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

No, no. That said, we accept that at least those present do not support these reforms. Of course we accept that. It is really important to remember, though, that we believe in these reforms. We believe that voters should be able to determine where their preferences go. I get that we have different views on that. So when you actually believe that a reform like this is good for democracy and needs to be in place in an election, why would you say, 'Let's have an election under a dodgy set of rules, and then we'll fix it after that election—we'll fix it later'? Why would you say that? You would not. If you believe in these reforms, what you are saying to the Australian people is: 'We think this is important for democracy and it should be in place at the next election.' So the whole premise of your argument is starting from the wrong place. We believe in these reforms. We think they are good for democracy. And they need to be in place at the next election—whenever that is.

Again, let us talk about the start date. The start date was put there with the sole purpose of ensuring that the Australian Electoral Commission is ready when these reforms are done. That is what that start date is there for—to ensure that the Australian Electoral Commission has the three months that they need to ensure that they are prepared to conduct the election fairly. So that is the simple answer. That is the reason we have a start date at that point, and we have said that, whenever the next election is, we want these reforms in place, knowing all the while that if the government wants to go to a double dissolution under the current system, which we think is flawed, they have the capacity to do so. As Senator Simms pointed out to me just a moment ago, rather than us handing the keys to the government for a double dissolution, those keys are in the Constitution. The government can go to a double dissolution at any time should they want to.

I have a couple of other points. I will not keep us much longer. On the issue of the outcome of an election, Senator Wong seems to think she knows what the outcome of the next election in the Senate is going to be—what is it, four or five months out from an election? I have been in a few tight contests, as we heard before, and I have lost a few. There are people who cannot tell you the outcome of the Senate election after the votes have been cast and we are three days into the process. There are people who cannot tell you what the outcome is after people have voted. And we have Senator Wong saying, 'I can tell you three or four months out what the election result will be.' Really? Are we expected to believe that? That is utterly remarkable. I also think it is very defeatist. It is an incredibly defeatist attitude. Stand up and show some fight. Stand up and have a bit of courage to take on the government. Show some fight; have a bit of courage, because at the moment you are rolling over and saying, 'We have no chance at this election.' Well, we do not believe it. We do not buy it. We are fighting hard to make sure that within the Senate we have the numbers to ensure that we get stronger action on climate change and to ensure that we do everything we can to stop treating people who are seeking refuge and asylum in the way we are currently.

I will finish with a few remarks on the role of the trade union movement, seeing as Senator Wong made a number of comments about that. Yes, it is true: we are disappointed that the leadership of the ACTU have expressed their point of view. But let me also say this: we have been contacted by many, many unions—

An honourable senator interjecting—

We have not spoken to all of them, because I can tell you—and I do not want to embarrass them—there are unions who are very, very disappointed with the actions of the ACTU. Let me also say that we have had members, as well as senior union officials, contacting us and telling us how incredibly disappointed they are that their union fees have been used in a way that is effectively there to try to support the interests of the Labor Party rather than the interests of ordinary working people. That has been disappointing. The union movement have clearly got some thinking to do.

Honourable senators interjecting—