Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

There is always an element of theatre in politics, and it would be churlish and perhaps envious of me to question the media coverage that Senator Nick Xenophon gets. But no matter how good the performance at the theatre, it is always worth looking behind the curtain.

Firstly, we need to look at the question of leadership. On the Nick Xenophon Team website in the frequently asked questions section, it states that Nick Xenophon is both an independent senator and a party leader, but that is a contradiction in terms. The Nick Xenophon Team website frequently asked questions section also states:

His formal position in NXT is that of Convenor. He is a convenor of like-minded people who will take a common-sense approach to politics.

Which raises the question: is he independent? Is he leader of a party? Is he convenor? Is he all three? It sounds like a recipe for confusion and future division to me—confusion and division that a new political party cannot afford, and confusion and division that the nation cannot afford.

And looking at the NXT party's policy positions and whether they can be enacted, one frequently asked question on the website says:

Candidates and Nick will work as one team and their vote will be guided by the spelt out policy principles.

But if you click on the link for the Nick Xenophon Team Party rules—the 'Constitution of Nick Xenophon Team Incorporated', you will find in the objectives of the association under clause 3.8:

3.8 Conscientious Voting

To allow and encourage Parliamentary Members of the Association to vote according to their consciences.

This directly contradicts the information given on the Nick Xenophon Team website frequently asked questions and it raises real questions about whether Stirling Griff, the South Australian candidate for the Nick Xenophon Team in the Senate at the next election, will be bound on policies related to penalty rates and the car industry. The Nick Xenophon Team website on the assistance to the car industry states:

The automotive industry is such an industry, particularly for South Australia and Stirling Griff and Nick Xenophon are in furious agreement on this.

But in an InDaily article, titled 'Xenophon sidekick says he wouldn't support Holden handouts' on 20 October 2015, Mr Griff said:

"I would not be supporting giving automotive companies further subsidies."

"I do not find that the ideal way to go (but) I think Nick has a different view on that".

So is he bound to Nick Xenophon Team Incorporated policies or is he free to follow his own conscience?

These are critical questions in regards to penalty rates and car industry assistance. People could go into the polling booth thinking that they are voting for Nick Xenophon, independent senator, and find they get a representative from the Nick Xenophon Team Incorporated, voting according to the whim of their conscience rather than the stated policies of the Nick Xenophon Team party on these issues.

But apart from leadership and policies, the Nick Xenophon Team constitution gets downright weird. People should check out clause 33.1 of the rules, which canvasses the cessation of Senator Xenophon's own membership of the Nick Xenophon Team Party. How could you have a political party named after an individual who has resigned from the party? Given our recent experience with minor parties who hold the balance of power, this should raise real questions in the public's mind. But even more bizarrely clause 33.2 of the Nick Xenophon Team constitution canvasses the death or incapacity of Senator Xenophon. We are all mortal, but I do not think that anyone's death should be canvassed in the rules of a political party. It sounds like something out of a Woody Allen film.

These are critical public policy and organisational issues for any political party to answer. These rules apply to every political party. We all have to answer questions about our rules and our organisational wing. I encourage the public to peer behind the curtain and not just watch the show and the spectacle of political theatre.

See this speech in context