Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Just briefly, I would like to add a contribution on this as somebody who previously spent over 10 years in this chamber. I do think it's a significant precedent that's potentially being set here. When you're talking about conventions, they are obviously, by definition, fragile things. The conventions around pairing have managed to survive for, as far as I know, over a century, despite always being conventions. Once they are broken or fractured, even in the way that is being proposed, it is a dangerous path to go down.

I understand the argument that's been made by Senator Bernardi and Senator Hinch, but it does need to be said, firstly, that Senator Lambie was elected as part of a ticket, as part of a team, as part of a registered political party, under the Electoral Act, and in that sense she is no different from any of us here. In the coalition and the Greens, we all have the opportunity, under our parties' rules, to exercise conscience votes, to vote separately. So who is to say, with any of the individual senators who have resigned, or have been ruled ineligible for various reasons, that they would have voted exactly the same way as their party on every single issue? We do not know for sure. But, as Senator Wong has said, it's the best we can do and very close to a good representation, with a good expectation of ensuring that the Senate reflects the genuine view of the chamber, in the same way as we had a recommittal earlier today because there was a view that the vote that was recorded did not reflect the actual view of the chamber, of all of the elected representatives—which, again, is as close an approximation as we can get to the representative view of the people who elected us to be here.

The very nature of our being elected as representatives is as close an approximation as we can manage to thinking what the public might want. This is another mechanism we use. We don't know how every single coalition senator would have voted on every single piece of legislation. There is a 99 per cent chance they would have all voted the same way. But, as we know, occasionally—including even in the few weeks I have been here, on a couple of votes—coalition people have sat on opposite sides. Should we stop giving a pair to the coalition because sometimes they will vote on the opposite sides on a particular question? No, we don't, because we're trying to ensure that the chamber's decision will reflect, as closely as possible, the view of the chamber as elected by the public.

It is worth saying, with Senator Lambie, that she resigned because she believed she was ineligible. She actually hasn't been ruled ineligible yet. On her election, as far as this chamber is concerned, the decision of the High Court has not actually ruled that she is ineligible. I think this is a very significant precedent. It's particularly relevant, as Senator Wong said, for the crossbench and particularly for those who are individual, single members of a party. Senator Wong referred to Senator Harradine, an Independent. I do recall that time. But I also recall we had Senator Len Harris, who was a single, individual representative of the One Nation party for a term—I think he was elected in 1998, for that six-year term—and I remember periods when he was not here for various reasons, and he would presumably phone in his pair. I was always a bit curious as to how that process worked, because his pair seemed to often favour the government, but he wasn't here some of the time, and his pair was still recognised. We're actually starting down a path of saying, 'Well, for an individual person, if they're not here, how are we going to know how they are going to vote?' That is a very, very dangerous precedent. That's certainly not in any way a threat, and I don't speak on behalf of my own party or anybody else. I just would like to highlight that if you start to unpick the so-called logic that is trying to be applied here, or the so-called principle, it is a very dangerous one for every party, frankly.

Let's not forget that the Constitution does not recognise political parties. We are, as the High Court has demonstrated repeatedly recently, declared elected as individuals. If you actually want to break down that convention, you could just say, 'We're all a bunch of individuals. How can we ever 100 per cent guarantee how each of us are going to vote on every single question, if we're not here?' That's where this path leads, and I think it is a very dangerous one. It might work in the government's favour on this particular occasion. Again, I will say that Senator Lambie did not need to resign; she could have waited the whole way through until the High Court made its ruling. We would have had that replacement overnight. Again, what this would potentially lead to is people saying, 'I can't resign my seat, even though I know I'm not eligible, because how do I know my views will be reflected and the views of the people who elected me will be represented in this chamber on votes?'

I'd encourage the government to think about it closely, but it's particularly relevant for the crossbench and particularly those who are individual representatives of their political party. We've seen with One Nation that they vote separately quite often, or some of them vote and others don't. How can you guarantee a pair in that circumstance? Again, I'm not threatening anything. I'm just saying that, if you start using this logic, that is where it's going to lead.