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

Oh, every morning! They love to meet! I skipped most of our party room meeting yesterday morning so that I could have the opportunity to hear some of the evidence. I note that not all members of the parliament had the luxury or the opportunity to do that. It took most of yesterday, while parliament was sitting, for people to try to get on top of what evidence was given. This committee process would be better if there was more time and more opportunity to make amendments and to digest the legislation.

Again, what was so strange was the decision to not allow the Department of Finance to present evidence to the committee. What we are being told and what we believe is the case—and this is from whistleblowers from within the department; we have not had a chance to get to the bottom of it and we will not have the chance to get to the bottom of it until the estimates process—is that the draft legislation here was drafted solely by the Department of Finance, the department that Senator Cormann is the minister for, and handed over to PM&C. The complaint from the people in PM&C is that this is why it was so poorly drafted and required, hours after it had been introduced, eight amendments just to make it workable. Prime Minister and Cabinet do not feel that they had the opportunity to make this workable legislation. Eight amendments were quickly rushed through to make the bill somewhat more workable. I understand from what Senator Cormann told us moments ago—and again, obviously, this is in the chair's report—that there will be a further amendment about below-the-line voting. There are things we can do to further improve these types of legislation, and that is why we need to have a vigilant and longer process to analyse this.

Let's be clear: when it comes to legislation there are always going to be senators with different views. I suspect that someone like me is not, at the end of the day, necessarily going to see eye to eye or 100 per cent with other senators in this chamber on this legislation. I accept that. But I believe that, while we are never going to agree completely, we can always use the processes that we have to make sure that we have better and improved bills. We can make legislation better, even if it is not legislation we would necessarily ourselves think is the best piece of law.

There is a dissenting report which I want to touch on. It was produced by the Labor senators. Again, I want to commend the work that was done. I note that this was done in an incredibly short period of time. They only had from 9 pm yesterday evening when they were aware of what the chair wanted to do until early this morning to present an alternative position. I note that what Labor has said is that there is an acceptance that there is reform that can and should happen. I do not think there is any dispute on that. I felt that Ross Gittins put this really well. He said it is a non sequitur to say that there needs to be reform and that this is the only reform that can happen. You can have the argument that there needs to be reform and actually present other reforms or what I believe are better reforms. I think the Labor JSCEM inquiry dissenting report accurately outlines some concerns and some of the proposals about what we can do to improve the voting system.

The last time we had reform in this area was in 1984. That was 31 years ago. I think we all accept the fact that societies change, voting systems change and how people participate changes. After 31 years, you should look at how you can improve pieces of legislation and make laws better. Again, I think there is a big debate that needs to be had about how people participate and vote. I think there is an exciting space in different participatory models about online voting and people using tablets and other types of technology. This is the exciting part of new technology and participation that we should be looking at. Frankly, there are those who would argue for the paper system from 100 years ago. Things change, societies change and how people participate changes, so the voting system should change.

I accept all of that. I think that is a very exciting space to be in and I think it is something we should be looking at. In fact, I have personally gone even further and said that we should have a bigger debate about how old people should be when they vote as well. It is a very contentious position that many people do not support, but I think it is worth having a debate about whether the voting age should be lower and whether that would encourage more participation or whether those people are not ready to be involved. All of those questions are part of a healthy debate.

That is not what we are having here, though. What we are having here is a shortened process with laws that are effectively being rammed through this place in a very, very quick manner. I am really worried that, if rumours around this chamber are correct, very soon we are going to start seeing gags. We are going to start seeing the opportunity to have some of this debate removed. I believe that there is a lot that should be explored, especially in relation to just how much information was presented in a four-hour inquiry. The government has already turned around and admitted there needs to be amendments and changes. If there was actually a proper process to look at these laws I believe we would find new areas where this draft legislation could be improved.

The amendment that is being proposed by Senator Collins, as I understand it, goes to when the message from the House should be received. It looks at presenting a date in May for that to happen. The purpose of that, rather than us debating this bill when we have not had the opportunity to have a proper deep analysis and are effectively rushing contributions because of time constraints, is to allow everyone to go away, go back to their communities, hear from their electorates and come back and have a fulsome, proper debate about this.

Senator Cormann says the government are not looking at an early election and this is not all part of some double-D strategy of going to an election on the CEFC bill, the registered organisations bill and, perhaps, the ABCC bill. I have seen very differing reports on whether or not the ABCC bill is already a trigger at this point. That seems to be a grey area. Frankly, I certainly suspect the government may introduce it again in the next little while. They have certainly foreshadowed that they will. Based on previous voting patterns, you would assume that that would be a trigger as well. Whether it currently is or not seems to be a point of legal contention, but I doubt that will matter by 2 July.

But you have these three triggers at this point in time. If the government is not looking at a double-dissolution election and if the government is not looking to use these laws for a double-dissolution election then I do not see why this is being rushed through before the budget. If they were genuine, I do not see the rush. I do not see why there is a rush to have this ready to be used in August if it were not also being prepared to be used for a July election. The talk of this early election is not coming from the Labor side of politics. It seems to be constantly backgrounded by government ministers and government MPs. They are proposing the date of 2 July, and I think I have also heard 9 July floated around the place. One or two people have even said 16 July. But there does seem to be a view held by the government that they are preparing themselves for a 2 July double-dissolution election, and they want to have these laws in place to be used for that double-D. That is what is happening. A double-dissolution election, at this point in time, would certainly be based on two triggers—that is, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation bill and the registered organisations bill—with the ABCC bill probably being another.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

I will take that interjection. Senator Whish-Wilson said, 'That's just not true.' These are matters of fact. It is a matter of fact that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation bill is a potential trigger for a double-dissolution election. That is a matter of fact. It is a matter of fact that the registered organisations bill is already a potential trigger for a double-dissolution election. The only grey area, from a legal perspective—there is, as I understand, differing advice on this—is whether the ABCC bill is already a trigger at this point or needs to be formally rejected one more time by the Senate.