Wednesday, 8 February 2023

Electoral reform

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (16:29): I rise to move:

That this house:

(1) acknowledges that Victoria continues to be the only jurisdiction in Australia that uses the undemocratic group voting system to elect members to this place;

(2) notes that after the 2021 Western Australian state election, where a representative from the Daylight Saving Party was elected with 98 primary votes, the re-elected Western Australian government initiated an independent review of the state’s electoral system which recommended abolishing the group voting system;

and calls on the government to show similar leadership and urgently establish an independent expert panel to review Victoria’s undemocratic group voting system and make recommendations to Parliament on options for reform.

When Victorians went to the polls in November last year they not only were faced with a ridiculous double-decker ballot paper but were the only voters left in the nation that had their upper house preferences decided for them, not by them – hopefully for the last time.

The undemocratic group voting ticket (GVT) system, which sees party apparatchiks determine preference flows for over 90 per cent of votes which are made above the line, has been abandoned in all Australian jurisdictions except here, and for good reason. I will not labour the point because it is self-evident to anyone who believes in representative democracy how appalling group voting tickets are, but as a quick summary here is Antony Green:

GVT elections attract so many parties because the preference deals turn the contest to fill the final seat into a lottery. Micro-parties agree to ignore their ideological differences and swap preferences with each other ahead of the larger parties in a tactic that has become known as ‘preference harvesting’. The tactic gives one of the participating micro-parties a chance to get lucky and be elected to the Legislative Council for four years with a key vote in the balance of power.

The reformed Senate system has ended such tactics and results. Senators no longer get elected by clever deals and pot luck. Parties have to campaign for votes rather than trade deals on preferences. The three Senate elections conducted with the new rules have elected representatives proportional to votes received without the distortions created by GVTs.

In essence, GVTs distort the will of voters; for example, people voting for the Shooters can end up electing an animal rights activist. They lead to a multitude of parties whose function is to harvest preferences rather than engage in genuine political debate, hence the ridiculousness of the double-decker ballot paper we saw. But most significantly group voting tickets facilitate the election of members who are not accountable to voters. As Kevin Bonham says, whether a party with a small vote gets elected ‘has more to do with GTV preference deals and unpredictable events in the preference distribution than whether they have any real level of voter support’.

In the most recent election we have seen a more proportional upper house than last time thanks in large part to progressive parties making different decisions than in 2018, but this just proves our point. It should not be the apparatchiks deciding from election to election who comes into the place but the voters. Now of course – and in anticipation of the accusations I know will be coming my way in this debate – the Greens engage with the system as it exists, which means we reach agreements with other parties to maximise our chances of getting elected. But that does not mean the system is right. It is not, and everyone here knows it. In the lead-up to the election it was heartening to hear numerous parties voice their support for reform. In fact the majority of the crossbench here are now on the record supporting reforming the upper house voting system, as I think are the Liberals. I am sure they will correct me if I am wrong on that in the debate to come.

In fact the only parties in this place that have not indicated support for reform of group voting tickets are those members beholden to Mr Druery for their election and the Labor Party. And didn’t we all get a closer look at the way Mr Druery operates during last year’s election? The ugliness of group voting tickets was on display for everyone to see – the wheeling, the dealing, the threats, the boasting and of course the money. What was most interesting in the leaked recordings of Mr Druery was the revelation that part of the deal in getting his help is to promise to oppose any reform of the system, and we may just see that on display again shortly – the corruption of the group voting system on display right there. This chamber saw this promise in action in 2021 in the debate on my last motion calling for reform of the group voting system when dutifully Mr Druery’s MPs got to their feet one by one to defend the corrupt and undemocratic use of group voting tickets. During the course of that debate I had the experience of being lectured to by white men about how group voting tickets bring diversity to the chamber – seriously! Yet, as has been reported, the current Parliament is even less diverse than the last one. The problem politics faces with diversity has not got anything to do with group voting tickets, or maybe it does – in reserving places for white conservative blokes, that great under-represented group in Australian politics.

What my motion is calling for today is an independent expert panel to review Victoria’s undemocratic group voting system and make recommendations to Parliament on options for reform. After the appalling failure of the Electoral Matters Committee to conduct an inquiry into group voting tickets last term, it is clear an independent review is the best way forward. The Western Australian Labor government did just that after their last election, and the result was the abolition of group voting tickets, which had become indefensible after an MP got elected on just 98 votes. Reliance on the Electoral Matters Committee risks the same outcome as the last term, where a majority of Labor and Druery MPs blocked any movement on reform. The inaction of the government and the Electoral Matters Committee last term was a travesty of democracy. Almost every single submission to the committee on the 2018 election mentioned group voting tickets, yet the committee refused to allow witnesses to address the issue, instead making what turned out to be a hollow promise of a future inquiry. This was a betrayal of the people who made submissions to the committee. It treated voters with contempt, and given Labor continues to show no concern about the ongoing corrupting influence of group voting tickets, forgive me if I am not prepared to give the government-dominated committee system the benefit of the doubt again.

While the Greens believe the simplest and most appropriate reform is to replace the GVT system with Senate-style voting above the line, which as I mentioned before provides a much more proportional outcome, we are open to alternatives, hence why this motion calls for an expert panel to give the Parliament options to consider. We have heard the Premier deflect the need for a proper review of this broken system to the Electoral Matters Committee’s regular review of the election as a way of heading off criticism for years of inaction, but we all know that with the government-dominated joint investigatory committees, with government chairs, as I spoke at length about this morning, we just do not see the type of scrutiny and reform that is needed, especially when it comes to the health of our democracy and the group voting system. So the Greens are proposing a pathway forward that can help us achieve progress. It means that a proper review and inquiry can be conducted into Victoria’s group voting system and then the Parliament can deliberate on the best options for reform.

This motion should come as no surprise to the government, as I wrote to the Premier as soon as possible after November’s election to indicate that this issue would be a high priority for the Greens and request he establish an independent expert panel to review the electoral system for Victoria’s upper house. I am yet to receive any acknowledgement or reply to this correspondence, but together in this chamber today, with this motion, we can move this issue forward. We owe every Victorian at least that.

At the end of the day every Victorian should be able to easily decide where their voting preferences go on election day, rather than having their preferences bought and sold by people they have never heard of. Until we reform our voting system our elections will continue to be open to corruption and our upper house risks not representing the people it should serve.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:38): I rise to respond to Dr Ratnam’s motion and congratulate her for arguing the case most excellently as well. I do rise to discuss this, and I do want to acknowledge that this is a very relevant discussion, as it has been discussed I know in the media as well as by many of us in political circles, particularly during the campaign last year. Many times at pre-poll when we were sheltering from the rain or the hail – perhaps the sunburn – with a number of different parties I recall discussing these issues, and it is one that I think we all get very excited about. It is an important issue because it does go to the heart of what we are here for, and that is to have a democratic chamber.

I think it is important to give some historical context as well, and I think back to my first speech just a couple of months ago, when I was talking about how in the 1850s, in the very first Legislative Council in this state – or colony as it was then – you had to be basically white, male and British in order to run. You also had to own land, and one thing I did not mention that a few people mentioned to me afterwards is that you also had to be straight, or at least appear to be so, which is probably also worth mentioning. I am not going to speculate further on that.

There have been obviously a number of further reforms over time, much to the state’s benefit, and there were some further reforms in 2006 when the previous Bracks Labor government reformed the upper house, which was significantly overdue, in terms of implementing the current region system that we have today, further to which there were the 2018 Electoral Act reforms too. I think this is a good opportunity to highlight some of the achievements of those 2018 electoral reforms. Last week in fact we read about the discussion taking place at the federal level and the fact that they are now looking at implementing donation reforms. This is something that we have actually already achieved in Victoria. That was delivered in the very first term of the Andrews Labor government and came into effect, as members here would know, in time for last year’s state election.

These reforms saw us implement some of the toughest political donation laws in the nation. These reforms also drastically reduced the size of donations, which impeded the influence of money on our democratic processes, and worked to ensure that Victorians know who receives and makes donations. We now have the strictest and the most transparent donation laws in Australia under legislation introduced by this government.

The bill passed in 2018 overhauled our political donations regime, eliminated large donations and ushered in Australia’s most transparent donation disclosure laws, which gives us all increased confidence in political decision-making. The legislation capped donations at $4000 over a four-year parliamentary term; I believe that is now closer to $4320. It also reduced the disclosure limits from $13,500 to $1000 per financial year, and it banned foreign donations – significantly as well – as well as bringing in very tough penalties for breaching those regulations, up to 10 years imprisonment for breaches. That is exactly why the Andrews Labor government is implementing these reforms – to ensure the integrity of our democratic system. This is about the whole system. These requirements also require donations to be disclosed in a timely manner.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

The PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, I’m going to call you next.

Michael GALEA: It also speaks to our commitment to transparency, because we believe on this side of the chamber that Victorians have a right to know who is donating to the candidates elected as their representatives. We absolutely do. Not only is this disclosure requirement in place, but there is also an onus on the person or party receiving a donation to provide an annual return to the Victorian Electoral Commission. The VEC is also required to publish this information. So I think it is fair to say that our record speaks for itself in terms of our strong interest in delivering electoral reforms which are in the public interest for Victorians.

A member interjected.

Michael GALEA: It absolutely is. Furthermore, the legislation specified a minimum number of parliamentary advisers for non-government parties, providing greater certainty and transparency for staffing arrangements, which included limiting the discretion of the government of the day to restrict the number of parliamentary advisers, particularly for the crossbench. I think we can all agree that that is a very sensible, reasonable reform that ensures that crossbench MPs have the support and the resources they need to do their jobs just as any of the rest of us do.

A member: And then they vote the right way.

Michael GALEA: No matter how they vote; we are not doing it based on – I probably should not respond to interjections. No matter how they vote, we want to ensure that all upper house MPs – or lower house MPs, indeed if they are on the crossbench – have the right to the same number of parliamentary staff. That is only fair.

The legislation also modernised our outdated electoral rules by streamlining early voting arrangements and allowed for the earlier processing of such votes to enable more of them to be counted on election night. The act also enables registered political logos to be printed on ballot papers, consistent with Commonwealth law. Now, I am not standing here and saying that everything is perfect; far from it. There is always more reform work to be done, but I think it is very important to note that this government has an absolutely strong record of delivery on electoral reform, and we will continue to do so as appropriate.

I would like to refer directly back to the motion put forward by Dr Ratnam, which says, firstly, that the house wishes to acknowledge that Victoria continues to be the only jurisdiction in the country with the group voting ticket system, and she refers to that as undemocratic, and it also brings in an example of the WA Daylight Saving Party, further to which it asks for an independent inquiry to be set up. I want to make a quick comment there on the use of the word ‘undemocratic’. I would like to caution us all to be very careful on the use of this word, because we are all here, we do have a very serious responsibility to represent the people who voted us in and we all have an interest in ensuring that the system is robust. I would note that currently the Greens have four out of 40 seats in the Legislative Council and I understand approximately 10 per cent of the primary vote in the state election as well, which I would argue is relatively reflective of that.

A member: Plenty.

Michael GALEA: Plenty enough, as some might say on the other side of the house, but I am very excited for all of you to be here, and I am very excited to work with you all. And I do think that we do still have a good diversity of views in this Parliament. Probably one recent example of that is just from the last couple of days, where we have seen some very impassioned questions calling for the continuation of duck shooting, as well as the ardent opposition to it by Ms Purcell – and I want to congratulate her on her maiden speech yesterday. That was fantastic.

I would like to understand, if the system is as undemocratic as you say it is, who in this chamber should not be here? Who in this chamber do you think should not have a space?

Georgie Crozier: Are you supporting this motion?

Michael GALEA: I will come to that very, very briefly, Ms Crozier. As I was about to say, there are further improvements that can be made, but I do want again to caution against such extreme language on a system that has also seen Greens members elected to this place at every election since 2006.

On that note, I think a lot of members would understand and remember some of the very inflammatory language that we saw as candidates on pre-poll sites. Whilst it is important for us to have that fierce argument of ideas, a number of people were out there trying to undermine our process, trying to say that this is not a democracy, that this is all fixed. I do want to caution members about encouraging or trying to inflate those fringe elements of our society, who should rightly be cast aside as trying to undermine our state and who are not acting in the state’s interests. Just bear that in mind.

I do want to come back to the point as well of the Daylight Saving Party. I am curious that the example given is from the other side of the country. If there was such an example of someone being elected on I believe it was 98 votes in Victoria, that would have probably been mentioned in the motion. I do want to make a brief note of that as well.

On the actual subject of group voting tickets, there are many, many good arguments, and there are arguments on both sides of this debate. It is very appropriate that we have that discussion. I am not advocating for or against the abolition of group voting tickets in this contribution, but I am confused as to why it has been suggested in this format, because we have a number of very robust committees, including the Electoral Matters Committee, which is there for this exact purpose.

When talking about changing the way we vote as a state, as a people, I think it is very important that we do this in the most robust manner possible, not just by bringing in a motion to get something done or changed quickly. That is why I think going through the committee process is a very sensible way to ensure that that committee can then take in the feedback, hear the evidence and present options for how we might reform the group voting ticket system. I think that is very important. We have those institutions in place and, just as Mr Tarlamis did very effectively in the last term of government in running that committee, I am sure that the committee formed in this Parliament will be very eager to take a look at that, and that should absolutely be looked at as part of that. I will be very excited to contribute to that process as well. I do want to wish all those members who will be forming the Electoral Matters Committee well in their endeavours to do that. Let me just finish by saying: let us use the mechanism that we have – (Time expired)

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:48): I am very much looking forward to making some remarks on Ms Ratnam’s motion which she has moved, which:

(1) acknowledges that Victoria continues to be the only jurisdiction in Australia that uses the undemocratic group voting system to elect members to this place;

(2) notes that after the 2021 Western Australian state election, where a representative from the Daylight Saving Party was elected with 98 primary votes, the re-elected Western Australian government initiated an independent review of the state’s electoral system …

and calls on the government to consider a similar move. Frankly, I do not think it goes far enough. I think we should be looking at this in far more detail. I am sure we will have more to say about this in terms of this group voting system, because what Ms Ratnam has highlighted is a very significant issue for the state of Victoria. We have seen the manipulation of votes, as she highlighted in her contribution about what has happened over subsequent elections.

It is no reflection on those members that have been elected through the system that has been manipulated, but it goes to the system itself. That is what we are talking about here – not the individuals, but the system and how it has been used and abused. I want to make note that this is nothing new, because back in 2013, 10 years ago, the then Premier, Denis Napthine, approached Daniel Andrews on this very issue and said he wanted bipartisan support to reform upper house voting rules so that the manipulation of the system would not occur. At the time it was rejected by Mr Andrews. Dr Napthine wanted to do that because he said:

The argument was in the interest of fairness and democracy, it wasn’t to stifle micro-parties …

It was about stopping people manipulating the system where one party wins by manipulating the preferences.

Now, that was 10 years ago. That is what is on the record. That is the history, Mr Galea, about the issue. I know that you referred to reforms that the government has done, but let us not confuse this issue with the reforms Labor did off the back of the red shirts corrupt behaviour by Labor Party members and what the government then did. We all know what that has meant in terms of a whole range of things, but I think it remains a very dark cloud over the state and over the Labor Party, particularly around that issue of red shirts.

But I want to go back to what Dr Napthine said in relation to manipulating the system, because what we know from last year is that Mr Druery, the preference whisperer, was exposed to the extent of the absolute obscene manipulation of the system. What did he say on tape? He boasted about the control and how he games the system. He said Victoria has not changed the law to stop the manipulation of votes because Labor benefits from the scam. This was reported in the Herald Sun just prior to the election. It said that:

… Victoria is the only state in Australia not to have changed the law to stop the manipulation of votes …

because, as I said, it benefits from the scam, and that:

Mr Druery … refers to candidates he helps as ‘the family’ …

He said:

… we’ve got to give them a crossbench they can work with …

and he explained how there were backroom deals with the CFMEU. They were keen to fix a candidate, apparently, to get a seat in Parliament with Mr Druery’s help and in return would ensure Labor preferenced other Druery-controlled parties above the Greens.

He went on to talk in some very colourful language on tape about what he has done and how he has benefited from this, and he basically said he had been doing this for years – not just recently but for years. I will not go on and just say it. There is some rather colourful language, as I said, that he used. He said:

The rest I control. Everybody … I’ve got more balls in the air than a vasectomy doctor.

He talked about how –

A member interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: I know. He really was quite forthcoming with his information about how he absolutely gamed the system, and he basically said that he set up dozens of sham parliamentary parties with catchy names solely to get other candidates to preference those. He talked about Sack Dan Andrews. Now, there are a lot of people in this state that really wanted to do that, and they voted for that party.

A member: Not enough.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, there were, but not enough. You know, I am one of them. But the point is this party was set up as a ruse. It was not actually as the name suggests where those preferences were going.

A member interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, it manipulated the system. We actually do not know because of what actually happened here. There were conversations around various people, but he said:

… I won’t go into private conversations, but suffice to say, let’s say you are the government, you need to govern, you don’t like the Greens, you can join the dots, right?

There is a lot of information in that leaked audio that Mr Druery actually exposed to the Victorian community. It was really disappointing that it came out, I think, so late in the piece in the campaign because it needed more scrutiny. We actually needed to understand. He went on and listed who he got in here. Fiona, who was sitting up in the gallery a minute ago, he got her in the first time around, and Rod Barton, just on a few votes. He just named all these parties and people that got in under terms that I do not think the Victorian public were really aware of. Antony Green has spoken extremely well – and he has written a lot on this – about how the system has been so badly manipulated. So how are we meant to bring back trust into the system when this is continuing to go on?

Matthew Bach: It is dreadful.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, it is dreadful, Dr Bach, because politics is viewed by the general community with such low regard that we need to do better, and doing things like this trickery in terms of what is out there just plays into that perception with the broader community. As I said, it is no reflection on those in here; it is about the process and the system and how it has been manipulated, and it needs to be fixed. We have been saying this needs to be fixed. We said we would fix it if we were elected. Unfortunately we were not elected, so we have not got that ability, but I think it is incredible and it is telling. For 10 years Daniel Andrews and his government have known that this system benefits him the most. We know that, the experts like Antony Green know that and I think there are many more Victorians who also understand that. We need to fix this system, so I say to Dr Ratnam: thank you for bringing this important issue to the house. It needs to be reviewed. Even though we are supporting this, I do not think it goes far enough. It needs to be fixed, and I am just quite sceptical about an independent expert panel that will be set up by government to review this.

I think we will be looking more at this issue later on down the track – or not so far down the track. I hope this conversation continues, because it is so important. Our democracy is important. It undermines the democratic principles that are so important, and we could have fixed this a decade ago if the Premier had the will and the decency and felt that it was in the best interests of all Victorians and not just his Labor Party.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:57): I would firstly like to make the obvious point that everyone in this place was elected by group voting tickets. I would also like to correct a couple of things that Dr Ratnam said. Firstly, I am on the record as saying that I support reform, but what I do not support is Dr Ratnam’s proposal of simply removing group voting tickets and going to a Senate-style preferential system.

Samantha Ratnam interjected.

David LIMBRICK: Well, you said that just before. And the reason is this. The reason that we have opposed removal of group voting tickets in the past is because we know that in the last election over 25 per cent of Victorians did not vote for Liberals, Labor or the Greens – they voted for someone else – and what we would see if we went to that sort of system is that those people would end up disenfranchised. What I would support looking at with regard to reform is maybe what they did in Western Australia, or New South Wales even, where they reformed the regions as well. That would result in a more proportionate system.

I also read Mr Bonham’s analysis of the election outcomes, and it was quite interesting that he said that the current make-up of Parliament is actually quite proportionate. If you imagined that Victoria was a single region and you looked at how many votes each party got, it is roughly what you would expect in a single region. The current outcomes are roughly what you would expect. I think it was pointed out before that the Greens got roughly 10 per cent of the vote and they got four members – that is about what you would expect – and similarly with the other minor parties. So I think it is critically important that if we are going to look at reform we do look at it in a larger context, not just group voting tickets. We need to look at how the regions work and these sorts of things.

I realise that this is complicated because that involves looking at the constitution as well, so it would require very significant support or bipartisan support. But nonetheless with the group voting ticket system, just removing it and going to a Senate-style preference system of course the Greens would support, because it would benefit the Greens and not many other people. But I think if we really want a truly proportionate system, then let us look at that. I am open-minded about that. I am happy to listen to expert opinion on how that might happen. Simply removing group voting tickets is something that I would not support, but we will wait and see what happens.

Whether this happens through this inquiry or through the Electoral Matters Committee or however it might happen, I feel that it is going to happen one way or another this term. I think that obviously this is looking at how we can end up with a proportional system without disenfranchising those voters that do not vote for the major parties or the Greens. I think it is absolutely critical to look at that. That is why we have opposed some of the reforms that the Greens have put forward in the past in this area – not because we love group voting tickets; I do not think anyone really likes group voting tickets – and that is the reason why we will continue to have that stance, and I am on the record as saying that I will be open-minded about reforms if they are truly proportional.

Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (17:01): I rise today to speak in support of this motion on the group voting system in Victoria, and I thank Dr Ratnam for bringing it for debate. I will be echoing a lot of the same comments as Mr Limbrick. It might be surprising to some people, given how I got here, but the Animal Justice Party has actually long supported improving Victoria’s voting system. We are a smaller party and did not invent the electoral system that we have, but we believe it is not an ideal system. However, we have been required to work within it while it persists, and we do our best to do so.

One of the issues with the upper house voting system in Victoria is that a single person can represent the interests of a range of minor parties and arrange deals. Indeed this could see votes directed in a way inconsistent with the actual views of voting Victorians. There is a simple reform possible – which has been spoken about today, which a simple vote in Parliament would allow to happen – where the group voting ticket would be removed, requiring voters to number their own preferences above the line. However, a change like this would mean in all likelihood that there would be an increase in the informal vote and that most of the minor parties in this Parliament, including us, would probably not win any seats at all. Therefore it would probably return the Parliament to a situation where the major parties would get the overwhelming share of the seats, with very few minor parties like ours represented. In our view this is also very bad for democracy, diminishing the range of views and opinions that we get from having many smaller parties in this place, including those who we often ideologically disagree with.

As I said, the Animal Justice Party has long supported voting reform, and we support comprehensive reform. We favour full proportional representation, as is now provided in the Western Australian system. We believe this is both the fairest and the best option for state upper houses in Australia. It still allows representation from a range of different parties, and each party is likely to be given the number of MPs in line with their public vote. We are well aware that in order to make this comprehensive change a referendum of the Victorian people would be required. I note that the Electoral Matters Committee will consider matters relating to electoral reform; however, this committee would be advantaged by the establishment of an expert panel, as proposed by Dr Ratnam, to examine the options, and that is why I am supporting this motion today.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (17:03): I find myself in a curious position where I am going to be supporting the Greens. Now, do not get excited, it is not going to happen too often, but on this occasion I will be supporting the Greens.

I do not want to offend any of my current colleagues, so I will instead turn to the 2018 figures; it might be safer. It was an election fought under the same system of course, so it is equally applicable. We live in a state of 6.5 million people, yet Andy Meddick – and I think he might have been shafted by Mr Druery in this election – in the last election claimed a seat in my region, Western Victoria, with just 2.7 per cent of the vote. It equated to 12,476 votes. Elsewhere, Fiona Patten only attracted 1.37 per cent to take her spot with 14,875 votes. Rod Barton did even less to be elected, with just 0.62 per cent of the vote, and that equated to 2508 votes, no less.

Ponder this: with just 2508 votes Mr Barton held the balance of power and effective control over the lives of 6.5 million people. Why? Because of the group voting system. In 2018 only 9 per cent of people chose the ‘number five boxes below the line’ option. Most people do not know that is an option. Micro-parties can easily manipulate the system. That is why there are so many of them in Victoria: 23 parties, no less, at the last election – more than any previous election. As Mr Green suggested, the latest scandal of preference whisperer Glenn Druery before the recent election was possible only because of our distorted system. As Antony Green has written, the system massively distorts proportionality.

At the 2018 election, in the Southern Metropolitan upper house region Sustainable Australia received 1.26 per cent of the vote and won a seat. Now, the Greens – here we are, your best friends today – received 12.9 per cent of the vote and missed out. Tragedy! We do have enough of you here now, though, so do not get excited. We do not need any more. So it is vitally important that we have a system where when people vote, they are able to give a preference to who they want to get elected and not be gamed by some character – he was on a boat somewhere, wasn’t he?

Samantha Ratnam: On a yacht.

Bev McARTHUR: On a yacht in Sydney developing a plan. We do not need yachtsmen dealing with our voting system in Victoria from that other state. We do need to have a robust system in Victoria that is fair and applicable.

I am terribly sorry, Mr Galea, I am not sure about the Electoral Matters Committee being very robust. I was on it. I do not know whether you are putting a bid in for a seat on it, but good luck. In fact I doubt the government are really serious about wanting reform of the system, because I am not sure where they are. It seems like they are on the barbed wire. I do not know whether they are supporting the motion or not supporting the motion. I think the government are opposing the motion moved by Dr Ratnam, but if the government were kindly in this matter, they could have a totally independent chair of the Electoral Matters Committee –

Lee Tarlamis interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: Oh, you were lovely, Mr Tarlamis, but a robust chair would perhaps help us all in this debacle of trying to get a fair and democratic system of voting in the upper house, don’t you think? Look, all my colleagues are in agreement. There are not many of them sitting here but they generally are in agreement. They are in agreement, and here we are. We are with you, Greens – only on this occasion, though. As I said, do not get excited. I support your motion and I hope we can have an independent review of the system and we get to a system where a vote does mean something in Victoria.

Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:09): I move:

That we adjourn this matter until later this day.

Motion agreed to.