Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The finance minister did not listen to me, because my point was very clearly that people like me will fight tooth and nail. I was highlighting what the outcome of a loss of a double dissolution election would be. That is the message I am trying to deliver to the Australian people through the Senate.

Senator Simms interjecting—

Thank you, Senator Simms; I will take that interjection. The ABCC, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation being wiped and the registered organisations act are at this stage what it appears we will be going to a double dissolution election on.

Because of what these rule changes to the voting system would mean for the make-up of the Senate, on the current numbers, a double dissolution election is not good for those of us from the progressive side of politics. The changes that are being proposed are highly concerning for people like me, who believe that, if the government had had the numbers to pass their 2014 budget, it would have been terrible for the Australian public. They were not able to because of the make-up of the current Senate. Labor senators, working with Greens senators and a mix of crossbench senators, were able to block some of the atrocious and terrible measures. My worry and my fear are that the government's ideology and agenda have not changed and, should they have the numbers to achieve an objective like that, they would implement it.

There are those on the progressive side of politics who have argued and continue to argue, 'Frankly, all we effectively did was save the government from itself, from its worst behaviour, and the progressive side of politics should step away and let them pass these horrible laws, and then people will see how terrible they are.' I do not support that view. I have never supported that view. I believe that the people of Australia have elected progressive politicians for a reason, and that is to stand up and fight and stay true to causes. While governments may have a mandate of their own, those of us who were elected on the other side of the chamber are from political parties with mandates and agendas which we have a responsibility to stand up for and defend, and we certainly have a responsibility to stand up against matters that are not on our agenda.

I really worry about what all of this is going to mean and what a double dissolution election is going to mean for this chamber if these laws, as intended, give an unfair advantage to some of the more conservative elements of politics in eliminating what is a fairly disparate non-conservative Liberal-National vote on the right of politics. I also believe that the Senate is a better place when a wider range of views are expressed in this chamber, and I say that as a very proud Labor senator. I believe the debate in this nation has been enhanced by the likes of Senator Muir, Senator Leyonhjelm, Senator Day, Senator Wang, Senator Lambie, Senator Lazarus, Senator Xenophon and Senator Madigan, all of whom bring different experiences to this chamber. There are those who argue, 'If they are so great, people will vote for them under any system.' The reality is that, under the model that is being proposed, they would not get the start they got; they would not have the opportunity to be known and to present themselves. People are allowed to disagree with that; people are allowed to argue and to express a different view. They are entitled to do that and they will do that, and so they should.

I feel that a longer and better committee process would allow us to have a better and more transparent debate which would lead to better policy outcomes. I am very confident that the view I hold is correct. Other people have different views and, of course, they will express those views, but I feel that the opportunity to express the various views is limited—when the whole thing is dragged into nothing other than four-hour inquiry to be held tomorrow morning. The irony again is that, if the attempt here is to stop deal making and backroom deals, there has clearly been a deal made between the government and the Greens political party to achieve this policy outcome. I am not quite sure how that would justify or achieve the set objectives. A more open, transparent and consultative process will result—and I believe can result—in these laws being approved.

It is concerning when political parties choose to exercise their power in a winner-takes-all electoral system—

Senator Simms interjecting—

I will take that interjection: electoral reform is best achieved when everybody is in the tent together and when it is not about exclusion but inclusion. This is a fix where the government has decided it wanted to remove a pesky crossbench and retrofit it with a model to achieve that outcome. They have been very clever about it; they have clouded their language with the language of transparency and democracy. I believe that the Greens came to this from a genuine place. I do not believe that the motives here were necessarily all wrong or evil. I do not subscribe to that. What about the ramifications of this if it were used in a double dissolution election—as is openly being proposed by government MPs and ministers, and this is undeniable now; it is not speculation coming from our side of politics. Talk to any journalist in the gallery and they will tell you that government MPs and government ministers are walking the halls and openly saying, 'We have what we need to be able to go to a double dissolution on 2 July or 9 July or 16 July.' These dates are not coming from our side of politics, they are coming from government sources. The government believes it will result in a situation where there will be nine Green senators—