Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

I am quite interested by the response of the government to some of the comments that Senator Dastyari was making when he was suggesting that there has been widespread commentary in the media, stimulated by government leaks, that the government was planning a double dissolution election, and that the reason for the haste in dealing with this bill was to accommodate that matter. That is why the bill has had to be dealt with this week: so the Electoral Commission could have the three months that it had requested to put in place the changes from this legislation before an election was to be called on 2 July. That was the minimum period of time, as they have indicated. This question, as to why the timing is so critical for this, has been widely canvassed. That is why there has been the haste and why this unseemly action has been taken to produce a kangaroo court inquiry and a bodgie set of arrangements whereby the government has introduced a bill that it itself has had to amend because it did not actually take into account a number of measures. It had not considered the implications of its own recklessness in this regard. All of that, I think, is well canvassed.

What really surprised me, though, was the fact that when Senator Dastyari raised the prospect of a double dissolution two government ministers, across the chamber, repudiated the proposition that there would be a double dissolution. Senator Cormann and Senator Fifield repudiated the suggestion that there would be a double dissolution. I repeat that and ask: is it the case that you are repudiating that proposition? Is it the case that you are saying to this chamber that this is not about the government having the option of a double dissolution?

It is a very simple proposition, Minister: if there is not going to be a double dissolution, will the minister agree to Labor's amendment to delay the commencement of this legislation till 19 July 2016 so that it cannot be used as part of a double dissolution election? I have asked you a very straight question; I would appreciate an answer.