Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The comments that were made by Senator Cormann are a cheap shot to obscure the fact that the Special Minister of State has been avoiding answering questions from multiple senators for many hours, from Senator Collins and other opposition senators—and indeed from crossbenchers, Senator Day, who has been sitting here for several hours; and Senator Muir, who has been in the chamber throughout this long, long dark night—that go to the legitimate and important questions of the content of this bill and the government amendments. In light of Senator Cormann's contribution, I thought it would be a good idea to familiarise myself with some of the history of filibustering of debates. It is always used in such pejorative way—

Honourable senators interjecting—

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Senator O'Neill, resume your seat.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The CHAIRMAN: Senator O'Neill.

I will take the interjection of the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, who said, 'Oh, we should just go home.' That is exactly what this government would like us to do: to just go home, just let this filthy deal between the Liberal Party, the Nationals and the Greens go through without the scrutiny it deserves. But we will not allow that to happen. We will stay here and make sure that scrutiny is provided. That is why I think it is important to understand what the purpose of this long conversation through the night is.

Of course, filibustering is something we often associate with our counterparts in the United States of America, in the Senate there. The filibuster technique is a relatively common experience in the United States, and it can be used merely as a delaying tactic to prevent the passage of legislation. We know that in the current political landscape Senator Ted Cruz is subject to scrutiny right across the world at the moment. He made a very famous 21-hour-long speech in the Senate, on 24 September 2013. So perhaps we are only just warming up. But one thing is, we are not going home, Senator Brandis. We are not going to let you just go through this process without the scrutiny you deserve.

The word 'filibuster'—I am indebted to Campbell Rhodes at the Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House for his research here—comes from the Spanish word 'filibustero', which itself is derived from a Dutch word, 'vrijbuiter', which means pirate or privateer. Some people might think that is appropriate for an act that effectively hijacks the legislature for a period of time, and Senator Cruz's attempt, while not a genuine filibuster in that it was not going to delay any legislation, made headlines around the world because he read from, among other things, that popular children's story by Dr Seuss, Green Eggs and Ham. We have not seen anything of that ilk this evening. We have had attempts by many senators to actually get serious questions on the record and to get some answers to those questions. Indeed, the very important question is, will it be legal or illegal at the upcoming election, after this piece of legislation gets through, to hand out a how-to-vote card that says 'Just vote 1'? We cannot get a straight answer out of the relevant minister. He simply refuses to answer that question.

Senator Cruz's effort in the Senate of the US was possible because the rules of the American Senate actually do not require speakers to stay on topic. Mr Rhodes highlights a great filibuster in the Australian parliament that occurred in 1918, when Senator Albert Gardiner, the Labor leader in the Senate, spoke for an exhausting 12 hours and 40 minutes, from 10 pm on 13 November until the following morning. So, we have our own particular and important democratic history to review this evening. And I thought, it is the pre-dawn hour, the deepest, darkest part of the night. This is sometimes called the witching hour, just before the dawn, and there is a dastardly deed being cooked up, in the tradition of Macbeth, with the participants. We have the witches reframed this year. Instead of three old hags we have the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Greens, throwing bits into the mix, cooking up this ugly spell to cast across the nation, put them all in the soma zone, knock out the consciousness of Australia and just have 25 per cent of Australian people's votes disappearing into the rubbish bin of history. That is what we are fighting here tonight, and we will not relent in our attack on this shameful attack on the democracy of this nation.

Let's return to that fateful night in 1918—the 12 hour and 40 minute contribution from 10 pm by Senator Albert Gardiner. And senators might begin to see some more relevance here. I know the other side are mocking it, in their sleep deprived state here, where they pretend they are leading the nation. This might provide them with a bit of education, because there is a parallel between the speech of Senator Albert Gardiner and what we are attempting to undertake tonight, and that is that he was speaking on the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which introduced preferential voting, and he read the entire bill to the chamber as his fellow members did what has been going on here tonight. Some dozed, some strolled off for a bite to eat and some stayed. And I do want to acknowledge in this contribution that there is one member of the general public, an unknown observer, who has sat here through the entire evening to watch this debate unfold. He is an unknown watcher, but his symbolic presence is very powerful. While the rest of Australia sleeps, some people will be watching—perhaps not the Fairfax journalists, who are fighting their own fight now. But this is a debate that should be watched, and it is one that should not be cut short by the dirty deal that is being undertaken by those opposite.

Senator Gardiner, in his contribution in 1918, nearly 100 years ago, did not actually speak continuously for 12 hours, because he was frequently, as I indeed have been in my contribution this evening—this morning; I do not know quite what to call it—in this witching hour, interrupted frequently. Nonetheless, his mammoth effort resulted in a new standing order being adopted the following year limiting speech times to 20 minutes. I went back and familiarised myself with some of the Hansard of Senator Gardiner's efforts, and I was struck by some interesting comparisons that are relevant the current debate. Gardiner started his filibuster in response to the government of the day trying to gag debate on an electoral bill—the original Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. This is quite salutary, really, so those on the other side should pay attention. And I am glad their guffawing has stopped for a moment, because what they are attempting to do here is no joke. This is not a laughing matter. This is an abuse of process of the Senate at every level. It was abuse at the inquiry level. It was abuse at the level of the mock meeting of the committee that was undertaken not far from here, in the Main Committee Room over on the other side of the building, when, with unseemly haste, they pushed through a fake inquiry.

And I note Senator Collins's comments earlier this evening. We have been standing up and asking for answers to questions on notice. People traipse through our office—good people of this country of Australia, lobbyists coming in and begging us to push the government to answer some of their core questions, and people from the childcare sector who were waiting for responses to reports, and people who represent the mentally ill in our community, who are suffering incredible cuts at the hands of this government, and people who ask why the government will not respond to the report that has been with them for 18 months. But instead of 18 months, while these people wait for a response to this important piece of legislation, instead of handling this significant piece of legislation with some respect, they let other reports languish.

Government senators interjecting—

Personal barbs from the other side might provide some entertainment for them, but I am here, with the Labor Party, standing up for the principles we believe in and the scrutiny that should have been allowed to happen with this bill. To understand the impact of what this is doing to our country is worth paying attention to.

Senator Gardiner, in his filibuster, in response to the government trying to gag debate on the original Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, was responded to by Senator Pearce, the Minister for Defence at the time. He moved that so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through all its remaining stages without delay. Senator Pearce said:

The Government propose that if this motion is assented to, the first reading, which is a purely formal stage, shall be taken to-night. and that then the Minister shall make his speech in moving the second reading, after which the debate shall be adjourned until to-morrow. There is justification for this course in the fact that the Bill contains no principles that are new to the community. All its principles are well understood, and many of them are in operation in various States of the Commonwealth. Honorable senators are, in fact, thoroughly familiar with the provisions of the Bill, and the debate on the second reading may therefore very well proceed to-morrow.

How many times this evening have we heard about the fact that when it comes to this bill all of its principles are well-understood—that is the kind of language we have heard from Senator Cormann—and that many of them are in operation in the states of the Commonwealth, like New South Wales and Queensland. The contempt that this government has for this chamber is that they are just asking everyone here to wave it through, to let them have way, to wave this through without scrutiny.

At 10:30, in response to this arrogant attempt to bring on the bill, Senator Gardiner commenced his attack. He said:

I ask the Minister not to adopt this unreasonable attitude in regard to such an important measure as a Bill providing for the representation of the people. After 10 o'clock at night …

I draw the Senate's attention to the time on the clock now. It is five minutes to five and we are going to continue this process of holding this government up to scrutiny. This is what Senator Gardiner said:

… we are asked to suspend the Standing Orders in order to allow of the Bill being passed through all its stages with the rapidity desired by the Government. The Minister, in moving this motion, gave no information which would justify such a drastic action. The existing system of conducting elections has stood the test of sixteen years' experience, and surely at 10 o'clock at night the Government can well afford to deal with an alteration of the system in the ordinary course of parliamentary business without resorting to the extraordinary procedure of suspending the Standing Orders. The Minister said that the Bill introduces no new principle.

That is what we have heard here again this evening in this shameful and embarrassing pushed by the government. Senator Gardiner said:

I venture to say that the explanation of the Government's desire for expedition in dealing with the Bill is that it contains a new principle which they wish to hurry into adoption in time for a coming by-election.

And here we go. That is the very great principle of securing the representation—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Brandis declares that he is transfixed. But I will tell you what has gone on. A transgression is happening here. A transgression of justice, a transgression of scrutiny and a transgression of democracy in this nation with this unseemly drive to push this legislation through. It is an embarrassment that will go on through history. In 100 years people will reflect on this night and they will see the similarity to the disgraceful way in which the abuse of power of government is being used this evening.

Senator Gardiner continued:

Has the Minister overlooked the fact that it is because he desires this new principle to operate in an election that will take place in a few weeks he has moved for the suspension of the Standing Orders? Is it not beneath the dignity of the National party and of Australia's Parliament that the Standing Orders should be suspended at this hour of night in order that for party purposes a split vote at the coming election may be avoided.

Here Senator Gardiner belled the cat— (Time expired)