Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I think it is interesting that Senator Rhiannon accuses us of airbrushing history—but the less said about that the better, I suspect. They are not talking about the issue before the chamber; they have spent almost the entirety of their contribution talking about us. Senator Di Natale felt a need to talk about his photo shoot. That is fine. We can talk about his photo shoot if he wants. But I do not think criticism from the Australian Greens about not dealing with the legislation before us really holds much water after that contribution or the leader's contribution.

I want to make a number of points. I know that my colleague Senator Collins has more to say, so I will try not to take up too much of the chamber's time. The first point I want to raise is that it has been interesting to observe the right of the Liberal Party and the Greens both talking about choice and both talking about the freedom of the individual to make decisions. I suppose it is one of those things in politics sometimes. It is a circle. I make the point that, when it comes to electoral systems, the discussion and slogan about voter freedom and choice is actually one of the arguments people use for voluntary voting. We do not have voluntary voting in this country for very good reasons. You only have to you look at those electorates and nations where they do not have compulsory voting to see all the negative consequences. There is the corrupting power of money. I will not, because of diplomatic niceties, point to any particular candidates in the United States, but you see it in those jurisdictions where you have voluntary voting. You see the negative consequences of prioritising this slogan about choice and not thinking about the effect that sort of voting system has on the way democracy functions and the way the polity functions.

I would say to Senator Rhiannon and Senator Cormann—although I understand it more from him as he is a Liberal; I disagree with him, but at least it is consistent with his political philosophy—that this argument about choice is a good slogan but it fails to understand the consequences of a set of voting rules on the nature of our democracy and our representation. Everybody in this chamber knows the real reason why the Australian Greens and the Liberal and National parties are supporting this legislation is not that they have discovered some great new-found commitment to the principles of choice and individual freedom. It is because they think they will do better. That is why they are supporting this legislation. It is because they think they will do better. They know that this will make it harder for anyone else to come in. Being lectured by Senator Rhiannon, the senator who came into public life on 2.9 per cent or 2.6 per cent or 2.3 per cent—let's agree that it was under three per cent—about how dreadful it is that people get in on small primary votes through preferences is one of the more hypocritical sets of contributions I think I have heard in this place.

There was also a contribution about Labor being on the wrong side of history. What I would say to that is this: I would suspect that, if, as we anticipate, this leads to the coalition over time getting a working majority in the Senate and it implements the sorts of policies that we have seen fail here because of the nature of the chamber, people will look to this debate and to Senator Rhiannon and it will be very clear who was on the wrong side of history.