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

They supported it for longer than 2½ years but now it does not suit their political timetable, because they are not ready to go to an election because they are not a real opposition. It is actually not even about whether or not they support democratic voting reform; they want to defer debate on this bill, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016. They want us to have this debate after the day a double dissolution passes. This is about a short-term political strategy. It is about what is good for the Labor Party; it is not about what is good for the Australian people and for our democracy.

This debate is to be adjourned before we go in committee, but I want to read a from a document from 2013 relating to the tabling of the report from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters following the 2013 election. It says:

The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has an important role after every federal election to review the conduct of that election and provide recommendations for government and the parliament to consider. This interim report tabled by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters focuses on Senate voting and party registration, which are issues that caused considerable concern in the 2013 election. I am pleased that the JSCEM has tabled this interim report so that policy and legislative decisions can be made to ensure the will of voters at the next Senate election is properly reflected by the senators who are chosen by the people.

The primary concern of JSCEM has been to address the growing practice of preference harvesting by microparties, which has made Senate voting convoluted and confusing; and it has simply warped and manipulated the will of voters.

Warped and manipulated the will of voters.

Above the line voting and group voting tickets for the Senate were introduced in 1984 to address the high level of informal voting. Voters were required to number every square on the ballot paper and mistakes in preference sequences meant votes were declared informal. Since those reforms, the vast majority of Senate votes have been cast above the line. However, the emergence in recent years of bogus microparties who rely on multilayered preference deals with other parties has distorted this above the line voting system and action needs to be taken. Like the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform in 1984, the current Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has been focused on making certain that the will of voters in Senate elections is not distorted or frustrated. This interim report contains what I believe are good recommendations—recommendations that will lead to fair and effective reform of Senate voting and party registration.

The committee's first recommendation for Senate voting is to allow preferences to be used by voters above the line and to make below the line voting less onerous by requiring voters to fill in only six or 12 squares, depending on whether it is a half Senate election or a double dissolution.

Similar reforms were considered in 2009 in the then government's electoral reform green paper—

This is the Labor Party.

Strengthening Australia's democracy. It is unfortunate, I believe, that those reforms did not progress at that time.

Perhaps Senator Polley can tell us why that is the case—through you, Mr Deputy President.

Five years later, there was overwhelming evidence presented to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that the Senate voting system was still in need of repair. The evidence is well summarised in chapter 3 of the interim report. Above the line voting has developed to a point where bogus microparties engage in what I call 'game theory' and send preferences through a myriad of politically disconnected parties without any concern as to what a voter's real intention might have been. The 'gaming' of preferences by microparties has bastardised the Senate voting system—

Bastardised the Senate voting system—

and the committee's recommended reforms to above the line voting, I believe, should deal with this very difficult problem.

And there is another page there. I am plagiarising, because these words are not my own. These are the words of Senator Faulkner. These are the words of a Labor stalwart—Senator Faulkner—who, as previously noted by Senator Back, was coined 'the grandfather of the Senate'. I think that is a little bit unfair on Senator Faulkner, because he is not actually that old but, nevertheless, he made a significant contribution while he was here. These are his words from just a couple of years ago. He talks about his own government in 2009 not acting on Senate voting reform and makes it very clear that the system has been bastardised.

I am all for diversity in the Senate. I represent a party whose whole story is about getting diversity in the Senate; that is our life's journey to where we are today. But when we talk about diversity in the Senate, let's be very clear, we want diversity that is democratic. How is it that some people get elected on a few thousand votes when the same candidates in the same election do not get elected on 100,000 votes or more? That is not democracy. That is totally unfair and totally undemocratic.

I want to point out something about my political party, the Greens. During the last week the Senate was sitting I was lucky enough to give an adjournment speech on Jeff Weston, a gentleman who was one of the founding members of the Tasmanian Greens. The Greens went on to become the Australian Greens and the Global Greens and Jeff Weston, in fact, was around the table when the United Tasmania Group was formed. The view of Jeff Weston and his friends was that they would not get outcomes in Tasmania to preserve the environment and the wilderness and what the original Greens fought on unless they formed a political party. It was a conscious decision that was made by a group of people. I do not think they necessarily wanted to form a political party, but they felt, after the loss of Lake Pedder and the threats to the Franklin, that they had to form a political party because the only way they were going to change the world was to have a political arm for the environment movement and get outcomes.

Senator Polley interjecting—

That was 45 years ago, Senator Polley—through you, Mr Deputy President. It was 45 years ago that that decision was made, and there have been tens of thousands of people in Tasmania and around the country from my party who have put their hands up to be candidates—