Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very proud of our democratic system. It is open and transparent and free from corruption—so much so that we take it for granted. In many parts of the world, our democracy and our electoral processes are envied. Australia has assisted newly emerging democracies with their electoral systems. In recent times we have supported Timor-Leste with the establishment of open, fair and transparent systems, including their electoral system. As a country, we have not shied away from calling out countries who do not have open and fair electoral systems. This has included bans in the case of South Africa, in the old apartheid days, and, more recently, Iran. We have, as a Commonwealth country, called other countries to account and called into question their election results and, in the case of Zimbabwe, agreed with other Commonwealth countries to their suspension from the Commonwealth group.

As well as calling countries to account, we have assisted to ensure that democratic processes are established. On a recent parliamentary delegation to Zimbabwe, I was impressed to see that Australia had assisted with their very efficient Hansard service. I am sure our own clerks in this place assisted with the training of Zimbabwe Hansard staff and, despite the country having a very, very long way to go in terms of real democracy and open and fair elections, they at least have an accurate and efficient Hansard system, again thanks to Australia.

I am, for the term of this parliament, part of the Australian delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the IPU. The IPU is the international organisation of parliaments. It was established in 1889. The IPU is the focal point for worldwide parliamentary dialogue and works for peace and cooperation among peoples and for the firm establishment of representative democracy. There are 167 member countries and 10 associate members. At the last meeting, in October 2015, we had a wide-ranging debate on parliamentary processes which add to transparency. Once again, some of our parliamentary processes, particularly Senate estimates and the Parliamentary Budget Office—established by Labor—were the envy of many, many IPU member countries.

Of course this does not mean that we should not review our processes, including how MPs and senators are elected, but any reform must be open and transparent and have widespread support—support from a cross-section of the Australian voting community. The Australian Labor Party recognises legitimate concerns about the laws governing the election of senators and the outcome of the half-Senate election in 2013. The unexpected outcome of the 2013 half-Senate election gave rise to concerns that the proportional representation system used in the Senate was broken and had become a problem. These concerns deserve an appropriate response. Unfortunately the bill currently before the Senate is not an appropriate response to those concerns.

If there is a problem with Senate voting laws, Labor believes that the appropriate response is for parliament to deal with it through a considered, principled and transparent process. Such a process should involve all the parties and unaligned senators to develop a solution which enjoys support across the political system. The outcome must be to prioritise, and be seen to prioritise, the democratic rights of the Australian people above all other interests, especially partisan self-interest. There can be nothing more important to public confidence in the parliament than the integrity of laws which dictate who is elected to the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 absolutely fails this test. This bill was not the product of any principled and transparent parliamentary process. It is a tawdry outcome of a filthy deal between the conservatives, the LNP government and the Greens. The government claims this bill implements the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its interim report on the conduct of the 2013 federal election, but this is simply not true. This bill is not the product of the JSCEM recommendations. It is the product of a filthy deal cooked up behind closed doors by the coalition and the Greens.

It has been interesting to listen to the debate tonight, particularly from the Greens Party, because they have not gone to any details to outline what is so important about this bill. They have used glib comments. They have talked about matters that are more than 10 years old, but have not satisfactorily explained to the Australian voting public what it is that their dirty deal will deliver.

The government for its part likes to say that this legislation at least implements the substance, or 85 per cent, of the JSCEM recommendations, but that too is also not true. This bill is a rip-off of the JSCEM recommendations, cooked up to serve the partisan interests of the Liberals, the Turnbull government and the Greens. It should come as no surprise that the leader of the Greens, said this a day or two ago about student politics. He is the one that has done this dirty deal with the government. Senator Di Natale has the same view about student politics as many of the government members do, in fact, probably all of the government members. Senator Di Natale said, 'I wasn’t interested in student politics'. He went on to say, 'People in student politics seem more focused on the game of politics'. This comment, said by the leader of the Greens Party, Senator Di Natale, could have been made by any Liberal-National party coalition member opposite. But this comment was made by Senator Di Natale, and it sums up the inadequacies of the Greens leader.

It is student politicians and student unions, who have been at the forefront of the fight against the Turnbull government's $100,000 degrees. Student unions have always been in the fight, whether it was the Vietnam War, the fight against the damming of the Franklin River or climate change—the list goes on. I am proud to say that many Labor members past and present were leaders of student unions.

Did the Greens leader, Senator Di Natale, sit back and let others do the fighting for his rights and entitlements while he was a student, whilst taking those hard-won student reforms for himself? To all of those students involved in student politics, take note: this is what the Greens really think; this is their view of you and this is the new direction under the leadership of Senator Di Natale.

But let us go back to the dirty deal. In a complex electoral system such as the proportional representation system that we use to elect senators, even minor changes can have a dramatic impact with serious unintended consequences. We have already seen that with the initial poor drafting of the bill. The filthy deal cooked up between the Liberals and the Greens is not designed to serve the democratic interests of the Australian people or ensure their will is reflected in the composition of the parliament.

The purpose of this legislation is to maximise the number of senators elected by the major parties, such as the Liberal Party, and established minor parties, such as the Greens political party and the new 'Nick Xenophon Team'. It is designed to exhaust preferences early so Independents and so-called microparties are deprived of votes. Its object is to prevent new players from entering the Senate, thereby entrenching the electoral dominance of existing players. The principal beneficiary of this new voting system will be the Liberal Party.

The Liberal Party's motivation for supporting this legislation is to achieve lasting electoral dominance in the Senate, to get the mandate that they think they have as part of the ruling class, to rule over and bring in draconian laws that hurt ordinary working Australians. They want to achieve a dominance as a conservative party and, over time, hope to maintain a lasting Senate majority in their own right.

Senator Xenophon sees this as his best chance to increase his own representation in this place, in particular through the corralling of his personally popular votes in South Australia.

Of course, Labor believes that Greens senators will pay a high price for this proposal. A double-dissolution election based on this legislation will spell the end of their political careers, particularly Senator Hanson-Young's and Senator Simms's. Over time, Senator Xenophon will take both the seats from the South Australian Greens currently on hold in this chamber. They will be looking for new jobs. Australians will be staring at a Senate controlled by the coalition.

What we have seen tonight in this place is that the Greens' gloves are well and truly off. We hear from some of the Greens—and in fact we have heard from their leader—how they purport to represent workers and trade unions in particular. Yet tonight in this place, we heard Senator McKim having a real go at the ACTU. He had a go on a number of occasions and told them they had taken their eyes off the ball. I am not quite sure what he meant by that. He also included the CFMEU in that broad sweep, and he used the plural when he was talking about unions, so obviously it is much broader than the ACTU and the CFMEU. He went on further to accuse the ACTU and the CFMEU of wasting members' money. And why is that? Because for once the gloss is off the Greens and they are feeling the heat from ordinary working Australians—hardworking union members—who are well and truly mystified that a party that purports to represent and look after the interests of trade unions is doing exactly the opposite, because there is a real danger in this place that we will go to a double-D and see the ABCC legislation, which the Greens have pretended to be opposed to, get up in this place and severely treat a section of the trade union movement—a section Senator McKim tonight thought it was absolutely okay to have a go at not once but twice, the CFMEU. That legislation will treat them and their members as different. They will be treated differently. The laws in that bill are harsher than what we use for terrorism in this country, and that is what the Greens have signed up to. Senator McKim absolutely let it slip tonight that that is his real view of unions.

First of all we have the leader, Senator Di Natale, joking around and saying that student politics is nothing but a game. I presume that when Senator Di Natale was at university he used all of those student services—student services hard won by student unions. Yet he accuses them of playing games. I do not know where he was when the Labor Party was out there fighting against $100,000 degrees, when we visited campuses, as we do, right across this country, went to O-days and absolutely supported student unions through and through. I do not know where he was when those same student unions were copping absolute flak from the Abbott-Turnbull government because they were standing up to the $100,000 degrees. And this is the group that Senator Di Natale accuses of playing games. What a disgrace. Student unions have been in the forefront of the fights against the Abbott-Turnbull government, and not just on issues of concern to students while they are at universities; they have been out there on issues such as climate change. But all of that seems to have passed Senator Di Natale by as he accuses student unions of just playing a game of politics. They play a real role and they have been at the forefront of those fights.

Obviously Senator Di Natale does not respect that, and what we have heard tonight from Senator McKim is that he does not respect trade unions. He stood in this place and twice had a go at the umbrella group, the ACTU. How disgraceful is that? He had a go at them and accused them of wasting money. And why is that? Because the Greens are feeling the heat from trade union members and from organised labour in this country. They are feeling the heat because they have sold out. No doubt the Greens will start feeling the heat from student unions, who the Greens leader accused of just playing games—of not being real about politics. It shows again how out of touch the Greens are when they make those comments.

As I said, their gloves are well and truly off. We are now seeing the true Greens, who absolutely do not support trade unions and certainly do not seem to support student unions. You do not have the leader of your party accuse student unions of political games, with the rest of you having to fall into line behind that, unless you are a true political party. Your leader has spoken, so that is what you all now think.

Of course, we saw that Senator Di Natale went even further when he outlined the ultimate goal for moving the Greens to the right, which was to form government with conservatives. He certainly did not rule that out. I am very pleased to say that about him and his Green colleagues—not just him but the whole party, these people who can talk the talk but certainly cannot walk the walk when it comes to trade unions or student politics. Now the senator is on the record as saying he would never say never about one day forming a coalition with the Liberal Party.

So the gloss is off. Our eyes are well and truly opened. This is now what they stand for. They stand accused of maligning trade unions that they used to support under previous leaders and accusing students of playing politics. We know they have jumped into bed with the government, but now they are ready to assume some kind of formal relationship with a conservative government, because they are so desperate to find a place for themselves. Any place will do, and certainly their leader, Senator Di Natale, must be feeling the heat from Senator McKim and Senator Whish-Wilson, who are biting at the heels of the leader because they all want to be leaders, to say that he would never rule out forming a coalition with the Liberal Party. Adjunct associate professor of politics at Monash University Shaun Carney said in an opinion piece:

Richard di Natale … has to be kidding. Your politics are defined as much by what you refuse to support as by the things that you propose. Politicians are supposed to say "never". That’s why people support them. This is particularly so for the Greens, whose supporters are especially purist—

and we have heard that in here tonight—

on such things as open borders, the undesirability of all military action, giving security agencies more powers and coal.

Of course, once they form their much closer relationship with the LNP, those policies will have to go by the wayside. They will just disappear.

It is appropriate to say 'never' and to actually talk the talk and walk the walk; to be who you say you are. It is not appropriate to pretend—to stand in this place and have a go at trade unions and student politicians, and for your leader to make comments that one day he wants to be in a coalition with the Liberal government. What do the Greens stand for? The dirty deal says it all. Senator Di Natale's leadership is in stark contrast to that of former Senator Bob Brown and, indeed, Christine Milne. This is a dirty deal. The Australian voting public will see it for what it is. It is a dirty deal and it should not pass. (Time expired)