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

I thank Senator Xenophon for his contribution here. It is probably the first detailed response we have had which offers any detail of a policy rationale, except for the very first time Senator Cormann actually started to respond to some of Senator Wong's earlier questions in relation to the advertising campaign. I do not know what the change was but, whatever it was, it worked. Something prompted Senator Cormann to actually start providing: 'This is the government's rationale behind it and this is the education campaign that we're looking at.'

However, listening to Senator Cormann, he told us pretty quickly—and I am pretty confident, Senator Cormann, that it was the first time this information has been put before us in the committee stage. You read through it very quickly. You were saying that you are satisfied with the current penalty provisions in relation to the encouragement of an informal vote. But what we are talking about is not an informal vote. This is why we are trying to understand how you will see these provisions operating. As Senator Rhiannon raised in her original concerns—and, in fact, that is actually part of my mirth here, because Senator Rhiannon was the one who was raising these questions in the committee—she did not get an answer from the AEC. Minister, you have mischaracterised what occurred during the hearing. The AEC did not give a response anywhere near the response you just gave this committee. This is fresh information to the Senate committee.

I understand Senator Xenophon has actually been down this burrow. Again, to my mirth, the Greens ask a question and there is no answer and it apparently does not matter. But when Senator Xenophon burrows down and tries to get a detailed understanding the minister is capable of responding in a substantive way in the committee stage of the debate. In fact it is in a better fashion than what we were able to get from the minister at the table. But, hey—we are in a wild new world here. It is demonstrative of what the wild new Senate might look like after a further election.

But once again I would encourage the minister to go back and check the record after the sitting today because there have been a range of areas where he has misrepresented the early consideration of these matters. Several times he has referred to the evidence before JSCEM in a way which is not accurate. This is one of those again.

I was not solely picking on Senator Rhiannon when I went to this particular question, because I have already made the point and highlighted the fact that not having the department appear before the committee meant that there were significant issues we were not able to get a policy rationale response to. So, Minister, I will give you the answer from the AEC to Senator Rhiannon's question, because it was not as you suggested. Senator Rhiannon asked:

Should there be a penalty for anyone advocating to just vote 1 above the line?

Mr Rogers said:

That is absolutely not a matter for me, Senator. That is a matter for government.

There was no policy rationale. The AEC were attempting to maintain their nonpartisan and independent role and we did not have the relevant section of the department with us to try to get the policy rationale of government. We did not even have the relevant department before us to test the assertions, opinions or propositions put to us by the other witnesses. We obviously did not have the time to do that either, but we did not even have an opportunity to test.

So it is good to see that Senator Xenophon has gone off and had further discussions with some of the witnesses outside of the Senate inquiry process. It is good to see that Senator Xenophon can actually articulate a position in a way that the minister at the table has not been able to to date. It is probably also good to see that Senator Xenophon seems to have a clearer and better understanding of what occurred before the committee.

On that note, again referring to the AEC appearance, I go again to the mischaracterisation of the minister. I do not know if he is doing this deliberately; he is possibly referring to discussions he himself has had with the AEC when we talk about the 'about three months'. I remind him of the earlier point. Senator Rhiannon, for reasons unknown, was concerned about that three-month figure. She wanted to know if it could be shortened. The very, very clear advice we had from Mr Rogers was that the three-month period is already streamlined.

I also quoted earlier the comments from Mr Rogers where he said 'an estimated three-month minimum time frame'. Given what we know occurred with the AEC in the 2013 election and given how significant these changes are to Senate voting, I would have thought you would give them more than the bare bones, streamlined minimum. I would have thought that. Instead the minister is standing here in the committee stage pretending about an already streamlined minimum of three months. The minister just says, 'Oh, that three months? She'll be right.'

Minister, we are not asking you to micromanage this process; we are asking you to ensure that the AEC can maintain the integrity it needs to continue to conduct elections adequately in our democracy. We know there were issues and problems with the last election, and you will recall that was why the inquiry occurred. There were recommendations from the 2014 report about a range of things, including resourcing. Frankly, a one-liner in your first reading speech to the Senate saying, 'We will resource' is just not adequate.

What the Senate needs to understand, especially after the last election result and the difficulties and the problems that the estimates committee dealt with and that the JSCEM inquiry dealt with, is that the institution that we need to ensure can function with integrity will have adequate resources. So, why is the minister is unable to tell us what the broad indicative estimates were and that those estimates have integrity, given the further amendments that the government has now adopted following the evidence of the AEC to the committee that further changes would require a change to their indicative costs? And why is the minister unable to tell us how the government proposes to meet those costs? Indeed, the minister stands before us and says, 'I'm not going to micromanage it. It is the independent, non-partisan AEC.' But surely you can provide the Senate with more information than just, 'There will be an education campaign at some time before an election.'

Surely not only senators here but Australian voters have a right to understand that the education campaign will be adequate and that the AEC will be adequately resourced to conduct it. These are the answers that the minister is currently not providing. It might work with the Greens in a backroom deal to say, 'She'll be right mate.' Senator Di Natale might be happy to take your word or, as Senator Brandis often likes to say, 'Trust me.'

An honourable senator: You would have to be very gullible.

Well, you would, Senator. You would have to be pretty gullible. And that is my fear here. As we have dealt with this matter and as we have crossed a range of other issues, that gullibility is what we have seen time and time again.

The Greens complain that this has been a protracted process, but then they say to us, 'Oh, no, we're going to let it take all it needs to take.' So, when we stand here and ask questions that the minister is failing to answer adequately and highlight what should be an adequate answer from the government of the day, they don't like it. They then say, 'We've got to get to the substance.' But then they occupy the committee stage debate time with lectures about how the Labor Party should function. I almost think Senator Di Natale is going to come and save the Labor Party—