Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 115(2)(a) I move:

That the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 May 2016.

It is no secret that those of us on this side of the chamber have been frustrated and disappointed by the time frame in which this bill has been sought to be dealt with in this chamber. People here understand that these are significant changes to our electoral laws that speak to the character of this chamber and the character more broadly of our democracy. And it is true that it has generated an interesting public debate already about the nature of representation in a chamber such as this, which is characterised by proportional representation.

Only today I was asked by a member of the public, 'Can you explain to me what are the issues at stake in this debate around electoral reform that is being dealt with in the Senate?' I of course gave that person my perspective on the issues at stake, but it brought home to me the challenge we face, which is that the community has not had time to engage with these significant changes. I know that those opposite and those in favour of moving this bill through this place quickly have argued repeatedly that this was all dealt with in the JSCEM. Well, people in this chamber do not accept that. Many opposition senators feel that the bill differs substantially from the issues that were canvassed in JSCEM.

But, more significantly, everybody here understands that when a Senate committee starts investigating an idea in the abstract there is a certain level of interest from a particular group in the community that always takes an interest in those policy issues. It is, however, at the point of legislation that community interest is truly piqued. It is when the parliament decides that it is actually going to take a step towards implementing recommendations of a committee that the community start to understand that this is something that might impact them. And I would say to senators here that that is the point that has now been reached amongst ordinary people in the Australian community. It is for that reason that I consider that this bill does need to be referred for a proper legislative inquiry.

It may be that people want to make the argument, in response to this motion, that the more recent JSCEM hearing was adequate, but I just want to remind senators of the facts surrounding that process. A very limited time was made available for individual citizens to provide submissions to that committee. I do not believe we can have any confidence at all that the full range of citizens who may have wished to contribute to this debate were able to do so in the time allowed for the preparation of submissions to the JSCEM.

I would also make the very obvious point that four hours is a plainly insufficient period of time in which to conduct a hearing. It is hard to think of another piece of legislation that we just whipped through in four hours. We will deal soon, I understand, with Senator Fifield's media reform bill. That bill is going to have two days worth of hearings, to look at that piece of legislation. But when it comes to the most significant electoral reforms in 30 years, the time allocated is just four hours. I do not think you have to be a partisan participant in this debate to recognise that that is simply an unacceptable arrangement. One consequence is that there was an inadequate representation of the variety of views on this bill at that hearing. Inevitably, a four-hour hearing allows for a very limited number of witnesses. It allows for an even more limited number of questions to be asked of those witnesses, particularly in relation to a bill which is of such great interest to such a broad range of senators. Again, I would say to people in the chamber that you do not have to be particularly partisan to accept the argument that the procedures and scrutiny of this bill, which has only just come before this chamber, have been completely inadequate.

I conclude by drawing people's attention to the ludicrous reporting time frame. The hearing finished at 5 pm. The committee secretariat went away to write up the findings of the committee, and Labor senators had between 10 o'clock at night and 8 o'clock the next morning to review the findings of the committee. It is simply unacceptable, and I urge senators to accept the motion.