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

It says everything about this government that their most urgent bill on the even of an election is not about helping Australians but about helping themselves. It is not about jobs for Australians; it is about jobs for coalition and Greens senators.

The Senate has just spent, a day, a night and a part of the day debating the coalition-Greens deal on Senate voting—a timetable forced on it by a government and a prime minister determined to get the keys they need for a double dissolution and a Greens leader and party that are happy to oblige. We have had an unreasonable and chaotic timetable on this legislation which has been forced on us by this government by its failure to have a proper process, because it is so desperate and so determined to get the keys for a double dissolution in the time frame it wants.

The Senate did last night go through a very lengthy process where many things were disclosed, including, for example, that the minister has failed to rule out just-vote-1 advocacy and confirmed marking just 1 above the line would be formal. I think anyone who understands the voting system will understand the implications of that. We also have seen demonstrated here in this chamber a new phase of the relationship—a new dimension of closeness-between Senator Di Natale's Greens party and the Liberal Party. I will not go through all the ways in which that has been demonstrated as they voted with the coalition time after time, but it was most clearly demonstrated by one of the recent votes this morning, where the Greens political party, who have been arguing for greater transparency in political donations, have voted against their policy for greater transparency on a bill they knew the government had to pass. We could have had political donation reform today.

Senator Cormann has spoken of the lengthy debate. It has been a lengthy debate, though not as lengthy as the CPRS debate, which I think was some 63 hours and in which he was also a participant. There has been a lot of talk about principle in this debate. I say to the chamber and to those listening: this has never been a debate about principle; it has been a debate about short- and long-term political advantage. The short-term advantage is the ability and tools to go to a double dissolution, and the long-term advantage is what this means for the Greens and the coalition It will mean the votes of up to three million voters effectively going in the bin or being corralled to one of the major parties or the Greens. This legislation is about purging the Senate of minor parties and independents. We in this place—and I would remind people of this—have acknowledged two things that are very important. The first thing is that Labor would be advantaged by this but we do not think the national interest would be. The second point we have made is that, yes, there are issues that should be addressed in voting reform in relation to preferences but this bill before us creates a whole set of different problems and a whole set of implications for the franchise.

We on this side do not support this legislation. We think it is very disappointing that the Australian Greens are risking, over time, the coalition getting a working majority in this place—and we all know from the 2014 budget what their agenda will be and what that will mean to working people and marginalised people in this country. In that light, and bearing in mind the time, pursuant to standing order 122(3) I move the third reading amendment standing in my name on sheet 7894:

Omit "now", substitute "this day 6 months".