...] ckage of electoral law amendments to be introduced to Federal Parliament. They include the contentious proposal to close the electoral rolls on the evening the writs are issued; a requirement for [...

In Victoria in 2004, Family First polled 1.9%, the Greens 8.8% and Labor 7.5% over the second quota. It took an extraordinary sequence of preferences to elect Family First, and this result would have been extremely unlikley to have ever occured without group ticket voting.

What is forgotten about NSW in 2001 was that a gentleman called Mick Gallagher from the No GST/Abolish Child Support polled 0.65%, but because of the way various preference deals involving Greens and other micro-parties were registered, came perilously close to election. By the time he was excluded, his vote had risen to 4.9%, One Nation 5.7%, Democrats 6.3% and Greens 6.6%. Had Gallagher’s vote been any higher, he would have been elected on One Nation and Green preferences, and we would have heard a lot more complaints than we did about Family First.

To the Greens credit, they were much more direct with their preferences in 2004, having almost been burnt in 2001.

ONP 7.2%
DEM 12.4%
GRN 8.9%

off primary votes of 5.6%, 6.1% and 4.3% respectively. Dinesh, I assume, is talking about the 1998 election where the ONP senate vote was 9% nationally and the GRN vote was 2.7%

Emily, I dispute your characterisation of Nettle’s victory as the result of a “deal”. At that point, ONP disliked the Democrats (with 7 seats) more than the Greens (2 seats). The Greens only became “public enemy number one” with the demise of the Democrats and it is possible that ONP voters would have preferred them ahead of the Dems.

And *which* years did the Greens benefit from GVT? One seat in 2001, none in 1998, Bob Brown got up in 1996 on Lib prefs, but the remaining candidate was from the ALP. Same thing with Dee Margetts in 1993. Jo Valentine made it in 1990 on ALP prefs, but again the remaining candidate was a Lib. Mostly they have benefited from compulsory preferences, not GVT.

Finally, the minor parties have been acting self-righteous for years, it’s not a sudden thing :^)

My point is, the dems and greens benefited from GTV deals for years and didn’t complain – they lose one seat to it and suddenly begin acting self-righteous.

David Walsh. The Democrats did preference Family First, but their preferences were not the crucial ones. The crucial preferences which pushed Family First above the Greens was the Labor Party’s dodgy preference deal.

Emily, The Greens did not win any Senate seats that election where One Nation scored a large vote.

I for one am appalled at what the government is pushing. I believe that we are fast heading the way of the US, where each party will use it’s terms in office to change electoral laws to gain re-election.

What a sad state of affairs.

It was actually the Democrats who played a key role in Family First’s success. Without their preferences in Victoria, Stephen Fielding would not have been elected.

The Australian Democrats had Family First pretty high in their ticket preference list in other states too. If they’re perplexed or disgruntled at FF’s success, then they really are a stupid bunch.

When you move house, you do all those things like change your phone, the gas, the electricity, send letters to the banks, get a re-direct on the mail, and maybe fix up your drivers licence.

One thing you can’t do is change your electoral enrolment, as by law you have to wait till you have lived there for a month. That is why in many states whenever someone does move and change their utilities and drivers licence, the electoral authorities have data share agreements that generate letters reminding people to change their enrolment.

What could be done is something like in New Zealand, where even though the rolls have closed, voters can fix up their enrolment any time up until polling day. Like here, enrolment is compulsory in NZ. If you have not fixed up your enrolment, you can still vote, by telling the electoral authorities of your address, you can still vote using a special (or declaration) vote. In NZ, they also give plenty of notice of the election, providing plenty of time to fix up your enrolment anyway.

By the way, the Minister keeps referring to the ACT, NSW and Tasmania as jurisdictions where they close the rolls the day the writ is issued. Well, we already know the dates of the elections in the ACT and NSW. And Tasmania may close the rolls on the day the writ is issued. But the Electoral Act specifies there must be 5 days between the dissolution and the issue of the writ, the period when people fix up their enrolment.