Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will start off where I finished last night, talking about some of the concerns around the process being used to ram this legislation through. We saw the first result of the way this legislation has been dealt with when, the day after introducing the bill to the House, the government was forced to essentially rewrite the bill and move a number of amendments to fix a mistake. Only having been in the Senate for a year, I am not sure how standard the practice is to move amendments quite so quickly after a bill is introduced—that is, the next day—as the bill is being debated. From my understanding, it was that the government drafters must have read that ABC's Antony Green's blog where these errors were pointed out.

One of the amendments was to ensure that the votes were able to be counted. That is the result of the speed with which this electoral bill has been brought forward and the mistakes that have been made were clear on day one. The scrutiny of this bill has now been completed through the 4½-hour hearing this morning. I am not sure whether the committee is going to have the time to work through all of the submissions. I have seen a number that raise concerns and that identify other mistakes in this bill.

It seems incredible to me that we are in this situation where we are dealing with significant reform, the most major reform in 30 years, and the way the legislation was concocted. It was written with Senator Di Natale, Senator Xenophon and the Prime Minister sitting together, working out a deal that would in the long term be beneficial for all of them. The scrutiny allowed has been so limited.

We heard concerns from witnesses during the hearing of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters this morning. I have not caught all of today's hearings but I did see a number of people come before the committee this morning and raise concerns. I did manage to hear some of Mr Malcolm Mackerras's evidence before the committee. He raised some substantial concerns. His language was very strong in the evidence that he gave. He had concerns that predated this bill but he also had concerns on this bill. I am not an expert so I do not understand whether there is any merit to Mr Mackerras's arguments but the whole point of having a committee process is to be able to draw those out, consider them, take advice from others and work out whether or not it will have the impact that Mr Mackerras is alleging it will.

I have two major concerns that I will cover off today. The first one is around the process and the urgency. What is it that the Greens political party get out of this in the longer term? It looks to me like the short-term result of this will be the potential loss of a couple of senators. Why the sham process? Who does that benefit? Is it going to benefit democracy in the long run?

Will it ensure that Australians who vote in the upcoming election—whether it be a double dissolution election or a general election—will actually have their vote counted? Or will it mean that there will be millions of Australians who cast a vote and are going to be disenfranchised by the system that is being put in place in this deal by the coalition and the Greens? Those are the two reasons I do not support the way that this electoral bill has been dealt with. It is why the Labor party will continue to argue against it as it proceeds through the Senate.

The legislation is worthy of much greater scrutiny; a longer time frame and extended reporting date; the ability for people who want to provide submissions to provide those submissions; and for individuals or other political parties that might want to contest the next election to be given the opportunity and the time to appear and give evidence on their positions to the joint standing committee. When that joint standing committee process has had a reasonable time to consider the bill, to consult and to consider their report, that report should then be tabled and again people will have time to respond. That is the normal process that we have in this place for dealing with bills. This bill is significant and it is worthy of that level of scrutiny.