Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann says that they love his contributions. We know that that may not in fact be true, but at least he is being courteous. These are, undeniably, the largest reforms in some three decades. That is why there should have been a different process. This has not been a sensible process. One loses count of the number of times the Australian Greens have come in here and lectured the parliament about transparency, about scrutiny and about proper process. Well, all of that went out the window when it came to this, didn't it? All of that went out the window when it came to this and Senator Rhiannon saw a bit of an opportunity to try to improve her position and the position of whoever the candidate on the side of the ticket will be. All of that went out the window. Leaving that aside, though, I actually think that voting reform should have the widest possible partisan support. It should not be about partisan advantage; it should have the widest possible partisan support, and it does not. The alternative government does not support the legislation that is before the chamber, and we have outlined why. That is the first point.

The second point is that this is about the functioning of Australia's democracy. It seems to me that voters ought to be given the time and ought to understand very clearly what these changes mean. We know that the overwhelming majority of voters—96 per cent or thereabouts—vote above the line. Before we even get to informality—which is a whole different issue, as I think the minister himself has acknowledged in an earlier contribution—if they vote above the line then of course that will be their only vote. One of the things that has not got sufficient attention in this debate is exhausted votes. Perhaps I should have left the contribution for exhausted votes for 2 or 3 am, and we could have had a discussion about that then, but this is a genuine issue of concern. As you know, we currently have a system for the Senate—a system that has been in place for many years—whereby you vote, it is essentially in a compulsory preferential system and your vote continues to be in play. All formal votes essentially stay in play. The vast majority of them elect a senator or ultimately go to the seventh, and unsuccessful, candidate in the race.

The challenge and the difficulty with optional preferential voting of the sort that has been agreed to between the Greens and the government is that it does mean that you are going to see a high number of exhausted votes—that is, votes which essentially exit the count once their preferences run out. This is not some esoteric point; this is an important point about the questions that arise in this bill about democracy and what is a fair voting system. I want to place on record, as I have a number of times, that I acknowledge that the current Senate voting system is not perfect. I do not think anybody has come before the JSCEM or before the chamber suggesting that everything is perfect. But in the government's desire and the Greens' desire to gain electoral advantage out of this behind the smokescreen of democracy, I would respectfully submit to the chamber that they are actually creating another problem.

I want to refer to a paper and a couple of public remarks made by two political scientists which I think were reported this week—I have to say I cannot recall the date. They deal with this issue that I am describing, which is the problem of exhausted votes.; that is, a vote where somebody votes 1 above the line and then, essentially, their vote exits the system. Senator Rhiannon or Senator Cormann might say, 'Oh well, bad luck!' but that is not the way the voting system currently works. And in their desire to do something about a genuine issue—and I acknowledge that preference arrangements have not all the time but on occasion yielded outcomes that were not foreseen by voters—the Greens and the government are creating another problem. So I draw the Senate's attention to the contribution of—I am not sure if he is a professor or an assistant professor—Dr Economou, who made the point that exhausted votes would become an issue of federal elections if voters continue to vote 1 above the ticket of their choice. Of his modelling, which worked on the assumption of single primary vote, he said: 'What you are likely to see is exhausted votes in each state of anywhere between 14 and 20 per cent.'

Let's understand what this contribution to the public debate shows. It does make an assumption that most people will continue doing what they have been doing for the last 30 years, and this is why the AEC campaign issue is important. But if you assume that many voters will continue to do what they have been doing for three decades, which is to put the 1 above the line, the consequence of that is a very large increase in exhausted votes. Under the modelling that Dr Economou has published, he says:

If we looked at the result of the last election and we applied the new rules, you'd be looking at exhausted votes in each state of anywhere between 14 and 20 per cent.

I, for one, do not think that is very democratic. What it says is that between 14 and 20 per cent of voters risk having their votes essentially go nowhere—and let us understand that that is partly the point. That is actually the point of what the government and the Greens are doing, because they do not want those pesky votes if they are not corralled for the major parties or the Greens. I disagree with many of the positions that a number of crossbench senators hold. Senator Day and I probably both love South Australia but will disagree on most other issues, but he does reflect the voting intentions of a set of South Australians, and I do not think it is a democratic thing to have a voting system that risks between 14 and 20 per cent of votes exiting the system and not staying in play. I think the difficulty is that when you combine the rushed way in which this legislation has been pushed through the parliament and therefore a concomitant absence of or a truncated education campaign and the likelihood therefore that people's voting patterns and voting habits will continue, together with the provisions of the bill, you are likely to see more exhausted votes—between 14 and 20 per cent of votes essentially not counting. I do not think that is democratic, and I think that that is a real problem that the government has failed to really countenance.

In terms of what I would like to hear from the minister, I would really like him to respond to this issue of the extent of the proportion of exhausted votes that the government anticipates. Did they consider it? Did they get advice from the AEC about those matters? Did they consider how many votes are likely to be exhausted in this system? Do they consider that to be an issue in terms of the efficacy and democracy of the voting system? Those questions really are germane to the first question I asked which goes to the campaign.

One of the primary problems here is the government's urge to get this through, to ensure it can have a double dissolution in the time frame that it wants—and that is what is happening; the Greens are giving the keys to Mr Turnbull for a double dissolution—which will mean much less time for these amendments, these changes, the greatest changes in 30 years, to be properly debated and properly understood by the community. We, in this place, are probably focused on the detail of this bill and focused on what it means. But for the most voters this has not been a discussion in which they have been engaged.

As Senator Cormann no doubt has, I have scrutineered on counts in booths, not when I was a candidate—just making that clear! I do not have the informal vote figures in front of me, but we know there are a lot of people who do vote informal who do make mistakes on their ballot paper. We are imposing a system where a continuation of an existing voting habit risks the vote being exhausted. I think that is disenfranchising for voters.

I say to the government: the Labor Party would like to understand what the time frame will be, after this legislation is given royal assent, for the AEC to commence conducting a campaign. What will it involve? How extensive will it be? How will you deal with non-English speaking background voters, given we know the levels of informality in those communities are much higher? Did the government consider the extent of the exhausted votes that this system would impose? Have they done any modelling that they can share with us? Do they have any concerns about the disenfranchisement of voters that the sort of increase in exhausted votes that Dr Economou is describing would impose? Obviously, that is a much greater proportion than has previously been the case. It really is an example of why this ought not have been so rushed and why there ought to have been a much better process for this legislation.