Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

Oh, he's here. Good—where is he? Senator Birmingham, the interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 federal election covered many issues. To maintain the pretence that that was an adequate consideration of the issues that this government has done a fix with the Greens behind closed doors to create this bill—and even when I say create this bill, you have got to look at what this bill is once you wade through four explanatory memorandums. It has shifted because of the farce of process that occurred in its creation.

I would like to remind the Senate that the genesis of the considerations that the minister refers to when he tries to misrepresent Labor's position was the joint parliamentary committee's consideration of the conduct of the 2013 federal election. So let me remind senators of what some of the issues in the conduct of that election were. They are quite pertinent to what we will deal with during the course of what, unfortunately, for senators will be a very lengthy committee stage consideration of a bill. We would rather it occurred another way. We would rather it did not involve senators staying here in the chamber day and night to address these matters but we will not leave these matters unaddressed.

In the very brief inquiry we had whilst we had the AEC—and let me remind senators of how that process worked—I think Senator Conroy had two or maybe three turns of five minutes of questions. Senator Macdonald described that as an 'adequate inquiry'. Labor had two or three goes of five minutes of questions. In fact, when I sought to clarify a point the chair tried to rule me out during Labor senators' time. Fortunately, the chair was subsequently reminded that it was Labor's time according to his own rules, as limited as those rules were, and Senator Conroy was happy to cede to my request again that the department appear so that we could ask them questions. But I stray from the main point.

The main point is that, if you go back to the Interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 federal election, you go back to what the issues were. Do senators recall what problems the AEC had at that point? They were not just the issues over microparties. There were serious problems with how the election had been conducted. This was why when the AEC appeared before the farce committee they were very keen to stress that they needed at least three months to implement the changes that were before the committee at that stage. We do not know yet—hopefully, the minister will be able to enlighten us during this discussion—what the AEC's view is with respect to the implementation of the further amendments to the bill. We do not know that. The AEC may actually feel that they require further time because the government has now proposed to make more significant changes. We do not know. Hopefully, the minister will be able to enlighten us here on what consideration has occurred since the government considered JSCEM's recommendations. That will be another area I will come to.

I would like to understand after we went through that farce of a process—where we were required to consider the inquiry in such a limited time frame—what subsequently occurred within government. We are told—and I think Senator Rhiannon might have signed on to this one too—first up in the interim report that JSCEM had been concerned about logos on ballot papers. They were concerned that they had not had an opportunity to assess the associated copyright and printing ramifications. The committee went on through some process of imagination, because there was not any material before us. Maybe these members of the committee were party to some process we did not have an opportunity to participate in. The reflection of the majority of the committee there was: 'The committee is pleased that these issues have been addressed to the government’s satisfaction.' How do we know that? There was no discussion before the committee of that point. The department did not appear before the committee on that point.

So we go back to an issue that had been highlighted in the Interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 federal electionthe implications of including logos on ballot papers—and what do we find? We find even the majority of the committee say that they had not had an opportunity to assess the associated copyright and printing ramifications. In reality what this report should have said was that we still have not considered it. Instead, somehow something happened that implanted this idea—because there was no evidence and there were no submissions before the committee that covered these points—and suddenly, 'The committee is pleased that these issues have been addressed to the government's satisfaction.' As far as I can see, the discussions in the four explanatory memorandums do not cover this point, so where did it come from? It is a sham. It seriously is a sham.

There will be concerns about how logos will be used. We do not know what processes ultimately the AEC will apply. I have previously made the point that you may have political parties who are not quite as proud of their logo as the Australian Greens and feel that under these new rules it is appropriate to change their logo. Will there be sufficient time to do that? Will the AEC facilitate that process? We do not know.

Of course, that is not the only thing we do not know. There are the other things we do not know that I was referring to earlier on on behalf of Senator Rhiannon, because she was really concerned about this policy issue. We really do not know what the implications here might be. Senator Rhiannon asked the AEC:

As you know, there is a requirement in the bill that people should number a minimum of one to six boxes. Should there be a penalty for anyone advocating to just vote 1 above the line?

Quite rightly, and predictably, the AEC said that that is a matter of policy, that is a matter for government. This bill has already been through the House, by virtue of a deal done between the Greens and the government. It has already been through a process where they have made further amendments. Commentators have said: 'What? Are you serious?' It has already been through that stage and in the Senate inquiry we had Senator Rhiannon asking a really basic policy question that should have been considered in the discussions that the Greens had with the government.

This is even more astounding. We should be able to find a policy response to that question. The AEC was the wrong place to go to ask but maybe that explains why Senator Rhiannon sidled up with the government members of the committee and prevented a very reasonable request—attempted three times—for the committee to have the opportunity to question the department. She herself needed to question the department because you cannot find the answer to that question. When you look at the bill, when you look at the explanatory memorandum, when you look at the government first and second reading speeches, the answer to that basic question is not there.

The other questions that were asked in the committee inquiry covered things such as what modelling had the AEC done or was the AEC aware that the government had conducted modelling. At least, according to the AEC, there was not any so we really do not know the implications of even just that basic question that Senator Rhiannon asked. We do not know whether there should be a penalty for someone advocating to just vote 1 above the line. We do not know how many people might vote just 1 above the line under the new arrangements. We have not seen any mapping or any indication of what consideration the government has applied.

We have seen lots of signs, which I will come to later, about what a farce this process has been. In fact, I would have to suggest it has been the most astounding government consideration process that I think I have seen in 20 years in the Senate. That we struggle so hard to find any description of the government's policy rationale is incredible. Partly it is incredible because it has been through a process with the Australian Greens where a rationale has not been required. Now perhaps if the government had gone through the proper process and had sought to engage all participants in the Senate then they would have been challenged to provide an adequate policy rationale. But unfortunately, in the backroom discussions with the Australian Greens, it seems that challenge did not occur. What else did not occur, which is an example of the inexperience or the ineptitude—let me be generous and say—of both parties, is the consideration of what process might need to follow. Because with that lack of a policy rationale and without some sense of what process you are then going to undergo, we end up in this chaos.

I will be generous to the Greens here because opposite me are the government of the day. It is actually the government's job to have a sense of how they want to progress their agenda. But, instead, we have the chaos that is this. Why do we have that? We have that because they have driven down this tunnel sort of thinking they want a double dissolution, sort of thinking they only want a double dissolution if they can change the way the Senate works, sort of thinking they want the ABCC but do not know when they are going to have the time or opportunity to deal with that. Their whole management of procedure in this place has been fraught.

Of all the scams, the most recent was Senator Cormann's description—and we had it from Senator Birmingham too but he was just trotting out the earlier lines—of the 20 hours: 'There has been 20 hours of debate on this'—what a fraud. This bill has been before the Senate since we commenced the second reading. Because those opposite have been caught up in a sham of a process and have not managed the process appropriately, it has not proceeded in the way it might normally. If there is an appropriate attempt to engage in an open and transparent process with all senators—crossbench, Greens, opposition and government—it is strange how easily legislation then does progress. There will not be arguments about whether we should receive messages and how they should be managed. There will not be debates about what a fraud the committee inquiry was. And there will not be protracted, lengthy committee stage considerations, where all the latest that should be addressed by the department or the government— (Time expired)