David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Pursuant to the contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bill without limitation of time.

It's a pretty extraordinary move when you have a bill that has the broad support of the community, is something that Australians recognise that we need and has the support of the crossbench to pass—and to potentially pass with some strengthening and sensible amendments, which the member for Wentworth, Allegra Spender, moved in the other place—yet we have Labor capitulating to the coalition to add mandatory minimum sentences and totally politicise a bill that could have seen the parliament, the Senate, say, 'This is important in our community, and we're not going to stand for it.' They've now added something for which there is absolutely no evidence that it works—no evidence that mandatory minimum sentencing works.

It's against Labor's policy platform. Earlier I read out four or five quotes from Labor ministers, including Senator Watt, saying exactly that, saying: 'It doesn't work. Why would we vote for something that had mandatory minimum sentencing?' And now you're putting the crossbench in a position where we have good policy that has the support of our constituents, that we've consulted on, that we're set to vote for, and you've done an overnight deal where you've added something that has no justification, no backing from any expert. Then you give us absolutely no time to actually consult—15 minutes to consider this bill in Committee of the Whole, three questions from Senator Cash, one vote on an amendment, and then we're into it.

I feel that this is so disrespectful to the communities we represent. My team has been frantically ringing around—ringing the Canberra Jewish community, the Muslim community, the LGBTI community—saying, 'Hey, we support this bill, but now there's mandatory minimum sentencing; what do you want to do?' No-one supports the mandatory minimum sentencing. It's so shameful.

You can see this coming from the coalition. They want to talk tough on national security. Yet it turns out that when they're in there they're actually not that tough, that all sorts of things have been happening. But the disappointing thing is that Labor is doing this—going against their own principles. I do not understand and I don't know who they're trying to please with this because it certainly isn't rank-and-file Labor members or Labor voters, who believe in something.

I have serious concerns about the process of this and serious concerns about what's been cooked up that took a good bill, which had broad support and which was long overdue, and politicised it and added a whole lot of stuff to it that makes it very, very hard to vote for.