Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I was not going to make a major contribution to this debate at this stage, although I did want to thank Senator Conroy for his contribution and for arguing so eloquently in favour of these reforms. Let us just talk through some of the arguments that Senator Conroy used. He in fact referred to the 1999 infamous tablecloth ballot election where there were 81 parties running, and he described the process of feeder parties being organised in a way to distribute preferences. Of course, I utterly reject that the Greens were in anyway implicated in that. But he is absolutely right: that was the genesis of these reforms.

We know that there were 81 parties in that election. We know that Glenn Druery was involved. We know that many of those feeder parties were directing their votes and their preferences to other entities. That is exactly why we need the reform. He is absolutely right. That 1999 election was outrageous and it is in fact the reason that we need this reform—so we can stop those feeder parties from being set up and established with the express purpose of basically feeding votes to other entities that people do not vote for and who often hold completely contradictory policy positions. So I want to thank Senator Conroy for highlighting the 1999 election and for highlighting the reason that we do need this reform. That tablecloth ballot makes the argument better than we could possibly make it. Again, Senator Conroy makes a very cogent argument for why we need these reforms.

He then went on to say that this is about bums on seats for the Greens and in the same speech he then spoke about how we are going to lose South Australian senators. I just do not know how on the one hand it is about self-interest and, on the other hand, about losing senators. Those two things just do not add up. It is totally incoherent. It is also incoherent when you consider that he says that, as a result of us not being able to get preferences, we want to abolish a system that is designed for people to be able to harvest preferences.

I think he made a reference to campaigns that I was involved in and said, 'You were unable to get preferences and now you want to change the system.' But, hang on; I want to change the system so that we cannot harvest preferences and have people being elected on the back of these secret preference deals. Again, he is making the argument as to why we need to reform the system. The incoherence goes on and on. On one hand we are too close to the Liberal Party and, on the other hand, Senator Rhiannon is criticised for being too far left. Again, which one is it? The debate has become so irrational that we are having contradictory points of view being expressed within the same tirade.

Without wanting to go on much further, he talks about the notion of these reforms delivering a conservative Senate. I would just make the point that, if these reforms were implemented in 2010 and we had had them over the last two elections, we would still have a carbon price. We would have a Senate that was more progressive, that would have fought to retain a carbon price. We would not have TPVs for people seeking refuge and asylum in this country. That is what people voted for. Unfortunately, the voting system produced an outcome that was much more unpredictable and inconsistent with the wishes of voters. Under this set of rules in the last two elections, we would actually have a more progressive Senate and we would now have a carbon price. Why would the Labor Party be arguing against a set of reforms that would have allowed us to retain the carbon price?

The other argument is that this reform may lead to a double dissolution. Why is the Labor Party running so scared from an election? Show a bit of courage. Stand up to the opposition and show a bit of courage; otherwise, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. It becomes like the child who is hitting their head against a brick wall and saying, 'But, mummy, it hurts. I am hitting my head against a brick wall—