David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the second report of the 2016 of the Selection of Bills Committee and seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 2 OF 2016

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 24 February 2016 at 7.16 pm.

2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—

(a) the provisions of the Corporations Amendment (Life Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 March 2016 (see appendices 1 and 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 March 2016 (see appendices 3 and 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 March 2016 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(d) the provisions of the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:

The committee recommends accordingly.

4. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement:

5. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

Passenger Movement Charge Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2016.

(David Bushby) Chair

25 February 2016

APPENDIX 1

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Corporations Amendment (Life Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To consider the implication of the Bill on the life insurance industry and to allow relevant stakeholders to voice their opinions on the Bill.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Association of Financial Advisers

Financial Planners Association of Australia

Australian Bankers Association

Financial Services Council

Department of the Treasury

John Trowbridge

Life Insurers

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

NB: on the papers only

Possible reporting date:

15 March 2016

(signed)

Senator McEwen

APPENDIX 2

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Corporations Amendment (Life insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To allow for additional consideration of the legislation

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Choice

The Association of Professional Advisers

The Association of Financial Advisers

The Financial Services Council

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Economics Legislation

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the Committee

Possible reporting date:

15 March 2016

(signed)

Senator Fifield

APPENDIX 3

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To further investigate potential impacts and unintended consequences of the Bill

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Department of Immigration and Border Protection

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Australian Human Rights Commissioner

Law Council of Australia

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

10 May 2016

(signed)

Senator McEwen

APPENDIX 4

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The Australian Greens are concerned that the Bill seeks to significantly expand the scope upon which the Minister may cancel a visa on character grounds, including the automatic cancellation of visas on certain grounds and additional Ministerial power to set aside decisions by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Refugee legal sector

Department of Immigration and Border Protection

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

April or May 2016

Possible reporting date:

30 June 2016

(signed)

Senator Siewert

APPENDIX 5

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Taxation and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No.1) Bill 2016

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Further examination is required of drafting and implementation issues identified during consultation with sector stakeholders.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Treasury

Australian Taxation Office

Tax academics

Offshore digital service providers

Health and education sector service providers

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

10 March 2016

(signed)

Senator McEwen

APPENDIX 6

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Understand meaning of new secondary purpose in Bill

Understanding how regulations will operate

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Office of Transport Security

AFP

Airlines

Shipping peaks

Airports

Ports Authorities

Transport unions

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

11 May 2016

(signed)

Senator McEwen

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the following amendment that has been circulated in the chamber:

(1) At the end of the motion, add, "but, in respect of:

  (a) the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised) Crime Bill 2016 the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee report by 11 May 2016; and

  (b) the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 May 2016.

In relation to the first bill, there was a disagreement in the Selection of Bills Committee about the reporting date. We seriously believe that there needs to be a longer time for the consideration of an important bill, which we have had concerns about. It went through the House of Representatives very quickly, and we believe, because of the importance of the bill, that there should be an opportunity for it to go to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for what is not an extensive inquiry and for report back to the Senate by 11 May 2016.

The other element—and I am sure that we will hear a lot of debate around this issue over the next period of time—relates to the important Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill. We know that there is a serious need for this particular process to be considered effectively by the Senate. We do not have the ability in the Senate to call for a further inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. We know that there has been a proposal put before the Senate that there be a joint standing committee inquiry. Well, maybe it could be called an inquiry. It is a short-term discussion on Monday where a few people get together to have a chat about this process.

No-one, including the senators who will be sitting around this chamber looking at legislation that will impact on our community in the future, could seriously consider that having a half-day chat on Monday will in any way give people the opportunity to have a full discussion about the important issues that are on the record about the way people in Australia will vote for the senators who will represent them. They will have no opportunity to look at the impacts and weigh up whether the process that was undertaken in the earlier meetings of the joint standing committee will be exactly the same as the attempt to rush this bill through this chamber next week, or whether, in fact, there are more arguments that should be taken into account.

Whenever we move these amendments to the Selection of Bills Committee reports, I come back to the same point: what is this chamber about? This chamber should be about getting fulsome information, having the opportunity to hear from the community about how they feel about an important bill or regulation that has come into this place and then allowing, with the benefit of that information and the views of the people who wish to share in the debate, come to this chamber with the opportunity to exchange views, have debate and come up with a resolution.

There are many times when we will not agree—and this, I believe, is probably one of them—but that does not take away the need for effective consultation and discussion. Our position is very clear. The process that has been given to the Senate to consider this piece of legislation is inappropriate. It reflects the worst type of arrangement—the worst type of concern. We will hear discussion today and next week about shabby deals that are done, about motivations and about what will occur. But the best way to ensure that the community believes that this is the way we do operate is to not have the opportunity for further discussion on this issue.

We know—and I expect to hear this argument from the government—that the joint standing committee tabled reports in 2014 and earlier in 2015. However, we did not know, at that time, when this piece of legislation was going to be placed before either the House or the Senate. We only found out through the media that the minister was going to bring forward this piece of legislation. There was no form of effective discussion.

This bill is important and, because there is a degree of confusion in the community, as there often is when people are looking at voting practices, the least we can do is have the opportunity of putting the legislation out to public comment again, putting the details of the legislation out there, so that people will understand exactly what their government is proposing that they do in relation to voting practices. That is not too much to ask. It is a simple request. It means that there is still an opportunity for consideration of the process in an effective way through the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee.

If there had been a process of a longer, extensive discussion with the community through the joint standing committee, that would have been a good result. But that has been taken away. The opportunity has been removed. The only way that we can have the kind of consideration of the true details of this proposed process is to have an inquiry that would report by 12 May this year. That is the intent of our amendment, and we think that that would allow time for appropriate consultation. (Time expired)

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we see here today is an attempt by a deeply divided Labor Party to frustrate the democratic process of this parliament. Let's be very clear. There is a part of the Labor Party, the backroom operators in the Labor Party, who do not like people across Australia to have the power to determine what they want to happen with their vote, what they want to happen with their preferences. The Labor Party is completely inconsistent in relation to this, because, as Senator Macdonald pointed out, we have a unanimous report from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters asking the parliament to make these changes, to make these improvements—unanimous—which was delivered back in May 2014 and confirmed again in May 2015—the Labor Party members on that committee have actually been calling on the government to get on with it, to get it in place before the election.

It is not just the shadow minister—who, when I last looked, was still the spokesperson for the Labor Party; the spokesperson for the Labor Party as recently as yesterday—asking us to go ahead and make these changes, even though his party had decided not to go along with them. The spokesperson for the Labor Party, the shadow minister with responsibility for this area, is telling us to get on with it—but it is also the member for Bruce, who, I understand at the time, if not anymore, was the deputy chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. This is what Mr Griffin said on 18 April 2015:

The government should be acting on these recommendations and, if they’re going to, they need to hurry up because they’re running out of time.

Essentially, what is before the parliament is, for all intents and purposes, as Gary Gray himself says, about 80 to 85 per cent of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommendations. What we as the government have done is taken the recommendations, we have consulted widely in relation to them and we have formed the view on the best way forward. It is not 100 per cent of what was recommended, which is, of course, why the bill is going back to the committee for inquiry. It has already been referred to a parliamentary committee for inquiry and for report by 2 March. The Labor Party is deeply divided, so the Labor Party is keen to push this out.

The reason we need to act now is that the Electoral Commission have made very clear that they need about three months to manage an orderly implementation of these changes between the passage of this legislation and implementation on election. We think it is sensible to have a bit of spare capacity in relation to this. On 12 May 2015, Mr Gray, the official Labor Party spokesperson on electoral matters, said:

It would be a travesty It would be a travesty for Australian democracy if these careful and thoughtful reforms were not in place in time for the next federal election.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A travesty.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A travesty. And given the advice to us from the AEC, I think it is very important for the parliament to deal with these reforms, in responding to a report by the committee of the parliament that has inquired into these matters, and to put these reforms in place in an orderly fashion, in a timely fashion, and in a time that will enable the AEC to inform the community about the effect of the changes and how they empower them to direct their votes and their preferences according to their wishes, instead of having parties direct what happens to these preferences as a result of secret deals behind closed doors. That is what this reform is all about.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me just point you to an opinion piece that Mr Gray put into TheWest Australian a few weeks:

These changes will … mean voter intention is reflected in a democratic electoral outcome. They will deliver to voters control over whom they do and do not vote for.

These reforms are not intended to stifle or prevent the formation of new parties …

These reforms simply mean that political parties, including my own—

That will be the Labor Party—

will have to convince the public rather than backroom deal-makers that they deserve their votes.

That is actually what democracy should be all about. Sadly, for the Australian people, what has become apparent is that Bill Shorten is not up to the job of leading the country. When he was faced with the considered advice of a highly regarded shadow minister for this area, on one hand, and the pushing and shoving of the backroom operators in his party, he went with the pushing and shoving of the backroom operators. He did not go with the public interest. He did not go with empowering voters to determine where they want their vote to go. He went with the backroom operators like Senator Conroy, and that is not a good reflection on Mr Shorten. He has failed his test of leadership and today is just another demonstration of it. (Time expired)

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I enjoyed that. No wonder Mr Morrison refers to you as the chief bedwetter, Senator Cormann, after that performance. What we are seeing today is the first serious attempt to disenfranchise Australians—the first serious attempt. That is exactly what is happening today. By Senator Cormann and the coalition and Senator Rhiannon and the Greens opposing this motion, it will be the first of what will become many times that Australians will be disenfranchised by this filthy deal. We all know the time frame for JSCEM. I went to the meeting the other day. The deal had been done. I walked in, sat down and was told: 'Here is what the agenda will be. It will be completed after a couple of hours. People have got a couple of days to put in submissions.' Many Australians would like to have their say on this proposed bill. Although the majority in this chamber have decided that they are not going to get a chance to submit and they are not going to be invited to have their say, I say to those Australians, 'Unfortunately, get used to it.' This bill will disenfranchise three million Australians. I am very disappointed. I listened to Senator Seselja—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Gary Gray exposed that as a lie.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You need to withdraw that Senator Cormann.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said 'liar', and you can't.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't say it.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, you did!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't say 'liar'.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will need to withdraw it, Senator Cormann.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very disappointed to see Senator Seselja completely mislead the Australian public on television this morning, just like Senator Cormann attempted to do a few seconds ago by interjecting. Let me read to you the analysis circulated by Mr Gray from the Parliamentary Library in the last few days, because it bells the cat. It actually backs up the arguments of those of us opposing this legislation. So I am very disappointed to see completely misleading analysis about the impact of this bill being put forward by those opposite and some others.

Let me be very clear. It says: 'The obvious way to approximate the new system is to first look at how many quotas were achieved by each party as a primary vote. This will indicate how many seats the party is guaranteed to win, and may account for four or five of the six vacancies at a normal half Senate election.' There is nothing remarkable about that. But—and this is where it really matters that people do not just listen to the misleading commentary but read the document itself—'the remaining seats will be determined either via preference flows or by whichever party has the largest remainder after the full quotas are allocated to elected candidates.' So in other words: whatever preference flows happen or who has the highest remaining votes. It then goes on to make the following observation: 'The only parties that could reasonably be expected to transfer preferences at sufficient numbers to elect another candidate are the larger parties, the ALP, the coalition and the Greens. Directing preferences consistently under the new system is only possible through how-to-vote cards, and only the larger parties have the infrastructure to distribute these to their supporters across the state.'

This is a ganging-up by two major parties in this country to exclude 3.2 million voters, who did not vote for us. So get used to being disenfranchised. This idea that these votes become informal is complete and utter bunkum; it is a complete and utter mislead of the Australian public, because what this paper says is that those votes will exhaust because they cannot pass through the system, and the only parties that can get elected are those who have machinery all across the country. So let us be very clear: this paper backs up the analysis that 3.2 million voters are going to get no representation in this chamber. The only people who will are: the Greens, who want 12 bums on their seats in this chamber; the opposition, and we do get an increase but we do not believe— (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I—

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, Senator Rhiannon has been seeking the call.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give the call to Senator Wong.

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

The Greens—

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, Senator Rhiannon should have the call.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not true, Senator Siewert. Senator Rhiannon has belatedly on a couple of times stood up but well after other senators.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to yield the call to Senator Rhiannon.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was not belatedly.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am here and I am watching, Senator Rhiannon, and I am not going to accept an argument about it. I call in accordance with the guidance that is provided to the chair through Odgers. If people want to familiarise themselves with the order of that call, you can find it on page 241—if my memory serves me correctly. Senator Wong is now seeking the call, and I will give Senator Wong the call.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I was seeking the call.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You ceded the call.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said I was happy to yield to Senator Rhiannon.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He had the call and he yielded it to her.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not up to individual senators to determine who gets the call. It is the role of the chair, and Senator Wong now has the call.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I have been here a long time and the chair has always called each side of the parliament alternately. As I recall, Senator Conroy has just sat down. He is from the Australian Labor Party, and you are calling someone from the Australian Labor Party immediately following.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, I think that everyone is aware that I initially called Senator Fifield. As Manager of Government Business in the Senate, he does have some precedence in the order of the call. He ceded the call—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take it back.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. You have ceded the call. Senator Wong, as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, also has some precedence in the order of the call. Again, I can encourage people to read the guidance given to the chair by Odgers, which is well-established and well-practised. Senator Wong now has the call.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have ruled on the point of order, Senator Macdonald. Do you have a new point of order?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You say that Senator Fifield ceded his spot. Okay, if he did, then perhaps what you are doing is correct.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are arguing on my ruling, Senator Macdonald. I have already ruled.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But he ceded it and it was not accepted, so his call should stand.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already said that it is not up to individual senators to determine who gets the call in this place. That is a matter for the chair. I have ruled on your point of order, Senator Macdonald, so resume your seat. Senator Wong, you have the call.

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

We saw Senator Cormann in here talking about the democratic process—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a practice. There is a convention. What an outrageous abuse. It is completely partisan.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, if you are going to continue to reflect on the chair, I will certainly call you to order. I would ask you not to do so.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, can I ask that you refer this to the President for a ruling? In the long time I have been there, the chair calls on alternate sides—

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And he has seen Senator Rhiannon trying to get the call.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is unprecedented.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed it is not unprecedented.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that you refer the matter to the President for a ruling.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to do that. You could do it yourself, but I am also happy to do that. I am quite confident that the ruling I have made is in fact consistent with the guidance given to the chair by Odgers. I am certainly not getting an indication that that is not the case. I am happy to stand by my ruling. The Senate has options if they want to disagree with my ruling. But I have made my ruling, and Senator Wong has the call.

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

We heard Senator Cormann on his feet talking about the democratic process. Well, there is nothing democratic about the biggest changes to our electoral laws in 30 years being rammed through the Senate in a matter of days. There is nothing democratic about a sham inquiry—a show trial—that the government and Senator Rhiannon want to stage. There is nothing democratic about that.

I look forward to it because I anticipate and hope that everybody listening and watching will watch as the Greens—the great champions of transparency; the great champions of our democracy!—will vote with the Liberals to ensure this does not go to a proper inquiry. And, for all their fine words over years and years about the need for this chamber to properly inquire into legislation and to properly consider all of these matters, what we will see is Senator Lee Rhiannon, who has done this deal, and all of her colleagues walking over to this side to vote with the government to do over a proper inquiry.

The amendment moved by Senator Moore simply wants an inquiry to report by 12 May. This is not an unreasonable proposition.

This is the largest change in 30 years. They keep going on and saying, 'This has been debated and debated.' When was this legislation introduced into parliament? Was it Monday or Tuesday? It was this week—and they want to ram it through. They have rushed this so much that they have not even got the legislation right. The government had to bring amendments into the House because they forgot to put a provision in that the votes be counted on the night! 'Oops! No voting on the night—no counting on the night!' That is how rushed this is.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They forgot to count them!

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

They forgot to count them. Politics does make for some strange bedfellows, doesn't it. We see a former member of the Communist Party and the coalition stitching up a deal to make sure that every other minor party and Independent cannot come into this place. It is good to watch, isn't it! We even saw The Australian with the little emails for Richard Di Natale's chief of staff saying, 'These are the latest instructions from Senator Lee Rhiannon.'

This is what you are voting for. I hope the coalition know: you have got a deal that has been stitched up with the Greens. And what we will see is this backroom deal, done in secret negotiations, rammed through this parliament. So let us not have any talk from the other side about democracy and the democratic process.

These are the largest changes in 30 years. This bill that has been introduced is not the same as JSCEM considered. I have said and we have said publicly: we are willing to look at issues in this current system, but what we are not willing to do is to participate in a backroom deal that is being rushed through the Senate today.

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

You are a hypocrite!

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

I am not surprised Senator Di Natale is yelling at me, because he is supposed to be this moderate, green, polite man, and what he is doing is voting with the Tories to ram legislation through and to ensure this parliament cannot consider the bill properly. That is what is happening. Whatever people's views about what should occur in relation to the voting system—and there are a lot of different ways in which the voting system could be changed—surely no-one can seriously say that the largest changes in 30 years to our electoral system, in a bill that was introduced this week, which has been done so quickly and in such a slapdash manner that the government has already had to amend it—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Mr Deputy President, I would ask if I could speak. Thank you. Surely none of these people—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

who are currently baying at me could possibly suggest it is a good thing for the Australian democracy for this inquiry to be rammed through. (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the following amendments to Senator Moore's proposed amendment together—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, no leave is granted.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is not granted.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not seen the amendments, so it is hard to get leave to move amendments I have not seen, together. However, you can move amendments to the amendment. You do not need leave to do so.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then I move the following amendment:

That paragraph (a) omit "11 May", substitute "10 March" and omit paragraph (b).

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When we eventually get to vote on this, I ask that the question be divided in relation to the minister's motion, because I indicate that we would be voting differently on those two paragraphs.

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

Because some things require transparency and others don't.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have the call, I believe.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that the questions be put separately.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will go through a complex process, but I believe that, as to those amendments, I can put the minister's amendments to Senator Moore's amendments separately, and people may then want to put Senator Moore's amendments separately too, but we will deal with that when we get there.

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

I wonder if we could clarify exactly what the amendment is again? Thank you.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can do that. As long as I know what is going on, we should be right. So the amendment to paragraph (a) is to substitute '11 May' with '10 March', and the minister has also then sought to delete part (b) in its totality. Is that the amendment, Minister?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to oppose the amendments that the government has moved and to support Senator Moore's original motion. The government, of course, has made it perfectly clear what its agenda is here. The government wants to limit the level of scrutiny and debate about the biggest change this country has seen to the electoral act in a generation. It wants to do it in such a way as to maximise its opportunity to inflict their purge upon this Senate and it does do so in the name of democracy. It demonstrates just the sheer hypocrisy of these arrangements, which of course were entered into as a result of what the minister describes as 'secret deals behind closed doors'. They are an epitome of the secret deals done behind closed doors.

The government, of course, says that they need three months to maintain their capacity. They are the words that the minister used in here. He wanted a bit of 'spare capacity', but what he really wants to do is to tell you the date of the election and he wants to tell you the date on which they can bring forward their purge of this parliament. The purge of this parliament is aimed at removing dissidents from this government's agenda. But, of course, the truth of the matter is that they are not just trying to get rid of the dissidents, they are trying to get rid of people who have been very loyal to this government, people who have in fact voted with this government for 99 per cent of the time. But their loyalties, their acquiescence to this government's agenda, is treated with a contempt—the contempt that this government have always had. Their purge is about removing people that actually have been voting with this government as well as those that are opposed to their rhetoric. Well, so be it, but we will not be going along with that proposition.

The joint house committee recommended a series of measures. The minister himself says that this is not the same measure. I have just had a look at the bill and the general outline of the explanatory memorandum which clearly acknowledges that it is not the same proposition as the joint house committee. But then the minister says, 'Well, we'll have another joint house committee'. Of course, that committee would effectively be a morning tea so that they can endorse this quick and dirty arrangement that has been entered into between institutionalised Greens, who want to institutionalise their position within this parliament, and a conservative government that want to purge dissidents in this chamber. Of course, this is exactly what this is about.

Where did we learn about all of this? Well, you have to rely on media speculation. It is not about openness and transparency. It is not about allowing people to have a look at the details of these measures. It is about exercising a political agenda that the government have in place so that they can pursue a political agenda to get rid of those that have a different view about the nature of the conservative policies that they are pursuing. Now, of course, we have the Greens to tell us how virtuous they are. They tell us how pure they are. Senator Di Natale, you are like a virgin in a brothel. You behave in such a way that you try to present to the Australian people something you are not. You are nothing but a political opportunist.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Carr, if you will resume your seat. Senator Cormann on a point of order.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, I think that there is a provision in the standing orderswhich prevents a reflection on senators in this chamber, and I think Senator Carr just, in the most obscene ways, inappropriately reflected on a senator in this chamber.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not believe there is a point of order. Senator Carr.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Di Natale has behaved in a despicable manner. He has sought to misrepresent himself as something pure and above the political fray. He has done nothing but to seek to ingratiate himself as the moderate voice of the Greens in this country. He has become a quisling of the Liberal Party, who is determined to do anything necessary to suck up to this government and to behave in a way which I think is quite dishonourable. What we have here before us is the raw exercise of political power. It does not have anything to do with transparency. It does not have anything to do with democracy. It is about exercising a purge of this chamber to secure the future political agenda of the hard right wing of the Liberal Party, and the Greens should be ashamed of themselves for being associated with it. (Time expired)

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate my support for Senator Moore's motion and my opposition to the government's amendment. I think I probably qualify as a preference whisperer. I think a preference whisperer is somebody who actually understands how the system works. Those who do not know how the system works want to change it. I know who the preference whisperers are for the Labor Party, for the Greens, for the minor parties and, yes, indeed, for the Liberals. They are the ones who ring me up when I am doing preference deals for my party and say, 'Would you like to do a deal on preferences?' I can name names, if you would really like me too. I can name the names of the other preference whisperers.

Every party has a preference whisperer. It is all done in backrooms. It is all done on the phone. It is not done in the glare of public light. Every party does preference deals. When Bob Brown was elected to this Senate he was elected in Tasmania as a result of a preference whisperer. It resulted in the Democrats votes going to Bob Brown and the Greens winning in Tasmania instead of the Labor Party. That is how it works. The point about it, of course, is that we are debating how much time the committee should take to understand what is being proposed. The assumption that even the government knows what it is proposing seems to me to be contradicted by the evidence. The evidence would suggest that they do not know.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Time for this debate has now expired. Let me just recap where we are to try to limit any confusion in the chamber. Senator Bushby has moved a motion, Senator Moore has moved an amendment to the motion, Senator Fifield has moved an amendment to Senator Moore's amendment and there is a request to split the amendment to the amendment and put it into two questions. So the first question will be to substitute—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not trying to make it more confusing for you, Mr Deputy President, but I seek leave to have an extension of time for this discussion as we have a number of speakers who have not had a chance to contribute.

Leave not granted.

Under the provisions of the standing orders, I seek leave to suspend standing orders to discuss this issue.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My advice is that I should be dealing with the question that is before the chair. However, I can entertain such a question from you, Senator Moore, in between the questions. There are a number of questions that are to be put. The first question is that—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order to do with the position of the chamber. I have just received the amendment. There has been one copy distributed to me. I am just checking that everybody has received a copy of Senator Fifield's amendment. Mr Deputy President, we also just wanted to be clear on what we were debating.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to attempt to be clear for everybody.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. As I understand it, in moving an amendment it must be in writing and signed by the proposer. I do not have that amendment before me. It has not been circulated in the chamber. I think it should be, in all fairness, circulated in the chamber so that all senators may have a look at what the amendment is.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A little bit less help from everyone in the chamber would be good! You are correct, Senator Ludwig. But I in fact do have a copy of the amendment to the amendment in writing, and it is signed and it does comply with the standing orders. As I have indicated, it has been requested that the question be separated. The first question is that, in paragraph (a), '11 May' be substituted with '10 March'. The question is that that motion be agreed to.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, as there is likely to be a change in the outcome in the next vote, I request that you ring the bells for four minutes. Senators have already left the chamber and they should be advised that there is a change on the floor in the way people are voting.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The doors are locked!

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

People left before the doors were locked.

Government senators interjecting—

No, we decide who our pairs are, not you.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Leyonhjelm, were you seeking the call?

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had the call before the cut-off and I was wondering whether I was going to get it back again.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate has expired. The next question I intend to put is that paragraph (b) of Senator Moore's amendment be deleted.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am seeking that you ring the bells for four minutes.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to put the question. I will only ring the bells if there is a division. The question before the chair now is that paragraph (b) be deleted.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The effect of that vote is that Senator Moore's amendment has now been amended. The question I now put before the chamber is that Senator Moore's amendment, as amended, be agreed to.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you read it out?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I will ask the Clerk to read it out, if that is what you would like.

The Clerk: The amendment to the motion for the adoption of the Selection of Bills Committee report now stands in the following form:

(1) At the end of the motion, add, "but, in respect of:

(a) the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised) Crime Bill 2016 the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee report by 11 May 2016.

I thank the Clerk. The question is that Senator Moore's amendment, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Bushby, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.