I rise today to speak on the Electoral Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2026. This matter will eliminate group voting tickets. For me this is an enormously important piece of legislation to pass through this house, and I do thank all who have been part of former committees and the Electoral Matters Committee in putting this recommendation forward and for there to be a level of agreement amongst this Parliament’s politicians to agree that there needs to be significant reform in the way that group voting tickets are presented to voters.
Most importantly, I think there are a vast number of people who agree that we cannot have a voting system where there may be deliberate misleading or vote whispering which would mislead voters from where their vote was intended and from the sort of government or politician or parliamentarian that they were intending to elect. This has been a challenge that was investigated by the Electoral Matters Committee, and I refer to the inquiry report, which was published in July 2024, The Conduct of the 2022 Victorian State Election – Volume 1: Key Reforms. Chapter 6 is dedicated to this issue, which is addressed within the legislation before us today, in relation to reforming the upper house voting system.
The report is very good reading, and for anybody who has concerns about the removal of group voting tickets, I do recommend that they read this report. What has been identified, which the previous speaker referred to, was that there have been circumstances where the names of parties have been deliberately misleading in order to attract preferences and votes that are not immediately transparent on the voting ticket.
For those who recall the size of the upper house ballot paper at the 2022 election, it could not be unfurled within the ballot box. I think it was around a metre wide, if not larger. It certainly had so many different micro-parties that had been established, and people had no idea not just who they were voting for but where their preferences would end up because there simply was not sufficient time to make that investigation when you were in the booth seeking to cast your vote.
There are a number of matters that I would like to particularly highlight which I think can only be described as deceptive conduct in relation to the names of some of these parties and where the votes would end up. If you had voted 1 for the ‘sack Dan Andrews’ party in western Victoria last election, your preferences went to Labor. Now, I do not think that anybody put who put a 1 in the ‘sack Dan Andrews’ party would ever expect that that preference would assist another Labor MP to be elected to Parliament. I am not utilising this simply as a political reason or rationale, and I am not suggesting that the Labor Party were behind that, but it certainly was an effect that the Labor Party benefited from having a micro-party established very, very quickly before the election named the ‘sack Dan Andrews’ party. We do not want a democratic system whereby there can be such straightforward, blatant deception of voters trying to attract a vote which completely pushes their intent in the opposite direction.
As was described by a previous member, we also have had circumstances where candidates who received an exceptionally low number of primary votes have been elected to this Parliament, and they have been elected through the process of preference whispering, where deals are done behind closed doors without any scrutiny or public transparency over how those deals are made. There was certainly very concerning conduct that was identified as part of the inquiry report that I mentioned earlier through the Electoral Matters Committee which clearly demonstrated that conversations were being had with micro-parties. There were cash deals being made, there were deals indicated within those hearings that identified that there was an exchange of work by Glenn Druery to employ that person within the office of the party using electoral funds. That is nothing short of corrupt conduct. It is a recommendation within the minority report, which is put forward within the report that I mentioned earlier, that this matter is also dealt with, and I would like to quote in relation to this minority report some aspects that were identified:
One of the most concerning matters uncovered by the Inquiry is the use of Group Voting Tickets to deliver election outcomes that do not reflect the will of Victorian people. GVTs facilitate the election of candidates who lack genuine voter support, allowing political operatives like ‘preference whisperer’ Glenn Druery to game the system. This manipulation is not just a theoretical concern; it has real-world implications that erode public trust in our democratic institutions.
I stand by that comment. This reform is well overdue, and I know in previous parliaments the Electoral Matters Committee has made similar recommendations. Unfortunately, it is not legislation that has made it to this house.
That is one of the reasons that I nominated to contribute my time to the Electoral Matters Committee, because I could see that this conduct was increasingly impacting on the electoral results in this state, and I believe it is nothing short of dishonest, and deliberately dishonest, conduct. I am very much supportive of the legislation before us today because I believe it will help to restore trust in our electoral system.
There is another aspect which was identified by the Electoral Matters Committee in relation to what system we go to next. It was my strong view that we should make sure that our electoral system is as simple as possible. We already have a system through the Senate federally whereby we have a level of understanding and knowledge of how our voting system operates. It has always been my view that the Victorian upper house system should replicate that of the Senate. If we can provide consistency between the Commonwealth and the Victorian systems, it will lead to Victorians being informed and able to cast a vote that reflects their intent. No matter who they are voting for, that is what we should always seek in a democratic system: we should respect the intent of the voter.
I understand that there is a matter that has not been addressed in this legislation, and there have been discussions around it, in relation to whether a tick or a cross should be deemed as a vote for or whether a cross should be deemed as a vote against. I do not believe that we should let lingering debate on this point delay the legislation that is before this house.
Therefore I believe that we should continue those discussions. But it is my view that the reforms that are within the legislation before us today are the key reforms that we need to bring in before the next election to ensure that the system cannot be gamed.
We have had in the past representation by the Animal Justice Party in the seat of Western Victoria. The Animal Justice Party attracted just 1.7 per cent of the vote in Western Victoria. They leapfrogged above many other candidates who got a much, much higher amount of first preference votes. They achieved their election to the upper house simply because of preferences that were gamed and harvested through a system which should be made illegal.
Through this legislation we will ensure that when the people of western Victoria are voting, they are not inadvertently voting for someone who is seeking to shut down the agricultural industry and intensive stock industry in a region where that is our bread and butter and our economic powerhouse. We need to ensure at all times that Victorians are able to cast a vote to get the government that they want and the government they deserve.
So I strongly support the legislation that is before us today, and I commend all of those who have helped make that happen through previous Electoral Matters Committee inquiries and through the current committee. I also congratulate all members and the supportive team who have made this happen. It is something that we can all leave this place and be very proud of – that we have an electoral system that actually improves democracy in our state, improves transparency, is consistent with the Senate electoral process and voting format and should result in an electoral result that reflects the intent of the voter.