installing a partial preferential system of voting for Senate candidates.

I have proposed that, with the removal of the option to vote above the line, all Senate candidates are listed individually but the voter need only mark preferences for the candidates equal to the number of vacant Senate seats for a formal Senate vote. In the case of a half-Senate election, this will be six preferences for a formal vote. If the voter wants to indicate additional preferences, they may do so without invalidating their vote. The voter retains control of their preferences, and the disincentive of being compelled to vote for 73 candidates, as was the case in the 2004 election in New South Wales, is removed. The AEC’s figures confirm that the large fields of candidates in Senate elections are a disincentive for voters to direct their own preferences, with 96 per cent of voters voting above the line at the 2004 election. Using this system for electing the Senate will eliminate behind the scenes preference deals between parties and groups running above the line, which allows the harvesting of preferences to deliver seats to candidates with extremely low primary votes.

We have heard a lot in recent times and as recently as late yesterday about transparency, accountability and the disenchantment of people with the voting system. One of the primary causes of that disenchantment is a Senate voting process that most Australians do not understand. I believe that, after the last election, they were absolutely dismayed at the direction in which preferences that they did not allocate but that were allocated on their behalf flowed and finished up. The obvious example is that of the Family First candidate’s election with just over two per cent of the primary vote. Preference voting above the line would have been at least an interim reform on the way to the fairer system I propose here, but that of course was rejected by the government because it had a hint of voter free choice about it—so much for integrity.

Amendment (37) inserts a new section, 294A, which imposes a cap on election campaign expenditure by or on behalf of a candidate for the House of Representatives or the Senate. This cap is set at $50,000 and will be indexed to the CPI. Consideration is given to larger electorates as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal in regard to the entitlements of office. These electorates will have a cap of $72,500. The Commonwealth Electoral Act did contain a campaign expenditure limit for individual candidates, which was repealed in 1980, ostensibly because spending by others—that is, political parties and other third party organisations—made the cap irrelevant.

My amendments include all expenditure in relation to a candidate’s campaign, regardless of who is spending the money. I must direct the attention of members of this House to overseas examples of the imposition of a spending cap, which is very basic to achieving a level playing field for all those who may wish to run for public office. All expenditure must be authorised under these amendments by the candidate—again, regardless of where the money is coming from—and it must be disclosed in election returns, with penalties for any contraventions.

Amendment (36) complements this cap. The public funding a candidate receives for their share of first preference votes will also be capped at $50,000 and at $72,500 for larger electorates to further discourage candidates from disregarding the campaign cap and avoid profiteering from elections. Not only will these amendments level the field for all candidates, party endorsed or not, but they will also halt the great waste of money, public and private, on election campaigns that is heading towards a US scenario where you are not even a starter without a multimillion dollar campaign fund, and the end result is heading towards the very best democracy money can buy.

Finally, my amendments (38) to (59) remove this government’s flagrant attempt to improve their fundraising capacity by increasing the disclosure threshold from its current $1,500 to $10,000. The then Special Minister of State, Senator Abetz, believed that with this new disclosure limit 80 per cent of donations will still be disclosed. (Extension of time granted). This, however, is only 80 per cent of those receipts described as donations by political parties, which is far from their total income. If 80 per cent of donations are above $10,000, it proves my point that fundraising is getting way out of hand and is way beyond the capacity of the ordinary would-be member of parliament trying to run as an Independent or with a smaller party or group, if that be the case.

The massive increase proposed in this bill will simply make it easier for individuals and organisations to contribute more money without having to tell anyone. Pure and simple, it means influence can be bought without anyone ever knowing, and it conveniently squeezes smaller parties and individual candidates out of the equation. Electoral integrity—what rot! Disclosure is not about convenience to donors or those that receive donations; it should be about transparency. It is essential for voters to be able to determine who a candidate represents—their constituents or their donors. My amendments install a disclosure threshold of $200 on political donations to help achieve this aim. I commend them to the House, knowing what their outcome will be.

See this speech in context