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

I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

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

The opposition will be asking that the question be put separately on the procedural element of this motion, 'That this bill may proceed without formalities', and I wish to speak to the procedural part of that motion.

As people know, Labor will be opposing the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 and will be taking every opportunity to make that point in this chamber. We are taking the opportunity in terms of debating the procedural part of this motion to ensure that this place—and anyone outside who is listening—understands how seriously we take the attempt to move this particular bill with such speed through the parliament and to impose a debate that I do not believe the community is ready to have.

We have heard that the basis for this bill being brought forward is that there is a need for an urgent change to the way the Senate voting process occurs. Funnily enough, we will hear much in the next few days about the work of the wonderful Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which puts the focus of these issues both in this place and in the areas of the community that are truly interested in the way our electoral system operates. We have heard that this joint committee met in 2014, had hearings in 2014 and then met again in 2015 and had hearings around the issues of Senate electoral reform which would best suit the needs of our community and our electoral system. From that time in June 2015 until a week and a half ago there had been no push at all to bring forward debate on this bill. There had been no discussion on the way forward and how we were going to move it.

Labor did not find out about the need for this urgent bill to come before parliament from a discussion with the relevant ministers, or from a discussion between the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or from the Manager of Opposition Business saying to the Manager of Government Business in this place that there is a need to bring this legislation forward and to have this urgent but very short debate. I note that the media also said how it was so important that this be done quickly. We came into this chamber to hear about what was going to happen and were told that there would be a further meeting of the specialist committee that looks after electoral matters—that is, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. There would be another opportunity for these skilled people who work in this field to draw together their knowledge and draw together people from across the community who are interested in electoral matters.

I have to admit that not everybody in the community is as obsessed about the way electoral matters operate as I wish they would be. There are not 1,000 people who want to come and give evidence to a joint committee on electoral matters, but there are many. We have a wide range of people in our community across the board who are skilled in electoral matters, skilled in the way elections operate and skilled in knowing the motives of different people bringing forward these changes. All of that is there. We were told that there would be this opportunity and not to worry. How dare we say that there could be something wrong in this process? We were putting out feigned concern.

We were told that there would be this meeting of the joint standing committee, and then we found out that it was going to be a half-day, a three-quarter-day and then back to a half-day meeting this week. In fact, we have been told that that meeting will be held tomorrow. We will have the formal meeting of the joint standing committee to look at exactly what the issues are around this debate in the middle of our formalities process. We found that out, and everybody in the Senate was welcomed to be a participating member of this committee. That was circularised late last week. We have placed Senator Conroy onto the committee and he did attend the only grouping of that committee late last week—

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

No, there was one this morning as well.

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

Sorry, Senator Conroy. I really do not want to overstate the case.

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

I'll explain what happened at this one.

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

There have now been two attempts to have a meeting to prepare for the public meeting, which will be held tomorrow. I feel certain that Senator Conroy will go into much more detail with his personal experience, but my understanding of those meetings is that the agenda had been preset, the process had been preset, the hours of meeting had been preset, the people who would be invited to come and give evidence had been preset and there had been no attempt to go out into the public sphere and say, 'This is your opportunity, before the Senate actually debates the very urgent legislation, if you care, to come forward and have your say.' That was not offered to anyone, to the best of my knowledge. A lot of organisations and people in the wider community, who in the past have provided evidence to the committee, were not advised of the process, not able to attend at such very short notice or, with the time that was involved, said themselves that there was not sufficient time for them to prepare the research for their argument and so they did not come forward.

We have this offer to the Senate, which was for—I actually referred to it on Thursday as a 'discussion' or a 'chat' about the most significant change to electoral law in 30 years. This is changing the way the Senate, with the range of people who are involved in the Senate—this is making clear changes to how the voting process for the Senate will operate from now on. We do not believe that is sufficient. We think it is such a significant issue that there needs to be time for a wider debate around the process.

And that debate should not be just in this place. I know that we have had many long debates in this place about issues, some very urgent, and people are prepared to put the extra hours in so that there can be a debate, And I know committee processes can go on for a very long time in this place. But our concern on this side of the chamber is that we do not believe that these issues have been discussed widely enough in the community so that there is an understanding of the way that this part of the Electoral Act will operate. I cannot guarantee that by having a longer inquiry time that everybody in the community will fully understand how Senate voting operates. I wish that could happen, but I do not believe that just by having more time that everybody in the community will know. But I do believe that more people will have the opportunity to hear about the changes, to hear about how the changes could operate and to hear about what will be the future electoral voting process if there is a more extensive amount of time for people to have a discussion. And that could happen. One of the things that disappoints me most in this place is that at times we do not actually sit down and work out how we can make something happen but rather how we can force something through quickly or stop it.

At some stage in the last few months somebody must have thought that it is time now to move on an action that had been previously discussed in 2014 and 2015. I do not believe somebody had a moment of madness in the middle of the night and said: 'This is going to have to happen for the safety and security of our nation. We will have to push this forward in the next sitting of parliament.' I do not think that happened. This must have been planned over a significant period of time. But when that planning was being done, when the procedures were being put in place, it was not everyone in this place who had the chance to hear how that was going to happen. I do not know who was involved in those discussions; I just know people on this side were not. The Labor Party members of the joint standing committee were not actively involved in those discussions. But, as I said earlier, we found out in the media when we had people making commentary about what was going to happen, and, more particularly, why it was going to happen and what impact these particular changes would have on various people.

When this started happening, I went back and had a look at the papers that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters had been using in 2014 and 2015. While I am not an expert in electoral processes, I did look at the evidence that was being put forward by academics and by various groups about their concerns about how the current system operates. I do see that there was a range of concern about how people could be elected with a very small primary percentage of the vote. I accept that. But that has been the case ever since I have been in this place; since we have been here, Mr Deputy President, there have been people elected into this chamber who have had small primary votes. That has been a reality. And people have been questioning that over that period of time.

I did see that there had been discussion about various ways that that issue could be addressed. There were a number of suggestions put forward, and over the last week, since we found out that this particular bill was so urgent and it had to happen, a number of commentators in the media have started writing again about the process of electoral voting in the Senate. There had been nothing in the media in the last four to five months—I do look at these issues to see what people are commentating on in the wider media, and there were no opinion pieces on electoral reform in the Senate. There was not a wide discussion in the various newspapers or the various fora about this, but in the last week there has been a bit and people talked about what had occurred in the inquiries in 2014 and 2015. They have talked about other options that had been on the table in that process and other discussions that there had been around the issues. The particular process that was recommended in 2015—the final recommendation in 2015—is not what is in this bill. If it were exactly the same proposal that the people who were gathered around in 2014, and then in the subsequent meetings in 2015, had agreed on there could have been an argument that 'you should have known about this and moved forward'. But it is not exactly the same proposal. It has similarities to it, but it is not the same proposal.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is substantially the same.

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

It is not identical to it, Senator Brandis. No-one can say it is identical to it, and in terms of the process—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

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

Senator Moore, resume your seat while we allow this discussion to peter out.

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

I was just allowing some freedom of discussion. I thought it was a bit of a committee process there, Mr Deputy President. Possibly I was wrong.

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

No such luck. Senator Moore, you have the call.

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

In terms of the process, there had been this area, but it is not the identical recommendation from 2014 or 2015. It does have similarities, and I am sure we will hear about that when we get into the substantive discussion of the bill when it comes forward. The other issue I am concerned about is that, in the rather short discussions that we had last week when we were looking at what was going to happen into the future, we have heard a number of people talk about the fact that the Labor Party now has a different opinion to what it had when the submission was submitted. I did have a look at the submission that the Labor Party put forward to the committee, I think, 18 months ago. There has been significant time for people to think about that process since then. Unsurprisingly, there has been some further discussion within the party and we are now saying that we have a different view. I do not think that that is such a major issue in this place. On many occasions there have been various views put forward. The only argument that we got from the government last week about why they were concerned that we were making any discussion about why we think this a such a significant change to our electoral processes that we need further time for discussion here and in the wider community was, 'Hey—you guys have changed your minds.' I do not think that should be the beginning and the end of the argument. We need to have a much closer look at what we are doing on this particular bill than the current process put before us allows. That is not an unusual request.

I know how complex electoral processes are. I, like many people here, have worked on booths at many federal elections and know how concerned citizens are when they see the size of the Senate paper and think about what their role will be in voting for the Senate. Perhaps because where I often work people know who I am, at any election I get more questions about how the Senate voting process operates than about how the House of Representatives voting process operates. So I know that already in the community there are concerns about the complexity of the process.

The saddest thing in any election—that is a big call, if you do not win—is to have informal votes. It breaks my heart when I am a scrutineer, as I have been many times, and I see the number of times people make errors when they are voting. When I had a look at the history of voting in the Senate, one of the major reasons for the change 30 years ago was to minimise the number of informal votes in the Senate. Already at that time it had been identified that there were a large number of informal votes in the Senate, and it was a concern raised in the various discussions around the various changes 30 years ago. There already is a great need in the community to have more understanding and more support about how people register their votes everywhere, but in particular in the Senate.

The reason that we are making this particular intervention this afternoon, which is a procedural process, is again to reinforce how seriously we believe discussions around this electoral bill should be taken in this place and also to give a message to the wider community about how important these discussions are. It should not be something that people allow other people to worry about and to debate. This is something that affects every citizen who goes to a polling booth whenever a Senate election is called.

What we are seeking is a longer term for the opportunity to look at the issues, to consider exactly what is involved in the changes and even to have a look at some other options. Because this is the proposal brought forward, all we have in front of us is one option. Our leader, Senator Wong, made it very clear in debate last week that no-one is saying that the current system is perfect. We are not saying there is not room for change. We have never said that. None of our people who attended the previous meetings of the joint committee said that. Anyone who is now involved in the current process agrees that there could well be a clear need for change.

The participating members process that the government has offered us so generously this week is a farce. I have looked at how the process is supposed to work tomorrow: the small number of people who are able to come to give evidence; the fact that there is very little opportunity for written submissions; and the fact that when you look at the sequence for opportunity to ask questions, it would not matter if I had put my hand up to say that I desperately wanted to be a participating member on the committee—I would have no opportunity to ask a single question in the time allowed, which was predetermined. By reason of the tightness of time and the number of people involved it is quite clearly set out who will be able to ask a question and when. When you look at the opportunity given to each witness and the number of people who may be able to attend, this is not a chance, as we were told last week, for more senators to be involved in the process. Sure, we could come along as a chorus to watch and see what is happening, but this is not a way that more senators can participate in the process.

It is not good enough. There needs to be more consideration of change so that citizens feel that when they go to the polls they will understand how they are voting and for whom they are voting and so that we here will also understand that people will have that opportunity as well.

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

I thank Senator Moore for that very thoughtful and informative contribution, because she has belled the cat on a number of things that have happened in the last 24 hours. Can I say that her description—

Senator McKim interjecting—

Senator Rhiannon interjecting—

Here we are, the Stalinists are loose in the bottom corner! That is exactly what being on this committee must have been like. This is actually like going back in time to the 1950s in Stalin's Russia! We get an invitation to come to a meeting of the committee of senators. I roll along and I arrive for the first time after the invitation is issued and I am given the agenda, which includes the people who will be invited to speak. There was no discussion, no nothing. There was just, 'These are the ones we are going to invite.'

I have great admiration for the 70-plus people who have had an opportunity to lodge a piece of paper—and in some cases it is just a piece of paper—to the inquiry. I say to you that it is not likely they have even all had a chance to be put up on the website yet for us to download and have a read of them. They have not even been able to get them all printed out so I can have a read of them. I cannot have a look at them all online yet. We are being asked to conduct an inquiry starting at 8 o'clock or 8.30 tomorrow morning without even an opportunity to read all the submissions yet. That is how farcical this process has become.

The first meeting of this august joint standing committee basically says, 'No, here it is.' I said, quite reasonably, that perhaps someone who knows a little bit about this, named Malcolm Mackerras, might get an invitation. He writes regularly and is well known to everybody. In fact, we have mentioned the Mackerras pendulum. He has had quite a few things to say about this joint standing committee's previous report. That is a little bit embarrassing, because he is somebody of some stature. He is included, to be fair, as a concession from the Stalinists running this in the committee.

Then I suggested, 'Given that we've only just seen this, would the chair be willing to allow us to have a conversation during the course of the afternoon to put some other names up?' Well, no. That was completely unreasonable! There had already been discussion of this, but that was before we were allowed to come along. There had already been discussions about this, so it was rammed through with the support of the Greens.

Then we turn up to the committee hearing today. A number of the witnesses, surprisingly—I said with irony—are not able to make it on such short notice. So the chair has taken it upon himself to invite other people to fill the gaps. He actually says, 'We have done this.' I say, 'Excuse me, who is the "we"? Because I actually asked if I could be allowed to participate in a discussion about this.' To which he said, 'When I say "we", it's just me.' Even I am not prepared to think that he consulted Senator Rhiannon on such a matter, so I will let you off the hook on this one, Senator Rhiannon. He may have; you can feel free to confess. You can be included in the royal 'we', but I think you are innocent this time. It is one of the few times in this process you are innocent!

So he says, 'We—actually, no, just me—picked these other people.' I said, 'What process was there?' He just said, 'Well, this is what I have decided.' I said, 'Could we have some discussion about this? We would perhaps like some others to be able to come along. If I had known there were vacancies last week, when clearly you found out there were vacancies and got on the phone over the weekend, I might have been able to come up with some other names. But when you flatly refused to have a discussion about further or other witnesses—flatly refused—I didn't bother to look to see who else could be called. But now it is okay for you to do it?' Again, I was shut down. There was no support. The Greens go missing when it comes to transparency and democracy, not surprisingly. I was shut down yet again.

I should say that the committee then indicated they were passing a resolution telling people, 'You can't talk about what goes on in these hearings.' I am not surprised that they want to gag anyone from telling what is going on in these hearings, but I am not going to take any notice of that whatsoever. I am now a full member of this committee, and I am going to expose the little club that has been having all of this fun and actually refusing to allow any sensible discussion of the newly proposed reforms.

But then the next motion comes up. The next motion says, 'We want to decide how long each person is allowed to be asked a question for. We are now allowed to have one question that lasts a maximum of five minutes and then we are going to rotate it.' One question, a maximum of five minutes of question-and-answer and then the chair will cut them off. We could not possibly allow a witness to perhaps discuss this issue! There cannot be any follow-up questions. Seriously, this is like being at a metal workers' conference with George Campbell in the chair! I have been there. It just gets better!

We start tomorrow morning, and the great news is that the committee secretariat has to get the draft to the chair by tomorrow night. I asked, 'Have you already written the report? How could you possibly write a report in just a few hours straight after you have actually just heard the witnesses? How is possible?' It gets better! The committee has been called to another meeting at 8 o'clock on Wednesday morning, where it has to adopt a report. If you have a dissenting report, you must complete it and submit it by 8 o'clock, otherwise you are out of the game. This farcical process, masquerading as a hearing, is into the most significant voting reforms in 30 years. I have noted it has become a great favourite for everybody to quote, 'Well, this was the ALP's submission.' Let me be clear, this has never been adopted by the parliamentary Labor Party in this building. The caucus has never adopted it. And do you know what? There has been a good reason why. It is because the proposal is a dog. It has never got past the leadership group, it has never got past the shadow cabinet, and it has certainly never got past the caucus.

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order!

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

So when we say, as those opposite have been trying to imply, that this has been our position for the two years, this has never been adopted. It has not been adopted, not once by any decision-making body of the parliamentary Labor Party. Let me make this clear: this has never been the party policy of the Federal Labor Party. Not once, not for one day and not ever. So let me be very clear about that for those who have attempted to describe this as the Labor Party's position.

As others have said, there are many times when parliamentary committees meet and put forward recommendations that are ignored or not adopted or supported. That happens all the time, but that does not mean that just because a committee has reported it the individuals have supported a position—that is the parliamentary Labor Party. I take great pride in the processes of our caucus and not once has this ever been put to caucus. Not once has this ever been put to shadow cabinet. There has been a number of discussions in some other forums. So let me be clear.

Then there is this idea that there are proper consultations. I say congratulations to those individuals who have taken the time to rush and put in a submission, but to all of those others who have not been able to prepare a report—to those smaller parties, to the minor parties, to the independents, who are about to be purged from the Senate forevermore—it is no great surprise. Do not worry, Senator Rice, you are on the purge list, too. You just have not worked out yet, but it will dawn on you soon exactly what is being proposed to you. You are being marched up to the inner tumbrel, up to the guillotine, and you just do not know it yet—that is the best part. I will come to it, don't worry. But you will not be able to misunderstand what is being planned for you by those sitting around you. They have not explained this to you yet. What you are doing is that you are the turkey voting for an early Christmas.

You had all of the modelling done on half-Senate elections. Did the Liberals promise you that they would not call a DD when you gave them the trigger? Did they promise you that? Seriously, I have got a harbour bridge that I want to sell you next. Because they have given you the opportunity to march yourselves up to the guillotine and you have leapt into bed with them.

You are also jeopardising important reforms that you voted for previously—the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. It is on the chopping block. If they win this election they will walk in, they will take us into whichever chamber you have a DD sitting in—because I have not done it in the 20 years that I have been here—and they will vote down something that you have sat in here and blocked. They will vote it down. They will wipe it out it. It is your party's policy and it is their party's policy to abolish it, and you will march into the other chamber, if that is where we are, and you will watch it get voted down. No-one but you will be responsible for that. Nobody but the Greens will be responsible for allowing the vandals on that side of the chamber to wipe out the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and all of the good work that we know it does and that you know it does.

Honourable senators interjecting—

All of you down there, you can keep squealing because, but that is what you are voting for.

An honourable senator interjecting—

No, I said if they were to win. If they were to win, that is what you have done. There is nowhere to hide. You can chuckle. Senator Di Natale, here, can wave is arms around like Inspector Gadget, but lets us be clear that that is what you are doing. The best part is that no-one has explained to you the ramifications—

An honourable senator interjecting—

I have known you for a long time, Senator Rice, now be fair. There are the ramifications of actually having a double-d and how parties select their own tickets—good luck with that, I am looking forward to it. There is only probably the state of Tasmania that could absolutely have a reasonable chance of picking up two. The rest of you: Victoria, you are sitting there—I do not even think you are in the death seat, you are in the dead seat. You are actually sacrificing your own positions to give the government control of the Senate. Because guess what happens when you do not get them, it is us or them. The only thing that can save the country, God forbid, is Senator Xenophon picking up four seats in South Australia, which there is a chance of. So let us be clear, you are voting to stop war on yourselves.

But it gets better, those of you who have not been through a DD, or studied what happens after a DD, need to understand that the Senate then votes on who gets the six-year terms and the three-year terms based on the order in which you were elected.

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

Senator Conroy, if you can 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

Either Senator Conroy is misleading the Senate now or he was misleading the Senate last week. This week his argument is that this will cost the Greens a seat, last week he was saying they will get more bums on seats—

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

Order! That is not a point of order, Senator Cormann. Unless you have a point of order.

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

Thanks, nice try. In a half-Senate, which is what Senator Rhiannon explained to you all, and a few gurus behind the scenes, is that you are going to end-up with 12 Greens bums on seats. But in a double-d, which is what they are planning to do to you and this country, in about six weeks or seven weeks, the Senate then determines who gets the six-year terms and three-year terms, based on who gets elected. Go and look up in what order, because guess what: there is a very good chance that, even if you get two senators in Tasmania, you are both going to be competing in the same half of the draw at the next one. It is possible, okay. But certainly you are voting for three-year terms for yourselves.

Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30

The Greens must be in a panic by now; they have not turned up. They must have finally worked out what they are doing to themselves. That is what the benches of the Greens will look like under a double-D scenario after this, because not only will they all get to be in the same half of the draw; after a double dissolution, when there is a Senate vote, they actually then will have to compete against each other in the three-year terms. What will actually happen is that they will not get six-year terms; they will have to fight against each other immediately in the three-year terms. Those who dreamt this plan up have not explained it in some detail to their own colleagues. I am not surprised to see there is growing disquiet among the Greens party membership. Once again this Greens political party under its new leadership is facilitating a hard right coalition government in gutting environment policy and gutting the National Broadband Network.

We have seen today the consequences of the maladministration of Senator Cormann in not paying attention to what Mr Turnbull is actually up to. Did he not actually tell you what he was doing, Senator Cormann—blowing out the costs of the NBN and setting it on a path to technological oblivion? Did he not mention that to you given you and he are the co-ministers in charge of the NBN? Did he fail to mention those things to you?

This is a hard right political government. There are those who thought that Mr Turnbull would see them come back to the political centre of Australia. But, unfortunately, Mr Turnbull continues to say one thing and do another. On this very issue of Senate voting reform, when he wanted the crossbenchers' votes he said to them, 'This isn't really a priority. This isn't really a path that I am looking at moving down.' I thought to myself, 'On the last bill on the last day before this parliament is dissolved there will be a filthy deal concocted by the Greens and Senator Cormann and friends.' And that is exactly how this is panning out.

While the Greens and the government will pretend that there was no final agreement between them, this filthy deal has been hatching for the last six or 12 months. Everything that we have seen since then—including the sham, fraudulent joint parliamentary committee hearing that I have to sit through for a few hours tomorrow morning and the Greens' refusal to even allow us to have a real Senate inquiry not controlled by the House of Representatives, with it driving the agenda—points to the fact that this government and the Greens have been planning this little stunt for six or 12 months. A cosy little club existed around Senate electoral reform. When it was exposed to the harsh light of day, the implication was that in a half-Senate scenario the Greens' plan is to get 12 Greens bums on seats in the Senate. But the trade-off for that is that the most likely outcome will be that the coalition will have 38 votes.

I accept that Senator Xenophon is a bit of friction in there. But Senator Xenophon, an extraordinary politician from the state of South Australia, is not immortal. What you are seeing is a bit of long-term thinking from the Libs, not something they are traditionally good at. They think they can do a deal with Senator Xenophon. He has always shown a willingness to deal. As long as they let him say that he was the one who brokered the deal and can stand next to them at a press conference, the government have found they can get him on board.

But those of us who are actually interested in the long-term future of this country—whether we are going to ultimately get a decent National Broadband Network and whether we are going to get future environmental reform—cannot possibly be sucked in to vote for this legislation. You have been taken for a mug, Senator Whish-Wilson. The same way they left you out of the room when they did you over on the taxation law, they have done it to you again.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Conroy should address his points through the chair, not directly at me.

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

Is that a glass jaw I detect?

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy—

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

I accept your admonishment.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not even admonish you—

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

I accept your forthcoming admonishment. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Whish-Wilson displays all the glass-jaw features of a Greens member who spends all his life lecturing everybody else piously about how the Greens are the one true, pure political force in this country. They have been exposed in this filthy deal to get 12 Greens bums on seats in the Senate at the expense of all principle.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is fair to say this is a debate that has brought out some pretty high passions in this chamber and some very, very strong views that are held by different people. I know people have said things they may later regret. I note that Senator Rhiannon earlier today made the observation that there are two Senator Stephen Conroys: there is a decent, reasonable, likeable Senator Conroy and there is an angry one. I think we in this chamber all know which one of those claims was defamatory and which one of those claims none of us believe to be true.

On a serious note, the real issue here needs to be the debate around the rushed process. Let us be honest and let us be fairly frank here: there are going to be different views in this chamber and there are going to be passionately held different views on what is the best way of reforming Senate voting structures. There are people, like myself, who have spent a lot of time thinking about this and who have strong views on this. I note that people like Senator Rhiannon and others also have very strong views on this. I will even acknowledge that they come from a very genuine place.

Part of my issue with this is that the rushed process that is now being implemented means that we do not have the opportunity to have the public debate that will allow the difference in these views to be explored. I believe that there are better ways of reforming the Senate. I believe in setting a threshold. The journalist Ross Gittins outlined some ideas quite eloquently this morning in an opinion piece about setting minimum thresholds and about party registration being something else that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has looked at. I think they are good points and they should be part of this debate. I do not believe that having a half-day sham inquiry is the best process for allowing us to air what are some very different views and for allowing the best policy outcome.

You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see that an agreement appears to have been reached between the government and the Greens political party on this issue. That clearly seems to be the case. I am not sure I can understand why that would necessarily relate to the urgency of the bill being passed in this way and the implementation being as it is. If this is a good piece of legislation and if this is the right thing to do by the nation—as those who favour it will argue—then surely they would be open to some scrutiny and surely they would be open to public debate. I note that Senator Cormann said earlier today that there wasn't an intention by the government to rush this bill and there wasn't an intention by the government to gag or put it on for a vote this week—and so the Senate would have some time to look at it. If that is the case, then I do not understand the urgency of having the committee report in the next two days. It does not allow a proper, detailed and longer implementation process.

We all know that once you are a senator in this place and you have had a chance to interact with different departments people from departments tend to talk to you. They tend to tell you bits and piece. You may call them whistleblowers—you may call them what you will—but they give you some information. It is a bit interesting that it appears, from what I have been told, that this was legislation was not drafted by PM&C but was drafted out of the Department of Finance. We will have a committee process that will give us an opportunity to work out whether that is true or not. If it has been drafted by the Department of Finance, and the sources and the people who have spoken to me have spoken correctly, then that, perhaps, explains why there are already eight amendments that need to be passed through the House because the bill was so poorly written and because it was so rushed. It was not done the way it should have been done or done through the proper processes.

In an attempt to fix what is a legitimate concern—that we have a better, more democratic and more representative Senate—that without proper scrutiny we are going to allow the changes that are being made and the rules that we are setting to simply be given a political fix to what is a legitimate concern. The legitimate concern is this: we want to have a Senate that is representative. We want to have a Senate that is fair. We want a Senate voting system that is fair. I do not believe that these changes achieve this. I hear Senator Simms sitting there and having a laugh. Senator Simms, I am sure it may be all a joke for some senators and it may be a bit of a laugh—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maintain the rage. Come on. Show some outrage.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not an angry senator. I just want to make sure that Senator Simms has an opportunity. By the way, I think Senator Simms has made an incredible contribution in the period that he has been in the Senate. I have chosen to 'like' him on Facebook. I have 'liked' his speeches. I thought the speech he made about the Safe Schools Coalition was outstanding and I believe I may even have shared it with the people who follow me. It would be a real loss and a shame, Senator Simms, if at the end of a double-dissolution election either yourself or Senator Hanson-Young were no longer part of this chamber. I hope that is not the case. I do not think you are the best senator from South Australia, I think we have some fantastic senators from South Australia, but I think you make a worthwhile contribution and you are a good person to boot.

Process matters. Transparency matters. Having a public debate matters. Having an opportunity to explore ideas about how we best run this Senate and how best people are elected to this Senate is a worthwhile process. I worry that we have a process which has largely been dominated by House MPs who frankly have no appreciation of the culture of this place and have no appreciation of how the Senate works. I believe that a Senate process where the Senate conducted an investigation for itself would have been a better process. That was not the will of the Senate and, of course, I am going to accept the will of the Senate. I believe we need a longer process to allow some of these issues to be explored and a process that is longer than a four-hour hearing on a Tuesday morning on another sitting day. I believe there are better processes and better ways of doing this. Let us not pussyfoot around this, let us not kid ourselves, there is a government at the moment who has a social agenda as abhorrent to people like myself, and to many of the Greens as well, I might add, as the Abbott government

Yes, they have a more softly spoken Prime Minister. Yes, they have improved their rhetoric on a whole range of issues. But, fundamentally, the policy agenda being driven by the Turnbull government is no different than that that was being driven by the Abbott government. If you want to justify that, all you really have to do is look at the comments made by former Prime Minister Abbott in his Quadrant piece. I have read the commentary around his Quadrant piece; I am not going to purport to have read the piece itself. I note that the Leader of the Government in the Senate has also not read his piece yet. To paraphrase the former Prime Minister, he said, 'There is no stronger indication of the validity of our economic agenda than the fact that none of it has been repudiated by this government.'

We saw it in question time today, when the Minister for Finance, in answer to a supplementary question, confirmed that it is existing policy that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation be abolished. Let us not purport anything otherwise here. The government have that as their trigger. They are saying that is their policy. It is in the budget papers. At this stage, a double dissolution election appears to have three parts to it: the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the registered organisations act and the attempt to bring back the ABCC. When the government choose to use all six of their questions in question time today to ask themselves dorothy dixers regarding the ABCC, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to see that they are clearly lining that up as a mechanism for a double dissolution election.

I am not scared of a double dissolution election; in fact, I would welcome it. I think the sooner we go to the polls, the better. But let us be clear about what happens if the government wins. If the government wins a double dissolution election, it is a bad outcome for those of us who believe in progressive causes. It is a bad outcome when the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—

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

Sam, do you think you're going to lose?

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No—

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Dastyari, I counsel you to ignore the interjections and continue.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But he is talking to me.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ignore the interjections and address your comments through the chair.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The finance minister did not listen to me, because my point was very clearly that people like me will fight tooth and nail. I was highlighting what the outcome of a loss of a double dissolution election would be. That is the message I am trying to deliver to the Australian people through the Senate.

Senator Simms interjecting—

Thank you, Senator Simms; I will take that interjection. The ABCC, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation being wiped and the registered organisations act are at this stage what it appears we will be going to a double dissolution election on.

Because of what these rule changes to the voting system would mean for the make-up of the Senate, on the current numbers, a double dissolution election is not good for those of us from the progressive side of politics. The changes that are being proposed are highly concerning for people like me, who believe that, if the government had had the numbers to pass their 2014 budget, it would have been terrible for the Australian public. They were not able to because of the make-up of the current Senate. Labor senators, working with Greens senators and a mix of crossbench senators, were able to block some of the atrocious and terrible measures. My worry and my fear are that the government's ideology and agenda have not changed and, should they have the numbers to achieve an objective like that, they would implement it.

There are those on the progressive side of politics who have argued and continue to argue, 'Frankly, all we effectively did was save the government from itself, from its worst behaviour, and the progressive side of politics should step away and let them pass these horrible laws, and then people will see how terrible they are.' I do not support that view. I have never supported that view. I believe that the people of Australia have elected progressive politicians for a reason, and that is to stand up and fight and stay true to causes. While governments may have a mandate of their own, those of us who were elected on the other side of the chamber are from political parties with mandates and agendas which we have a responsibility to stand up for and defend, and we certainly have a responsibility to stand up against matters that are not on our agenda.

I really worry about what all of this is going to mean and what a double dissolution election is going to mean for this chamber if these laws, as intended, give an unfair advantage to some of the more conservative elements of politics in eliminating what is a fairly disparate non-conservative Liberal-National vote on the right of politics. I also believe that the Senate is a better place when a wider range of views are expressed in this chamber, and I say that as a very proud Labor senator. I believe the debate in this nation has been enhanced by the likes of Senator Muir, Senator Leyonhjelm, Senator Day, Senator Wang, Senator Lambie, Senator Lazarus, Senator Xenophon and Senator Madigan, all of whom bring different experiences to this chamber. There are those who argue, 'If they are so great, people will vote for them under any system.' The reality is that, under the model that is being proposed, they would not get the start they got; they would not have the opportunity to be known and to present themselves. People are allowed to disagree with that; people are allowed to argue and to express a different view. They are entitled to do that and they will do that, and so they should.

I feel that a longer and better committee process would allow us to have a better and more transparent debate which would lead to better policy outcomes. I am very confident that the view I hold is correct. Other people have different views and, of course, they will express those views, but I feel that the opportunity to express the various views is limited—when the whole thing is dragged into nothing other than four-hour inquiry to be held tomorrow morning. The irony again is that, if the attempt here is to stop deal making and backroom deals, there has clearly been a deal made between the government and the Greens political party to achieve this policy outcome. I am not quite sure how that would justify or achieve the set objectives. A more open, transparent and consultative process will result—and I believe can result—in these laws being approved.

It is concerning when political parties choose to exercise their power in a winner-takes-all electoral system—

Senator Simms interjecting—

I will take that interjection: electoral reform is best achieved when everybody is in the tent together and when it is not about exclusion but inclusion. This is a fix where the government has decided it wanted to remove a pesky crossbench and retrofit it with a model to achieve that outcome. They have been very clever about it; they have clouded their language with the language of transparency and democracy. I believe that the Greens came to this from a genuine place. I do not believe that the motives here were necessarily all wrong or evil. I do not subscribe to that. What about the ramifications of this if it were used in a double dissolution election—as is openly being proposed by government MPs and ministers, and this is undeniable now; it is not speculation coming from our side of politics. Talk to any journalist in the gallery and they will tell you that government MPs and government ministers are walking the halls and openly saying, 'We have what we need to be able to go to a double dissolution on 2 July or 9 July or 16 July.' These dates are not coming from our side of politics, they are coming from government sources. The government believes it will result in a situation where there will be nine Green senators—

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

That's just not true. You're making this up.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, it is your MPs saying this. Have you read those comments? By your assertion, Senator Cormann, have senior journalists in the pieces they have been writing in the past week been making it up when they quote government sources? These are not second-rate press gallery journalists; these are the most senior journalists in the country. I am not the biggest fan of every journalist in this place—none of us is—but many of them are the most respected journalists in the country and they are all saying the same thing. They are all saying and writing that they are getting this from government sources. Senator Cormann may dispute that, but I believe—and I have no reason not to believe—that they are telling the truth and they are getting information straight from government sources. I worry that a government that is prepared to gloat in the way it is—it is bragging about what it is doing—intends to use this for a double dissolution election. It will be bad for politics if the rules have been set in such a way as to give them the outcome they want. (Time expired)

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not planning to speak tonight, but I must admit I have been moved to my feet by the last two speakers and genuinely moved by the deep concern and the deep care that the Labor Party has for giving up votes in the next election to minor parties and to people from other political parties. In fact, the genuineness of their comments would bring a tear to a glass eye. I think the people they are trying to convince with this argument are their own supporters, because we know that they are very deeply divided on this issue.

The MP who set this up, Mr Gray, has said that the comments he has seen on electoral reform are dumb and are spreading misinformation. My predecessor Bob Brown said to me when he left the Senate, 'Get to know that John Faulkner guy. Get to know him. He's a great guy and he's been around a long time, he has kind of been pushed away from the pack. He is sitting on his own over there; he's been shunned by the Labor Party, but he has a lot of wisdom and a lot of youth. He's still quite young. You will learn a lot from him.' That is what Bob Brown said to me. I read with interest Faulkner's comments a couple of years ago to the JSEM recommendations on Senate reform. He said that it was great that we were going to have some reform—he fully supported the kind of reform we are now planning to debate here in the Senate.

Let's not beat around the bush on this: the Labor Party is deeply divided on this issue. We know there has been a power struggle within the Labor Party over this and we know some of the prominent frontbench senators have won that battle—Mr Gray was very clear about that and he said it was very sad. He said that it was a sad day for democracy and a sad day for the Labor Party. We have seen other Labor Party stalwarts coming out to say they support voting reform. Let's put this on the table as well: why is Labor so divided?

This issue has been debated for years. It has been through numerous inquiries. There is this confected outrage that suddenly this issue has been given a half-day Senate inquiry, but the discussion has been going on for years. Senator Faulkner's contribution, I read this morning, was from 2012. Senator Brown introduced this bill in 2004—12 years ago we had this debate. We have had it on numerous occasions, and these things have been thoroughly examined. Let us be totally honest and put the facts on the table—yes we have different views on this but I do not think anyone in here can put their hand on their heart and say that they are opposing Senate reform because they are the good guys, because they want other people to get voted into this chamber. That is arrant nonsense. We oppose Senate reform for our own benefits, our own self-interest, and we support Senate reform for the same reason but we do not as a party. We have campaigned on this consistently for years because we think it is good for democracy.

I am very proud to have been here with Senator Rhiannon, who introduced these reforms into the upper house of the New South Wales parliament. These changes have been successful in New South Wales. This is something that she will leave as her legacy in this parliament, and she has campaigned for years on getting Senate voting reform where, quite simply, the voters get to choose their preferences. It is that simple. Six above the line gives everybody plenty of opportunity to vote for people like Senator Ricky Muir, plenty of opportunity to vote for minor parties, but it stops the gaming of the system that we have seen in recent years.

I have no doubt that we need to have more debate in this place, and I am sure we are going to as this legislation is tabled. I look forward to that, and so do all my colleagues. This is something that our party has campaigned on for over a decade and it is something that we want to see happen.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to participate in this debate on Commonwealth electoral laws. Senator Whish-Wilson's contribution certainly makes it pretty easy to focus on some of the key issues. Talk about bringing a tear to a glass eye! Certainly Senator Whish-Wilson needed the kleenex. It was suggested that Senator Faulkner was shunned by the ALP. I have never heard that proposition in my life. Senator Faulkner was strong-willed, Senator Faulkner had strong views, Senator Faulkner was extremely competent and Senator Faulkner is a Labor person, he always has been and he always will be, and he is one of the great Labor people ever in the Senate. For Senator Whish-Wilson to stand up and put this view around that somehow Senator Faulkner was shunned by his own party beggars belief.

If anyone has been acting in their own self-interest, if anyone has been looking to their own benefit, it has to be some in the Greens—some of them, not all of them, because I am sure there are big divisions in the Greens on this issue. Timing is everything in politics, and you could easily have had this debate down the track a bit; you could easily have fixed this up. But timing is all about the Greens giving a leg-up to the people they have described as devils on the other side of the chamber—people who stand totally opposed to what the Greens claim they stand for. The more I hear the new Greens leadership articulate their point of view, the more I wonder what the Greens do stand for. When you have the National Party today lauding the Greens for the great decision the Greens have made, you have to ask what is going on. We know what is going on—the Greens did a dirty deal, and they did the deal on the cheap. Every time I hear someone from the Greens talk about democracy, I always think about the lost opportunities that the Greens have given up. I was a union official for 27 years. I was used to bargaining, I was used to negotiating, and I used to walk into some companies and I knew a soft touch when I saw one. I knew when someone was not a good negotiator, I knew when someone just was not tough, I knew when someone would basically capitulate with a bit of pressure. Every time I look at the Greens I think about those bosses that I had to deal with—those bosses who were weak, those bosses who had no backbone, those bosses who were not clever enough to understand the dynamics of a bargaining process. That is exactly what the Greens are like. They have just done a deal on the cheap.

The Greens have made three big calls in my time in the Senate. One was on carbon trading, where they took this pure position whereby nothing that Labor put-up was ever going to be good enough, and if we had had a carbon trading scheme come in when Labor proposed it first up, under the Rudd government, we would have a carbon trading scheme cemented in and operating now. But the Greens in their purity, the Greens in their naivety, the Greens in their stupidity on these issues, just gave the game away—they just gave up. The second area where they proved to be really incompetent was on tax transparency. Again there was an opportunity. If only the Greens had had some backbone, if only they had had some capacity to negotiate and understand that you just do not give in as soon as someone stares you down, then we could have had a better tax transparency deal.

We could have had those 500 to 600 companies that are not subject to any tax transparency caught in the tax transparency net. But the Greens and this new approach, where they want to be mainstream but they cannot actually negotiate—they do not understand the dynamics of a negotiation—went in to the coalition and the coalition looked at them, took their play lunch off them and sent them packing, and they got nothing out of it. We end up with about 500 to 600 companies with no tax transparency because the Greens did not have either the intellectual capacity or the heart to stand up to the coalition. That is exactly what happened on the tax transparency deal. If people rely on the Greens in the future to be the brokers of anything, people have to understand that they are weak, inexperienced and will give in. Their play lunch will be taken off them every day of the week when they are sitting down with the coalition.

We come to the last one, electoral reform—the third big cave-in by the Greens. How cheaply can you give things up? How cheaply can you give away your principles? That is exactly what the Greens have done here. They had on electoral reform the opportunity to deal with the issue of electoral donations, to get some decent democracy in the place. We hear lots about democracy. Democracy is being trampled with electoral funding rorts by the coalition and the Greens had an opportunity to do something about it. What happened? They went to water again. They do not understand the dynamics. They do not understand the long-term issues and they give up. The Greens are reeling. Dirty deals done cheap. That is exactly what they are. They do the deals cheap and they cannot get much out of it.

Look at those three areas: carbon pricing, where their purity got in the way of getting a carbon pricing system in this country; tax transparency, where they did not have the bottle, did not have the intellect and did not have the guts—they did not have the negotiating capacity to stand up to the coalition and they gave in—another dirty deal done cheap; and on electoral reform they did not even go near the thing that is trampling democracy, the use of money in this country to fund the coalition. Money is distorting electoral outcomes. Did the Greens deal that? No. They did not go near it. Did the Greens actually stand up for real democracy? No. They did another dirty deal and they did it cheap.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

I have just heard the National Party being mentioned. The National Party should not be voicing their opinion on any of this stuff when we talk about democracy. They are out there pork-barrelling as hard as they can. They are in there with a weak Prime Minister who cannot stand up to anyone, who is getting pulled left and right, up and down, front and centre, a Prime Minister who does not know what he stands for. All he wanted was to get into the prime ministerial position, and that is all he cared about. We see the Nationals in there, tearing strips out of the public finances because they want to pork barrel in their electorates.

The Greens could actually have done something about this but, because they did not understand the dynamics and did not have the capacity to negotiate, they simply gave up. Who are we dealing with when we are dealing with the coalition? We are dealing with a Prime Minister who in the 2014-15 budget said that he supported every aspect of the budget. There was the ripping away of pensions. Pensioners would have been $80 a week worse off over time with that dirty deal that was put through the budget in 2014. That was a problem. Changes to the disability support pension meant people would be moved either to Newstart or to youth allowance and would be $214 a week worse off. We had $80 billion to be taken out of health and education. We had Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders losing $493.7 million over the forward estimates. These are the types of things that the Greens claim that they stand against. They might claim they stand against them but, when they get an opportunity to do something about them, they do not have the backbone to stand up against them. It must be dead easy for the ministers on the other side. They must sit around and go, 'The Greens are coming to negotiate.' They have a little bit of a giggle and a laugh. They just say, 'Stand firm. Don’t budge. The Greens will capitulate.' That is exactly what happens. The Greens capitulate on the issues.

Senator Whish-Wilson gets up here and starts his talks about what is good for democracy. Surely it would be good for democracy if in this country there was a price on the carbon polluters that you guys let off the hook. Surely, it would be good for democracy if we had tax transparency and the big end of town were paying their fair share in tax. That would have been good. Surely that is something that you would have liked to go back and tell your branches—if you have them; I do not know what you have in the Greens—your rank-and-file members, 'We actually got something out of the coalition.' But you do not get anything; you caved in. You just caved in. Hopeless. You should have been able to go back to the rank and file and say, 'We didn't just get 281 companies to be transparent; we actually got nearly 800, 900.' Did they do that? No, they did not. The Greens just caved in.

With this bill on electoral reform, the Greens really had the opportunity to negotiate a good outcome for democracy, and a good outcome for democracy would have been getting more transparency in electoral funding. Did anybody in the Greens think, when they were in there talking about democracy, that they might have raised what happened in Newcastle, where a Liberal MP got into the front seat of a Bentley with a local multimillionaire and got handed $10,000 in $100 bills, a clear breach of the electoral laws in New South Wales? Didn't they think that they could have at least said, 'Let's deal with these issues; let's link electoral corruption to the issue of democracy'? No, they did not do it. They just caved in, because they do not have either the heart or the intelligence to deal with these issues.

Labor is very concerned about transparency in terms of electoral laws, and it is not just about the Senate election laws; it goes much wider. If you are going to deal with one little aspect and you are not prepared to even put in a decent system of changes for the Senate election laws and you give in on that, there is really not much point in going down the track of dealing with the wider issues.

Electoral rorts in this country have been huge under the coalition, absolutely huge—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about union corruption?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan just cannot keep quiet for two minutes. He has to come in and say it is all the fault of the unions; the unions are the problem. Well, I can tell you that donations from the trade union movement to the Labor Party are transparent. You know where the money has come from—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From crime.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

you know who has given the money, you know when it has come in—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's from the proceeds of crime.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and Labor declare every donation above $1,000—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Proceeds of crime.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

not like you lot over there. You only have to look at some of the rorts that go on. There is Platinum Forum, registered in Victoria. They received over $1 million, but no donations over $12,800 were declared. Where is the money? Who is providing this $1 million? We know who it is; it is the white-shoe brigade. It is those people that want a bigger GST imposed on ordinary Australians. It is those people that want access to tax rip-offs at the expense of ordinary working people. That is who is providing this money. Then there is a mob called Parakeelia Pty Ltd. They received $932,000, but only declared receipts of $43,000 to the ATO. Where did that money come from?

How dare the Liberal and National parties talk about the trade union movement—good, honest workers—providing support to the ALP? How dare you criticise those donations when you have all these secret slush funds all over the country, and money getting handed over in the front seat of a Bentley up in Newcastle? What an outrageous mob you are.

There are more: the Liberal club in Western Australia received $830,000, but there was only $48,000 in declared donations; and the Kooyong 200 Club, $444,720 in donations and only $50,000 disclosed. It goes on and on. There are pages and pages and pages of this stuff.

There are all these little trust funds and rorts getting set up all over the country by the Liberal Party—set up all over the country by these people. Yet they have the gall and the hide to say that ordinary Australians, decent Australians, who are members of trade unions and want to support the Labor Party are doing something wrong. What a bloody joke. What an absolute joke from you mob, when you have all these rorts going on.

And the Greens should have stood up against these rorts. The Greens should have been saying, 'We can fix this because we've got a negotiating position here. We can not only negotiate something decent for electoral reform but get funding reform as well.' But they were too short sighted, they were too weak. They just were not capable of taking that on in the long term.

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

Too greedy.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Too greedy—yes, that's the word. There is all this fundraising that goes on, like the mafia fundraising in Victoria in support of Liberal politicians. That could have been dealt with. The mafia is in there supporting Liberal politicians financially. Why didn't you deal with that? Why didn't you deal with that when you had the chance? Because you were just too weak and incapable of doing it. Here are some headlines: 'Key Liberal fundraising body took mafia money for access', in The Sydney Morning Herald on 30 June 2015; 'Prominent Liberal donor investigated over bribery claim'; 'Donations disclosure reveals murky deal for Country Liberals'. On and on it goes. But, when the Greens had an opportunity to deal with this, you just did not have the bottle to do it. The National Party and the Liberal Party stood over you and you caved in. (Time expired)

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

When Bill Shorten is one of the few people talking sense on the Senate voting reform, you know there is a problem. Recently Mr Shorten observed that 'it is not in the nation's interest or our economic future to give the Greens party the balance of power in the Senate.' Mr Shorten is well qualified to comment. Labor was forced into a deadly embrace with the Greens once before. It was not a pleasant experience for them or for Australia, and Mr Shorten is right to avoid it again.

The irony is that former Greens leader Bob Brown won the first Senate seat for the Australian Greens in 1996 based on the current Senate voting system. The Liberals won three of the six Tasmanian Senate seats up for grabs, Labor won two and Labor was ahead of Brown by 3,450 votes in the race for the last seat. That is where the race would have ended if optional preferential voting—the voting system the coalition is about to enact into law with the Greens' support—was used to count the votes. Labor would have won the last seat, allowing Labor and the Liberals to strengthen their grip on national politics. Thanks to group voting tickets, the race for the last spot did not end there. Instead the Electoral Commission saw that more than 17,000 people had voted for the Australian Democrats, who had not won a seat. The Democrats had told the Electoral Commission that if their votes did not elect a Democrat those votes should be used to help elect a Greens candidate. The Democrats had also made this known to their members and anyone else who cared to listen. So the Electoral Commission transferred those 17,000 votes from the Democrats to the Greens, Bob Brown overtook Labor and won the last Senate seat, and the era of the Australian Greens on the national political scene was born.

In the Senate election in 2013 the Liberal-Nationals coalition and Labor had both won two seats of the six that were up for grabs in New South Wales. I then won the fifth, leaving the Greens ahead of the Liberals' Arthur Sinodinos by more than 100,000 votes in the race for sixth. If the Greens had had their way and optional preferential voting were used, that is where the race would have ended—the Greens would have won the last seat. But the Electoral Commission saw that more than 250,000 people had voted for anti-Greens parties, like the Shooters and Fishers Party, Motoring Enthusiast Party, Christian Democratic Party, Fishing and Lifestyle Party, No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics and One Nation. None of these parties had won a seat, but each had told the Electoral Commission, plus their members and anyone else who cared to listen, that if their votes did not elect their own candidate those votes should go to the Liberals before the Greens. So the Electoral Commission transferred those 250,000 votes to the Liberals, and Arthur Sinodinos won the last Senate seat in New South Wales.

Now in 2016 the Greens have become a major party. They can win more seats if they disenfranchise minor party supporters. They can also force Labor to negotiate with them in ways that should chill the blood of any Labor believer, particularly one who cares about Labor's working-class traditions and commitment to improving the living standards of ordinary people. The Greens are a middle-class party. This is why they do not care when ordinary people's power bills go up because of their latest harebrained environmental scheme, leaving Labor to do the heavy lifting on behalf of the poor. Furthermore, there is something to be said for having a sawmill manager, a country vet, a blacksmith, a soldier, a footy player and a builder in the Senate, rather than the usual production line of lawyers and staffers, who have little real-world experience beyond an exceptional talent for splitting hairs.

On the coalition side the Nationals have been sucked in by delusions of future Senate workability. The coalition agreement with the Liberals is based on the assumption that the option of going their separate ways is genuine. Indeed, that is the situation in Western Australia. But once the new voting system becomes law the Nationals will be bound irrevocably to the Liberals, with no prospect of independence. The two parties will rise and fall together. This will create a perfect environment for the Liberal Party to further restrict irrigated agriculture, prevent clearance of woody weeds, confiscate as many guns as it wants and pursue any other matter that impresses its new Greens friends in the Senate.

The other people breathing a huge sigh of relief will be those few insiders in rural industries riding the levy gravy train, who will be more than happy to stop answering some of my uncomfortable questions about accountability to levy payers. It will not be long before the Nationals are forced to either seek a merger with the Liberals nationally, as has already happened in Queensland, or become just another minor party that the Liberal Party decides it would rather do without. Adding insult to injury, thoughts that the coalition will gain control of the Senate as a result of the changes are fanciful. There is no way that can happen now or in the foreseeable future. Instead, the Greens and Nick Xenophon, who votes with the Greens most of the time anyway, will gain the balance of power. This should be a matter of great concern to anyone who believes rural areas should not all be turned into national parks.

Now I come to the person who has been turned into a pin-up boy for this wretched reform, my colleague Senator Muir. I offer in response to conservatives, who should know better, this quotation from William F Buckley, the editor of the National Review.

I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.

I have been put in mind of this quotation a great deal this week and reminded that we trust sortition to empanel our jurors. But when the electoral system throws up a few men and women of the people we lose our collective minds.

I was horrified when various people suggested Senator Muir's lack of a legal background made him less capable in parliament. I have seen it seriously suggested that Senator Lazarus is not fit to be a senator because he eats too much McDonald's—or perhaps because he does not return calls or keep appointments! I have heard it said that Senator Lambie is not fit to be a senator because she has some strange views and gets angry. The only reason others are not criticised on the same grounds is because they are protected by a large party. Even I am non-standard by this metric, having attributes of the Nats, Labor, the Libs and even occasionally the Greens, but then also disagreeing with them all on many occasions. Who can forget the famous division on the family tax benefit amendments, when I wanted to tighten up the means test. Everyone, and I mean everyone, was on the other side. How weird must I be? I suspect even Ben Chifley would not get preselected these days.

We are in the process of entrenching a political class of clever lawyers with good hair and those who resemble them most closely. This will work for a while, but eventually the jig will be up and the people will send an Australian version of Trump or Berlusconi to Canberra. As Anthony Albanese pointed out on Sunday, you do not fix the problem of fewer people voting for the major parties by changing the rules to make it look like everyone voted for the major parties. The reforms planned by the government are an unprincipled attack on democracy by those who would rather the devil they know—the Greens—than anyone elected by the one in four people who do not vote for the major parties.

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

We are discussing a message from the House concerning the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016, and I would like to raise a few concerns that I have about this message and the way in which the government is seeking to fundamentally change the method of election for this chamber and, given the role this chamber plays, the fundamental change that is being proposed to the composition of the Australian parliament and, as a consequence of that, the types of laws that end up being passed in this parliament. These are concerns that do require much closer examination than the opportunity that has been given to date.

You could argue this case out on a technical basis. You could go to the question around process and the abuse of process, the way in which conservative forces in this country have sought to manipulate their majority in the House, and now their alliance with the Greens would allow the abuse of that arrangement. It would seek to entrench the political power of the hard Right of the Liberal Party and some of the most reactionary elements of the National Party. This has occurred, in essence, because of a desperate effort by the Greens to gain political respectability, to be seen as the party of moderation, to be seen as a force, which of course would allow them to be entrenched in this chamber and Australian polity.

The second question arises about why this is happening. Why is it the Greens party, which was once seen as a party of protest, has become complicit with the domination of its ideological foes? That is a matter that does require very significant analysis, which will not be afforded through this process but which will become apparent to the Australian people, simply because it is an old adage in politics that once you embark upon a process of deception, which has occurred in this manner, you invariably weave a very tangled web indeed.

The government says that this bill does not require a proper consideration by the chamber through a proper committee process because it is essentially the same proposition that was dealt with by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. When you actually look at the explanatory memorandum, you realise the fallacy of that proposition. The explanatory memorandum actually talks about key elements of the original report, and then goes on to say:

The JSCEM identified that the current Senate voting system, as provided for in the Electoral Act, lacks transparency, is overly complex, and needs simplification. The current ballot paper encourages above the line voting, with voter preferences distributed through a complex and opaque system of individual and group voting tickets. The JSCEM concluded that most voters are unlikely to understand, where their preferences flow when they vote above the line.

Of course if any of that was actually right, then why is it that there is such a different proposition being considered in this particular bill from that which was outlined in the original JSCEM report? Because we are not actually talking about the JSCEM in this process. What we are looking at is in fact a proposition that fundamentally alters the principles that were outlined in that original report. So it may well be that you could argue that there is a need for substantial electoral reform in this country, and you could accept the original JSCEM report, but this of course is not that report that we are considering. This is a proposal that we have before this chamber that is fundamentally different from the JSCEM report.

I see that one of the submissions that has been presented to the joint electoral committee, which has been re-established, is by a former official of the Australian Electoral Commission Mr Michael Maley, who, I might add, has not been called by the committee. The committee has in a prearranged, precaucus position determined the witness list in such a way as to make sure that people like Mr Maley cannot get a look in. Surely you can squeeze him in, given it is a four-hour hearing being proposed for tomorrow? Four hours is all that has been proposed for a matter that goes to a fundamental shift in the way in which this parliament ultimately is elected. It is a fundamental shift, the biggest we have seen in a generation, and it warrants no more than a four-hour cursory conversation with preordained, preselected witnesses. And the most interesting thing of all is the proposition for a report to be provided within what appears to be four hours of the hearing's conclusion!

Because one of the resolutions carried at lunchtime today was that the chair proposed to senators that the committee report should be drafted on Tuesday, 1 March, and that if people wanted to have reports considered for printing they had to be made available by close of business tomorrow evening. It leads you to only one conclusion: to hear the hearing tomorrow over four hours and to have the report prepared within four hours, the report has to have been already written. That is the conclusion you must draw. There is not a proper examination of the evidence because there cannot be a proper consideration of the evidence, as limited as it might be by the preselection of witnesses in the manner by which the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has in fact undertaken its work.

It gets better than that. The process by which these witnesses will be examined had has also been detailed by majority vote—a government majority, of course, aided by the Greens in this case—that there should be a rotation of questions with one question being able to be asked by one party, then to the next and the next. This gives disproportionate influence to the Greens in that process. We all know that in any process of inquiry you do not just ask one question; you listen to the answer and ask a follow-up question, because that is the way these processes produce factual evidence. But the proposal we have here in this kangaroo court of an inquiry suggests to me that it is predetermined. The report will be predetermined, so maybe it does not require any questions to be asked, because why would you want to interfere with such magnificent system that is already in place?

I come back to the proposition of Mr Michael Maley, the witness that we are not allowed to hear from. He, of course, was formerly a very senior official of the Electoral Commission. He was the in-house expert in the Electoral Commission who led to the existing system being put in place back in the mid-1980s. Mr Maley says that the scheme proposed will in fact create an anomaly never previously seen at Senate elections: identical preferences for candidates may produce a formal vote if the elector expresses them above the line, but an informal one if they are expressed below the line because the ballot paper would be insufficiently completed.

Mr Maley had a 30-year career with the AEC and was deeply involved in the 1983 drafting of the current provisions of the Electoral Act. He is an outstanding expert in these matters. His submission makes it very, very clear that these arrangements are a fundamental departure from the original report of the joint standing committee, that is, that you must number one to six above the line—the original proposal was only one—and of course below the line you must exhaust preferences.

Of course there is some suggestion that there will be a higher rate of what is regarded somewhat coyly as a wastage rate. The bill's proposal will therefore encourage a higher level of informality. That is the fundamental concern under these arrangements. But how will we test that? The Senate processes that we would normally apply will not apply to this measure, despite its extraordinary consequences for the election of this parliament. We know that the change that has been proposed includes increasing the number of errors allowed from three to five. That still fundamentally does not change the principle that it is much, much more likely that they will be a higher level of informal votes under this system, which, of course, abandons the principles that were outlined in the original JSCEM report. It gives the lie to the notion that we do not need to have a proper examination of the implications of this change because it has essentially been dealt with before. It has not been.

What Mr Maley then says in his submission is that the system proposed in the bill is 'an incoherent one, with no clear underlying principles apparent'. He says:

The current system—

However you complain about it—

at least makes sense, in that it prima facie requires full preferential voting both above the line and below, with allowance only for mistakes. The Committee’s proposal of optional preferential voting both above and below the line also makes eminent sense. The Bill’s proposal, for optional preferential voting above the line but full preferential voting below the line (again with some allowance for mistakes), makes no sense, and has not been supported by any stated justification.

Normally, when you have Senate process, those types of arguments would be given a proper airing, there would be time allowed for them to be analysed and we might be able to reach some conclusion as to the truth of those claims. But under this bodgie set up, this sleazy deal that is now being rammed through this parliament, those types of assessments will not be able to be made.

Mr Maley then recommends:

…that the Committee seek from the AEC data, broken down by State and Territory, on how many below the line Senate votes in 2013 would have been saved from informality under the amendment proposed in the Bill—

to allow two more errors—

in comparison with the number which would have been so saved under the partial optional preferential voting scheme recommended by the Committee, supplemented by appropriate savings provisions.

That is not possible. You will not be able to do that because the committee report has already been written. If it has not been it will be a very short one, because it will simply say, 'The committee recommends commend the bill to the House.' Of course it will not be to the House, because the House has already voted. This is a report which has no interest in what the House of Representatives has to say, despite the fact that it is supposed to be a joint committee, because the House of Representatives has already declared its position. It has carried this measure. I might add that it carried it with errors. No doubt further amendments will have to be made as we discover them. That is the reality of what has happened here. A sleazy deal, done dirt cheap, is now being driven through this parliament irrespective of the consequences for the political system of this country and the damage it will do to the method of selection of members of this parliament.

It well may be that members of the House of Representatives do not think very much about this, because on most occasions in my experience they think very little about the Senate until they lose a bill, they have a Senate inquiry they do not like or because when evidence is presented at estimates, for instance, embarrasses a government or forces the government to retract statements they have made that are untrue. These are fundamental principles, and I think the greatest power of the Senate is the power of disclosure. All the rest is important, but that is the fundamental power.

What these measures do over time is provide the conservative forces in this country with a majority. It is a simple proposition, because under these arrangements the party with the highest number of votes when all the other votes are exhausted will end up with the final Senate position. I put it to members of this chamber that that will mean the conservatives will be more likely to win three out of the six seats in a half Senate election. We have seen in our living memory an occasion where in Queensland they were able to secure four of the six, which gave them the majority and which gave us Work Choices. We know what they do with the majority: they are ruthless and they are absolutely determined to implement an agenda.

But what troubles me is how naive the Greens are in allowing this to happen. What we would see here with these arrangements is the $100,000 degrees, the smashing of people's rights to organise work and the $7 Medicare co-payments. We would see the shocking inequities of the 2014 budget delivered with all the regressive social consequences that would have. We would have the assaults on the unemployed, the weak and those who are socially disadvantaged. That would all be endorsed by an electoral system which the Greens are now providing to us.

I take the view that there are alternatives; there always have been. I think one of the weaknesses of the original JSCEM report—and I have made this point many times—is the way in which it failed to deal with alternative methods of ensuring that the manipulations of the electoral system were not prosecuted in the way they had been. We know the best way that can be done. Ross Gittins made the point this morning in the paper, which is a widely held view, that:

A better solution – one that ended gaming by micro parties without stymieing all democratic change – would be to retain the present preference system but simply add the rule that candidates getting a primary vote of less than, say, 2 per cent, would be excluded from election and their preferences redistributed.

That was published in the Fairfax press this morning.

We know that already in many countries around the world there exists various methods of establishing thresholds. In Turkey, I think the number is 10 per cent—some might say that is far too high. In the Russian Federation, it is seven per cent. In Germany, it is five per cent. I understand that in Belgium, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, there is a similar type number of five per cent. In Austria, it is four per cent. In Bulgaria, Italy, Norway, Slovenia and Sweden, it is four per cent. In Spain, it is three per cent. In Greece, Romania and Ukraine, I think they have just reduced it from four to three per cent. It is two per cent in Denmark. There are different types of electoral systems around the world which give proper, fair representation to all different shades of political opinion but which allow for an important confidence measure to be built into the electoral system to ensure that there is a proper representation of a range of views.

I failed to deal with the really big question, and that is: why? In part, it is because the Greens are so desperate in their hostility to some of the very right wing members of the crossbench that they think the way to exclude them is to do a deal with people who are even more right wing in the government. Some of those take the view that even those who have been so determined to vote with the government are now getting their just rewards because the government is turning on them. The reality is pretty simple: this has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with an attempt to entrench the political power of the Greens.

We know the Greens are transforming themselves. They are becoming increasingly the party of the inner city, the extremely wealthy people in the inner-city. They are a party—and I think I made this observation before—where they believe that the best social conscience that money can buy is something to aspire to. They are very different in their outlook to Labor; but they are only too happy to entrench their power by doing a deal with the most conservative elements in the country, despite claiming that they are a party of protest. What we do know is that the Greens very much are now prepared to turn their back on questions of social justice and social equity if it means they can secure their power in this chamber. They will even do it if there are consequences for some of their own number. I suppose in some quarters that would be regarded as a win-win situation, because the people that they are removing have been a thorn in the side of the leadership of the Greens in recent times.

It is a tragedy that this is happened. This is a shameless abuse of the Senate process, and it is the shameful proposition that the Greens have been so complicit in.

Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make just a short statement in relation to this. I will have a lot more to say when the bill itself is actually being debated. I will be introducing some amendments and hopefully speaking in length in relation to them.

I am concerned that the most significant changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 since 1984 are being rushed though the parliament for party political purposes. Adjunct Professor Michelle Grattan AO appears to agree and is on record with the following comment:

While the government boasts about engaging the community on the tax issue, it has avoided public debate as it seeks to muster the numbers for voting changes that would have sweeping implications for the Senate’s future composition. … This would be an extraordinarily fast passage for such an important measure. But then speed is always possible if interests coincide.

It is concerning that the government does not appear to be concerned with seeking broad support for these changes, given that they will likely be around for decades to come. At a minimum, the consideration of this bill should be delayed until the week of 15 March, for the following reasons: it will allow the library to complete their research and return advice to Senators; and, it will give the non-government members the drafting resources they need to move the necessary amendments.

Due to the compressed timeline and the controversial nature of the bill the resources of the drafting office and Parliamentary Library are overstretched. I am concerned that my crossbench colleagues will not be able to move any necessary amendments due to research and drafting constraints. The report date of the committee should be extended to allow all options and submissions to be considered properly. I believe the committee referral is nothing more than a token process, when submissions close less than 24 hours before the first and only public hearing, with a report handed down shortly thereafter. And this hearing is only a half day hearing. It is pathetic for such a large change to our electoral system. This compressed timeline cannot possibly allow for anything more than token scrutiny of the bill.

I will finish by asking this question: if this reform is such a great idea, then why is it being rushed through the parliament and why is it being hidden from proper scrutiny? The parliament should have more time to scrutinise the changes and not have them rushed through. I am certain there are many members of the Greens who agree in the importance of transparency and accountability in government decision-making at all levels, and they should be bitterly disappointed in their elected representatives.

I heard Senator Whish-Wilson stand up earlier on and say that this bill has been scrutinised for the last year, or even longer—he mentioned 2012. That is a lie—an outright lie! I believe the politically engaged Greens supporters should be able to see straight through that. When the government is putting forward something to do with the environment or to do with economics that the Greens want to knock down, they will scream 'process' very loudly. Senator Whish-Wilson said that this has been properly debated. It has not been. It has been spoken about in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which is a closed group up until tomorrow, where minor parties and independents were not able to get in and have a say. This bill does not completely reflect the recommendations that came out of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, so it is wrong to say that this is being scrutinised properly, because it has not been, in the form in which it is being presented. The government and the Greens are lying to the voters of Australia.

On that logic, the government has been after penalty rates for many years. Since they have been speaking about it, if they brought a bill forward should we just support it? I don't think so. But that is what could end up happening if the Greens cement themselves in and lock every other minor party out so that proper scrutiny of this parliament is not able to proceed.

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

I too rise to speak on the message. Just in case those who may be listening to the debate are somewhat bemused, where we are at is that a message has been received by the Senate in respect of an amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016. The bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to—and using the words of the EM, which I do not agree with, but for the purposes of the debate perhaps it does shed some light on what we are here to do in the euphemistic way that the coalition tend to frame their legislation:

… improve the Senate voting system, require that there be unique registered officers for federally registered parties, and allow for political party logos to be printed on ballot papers.

…   …   …

providing for partial optional preferential voting above the line, including the introduction of advice on the Senate ballot paper that voters number, in order of preference, at least six squares;

There is also a savings provision where only one is provided. It also provides 'appropriate vote savings provisions'. The bill also then abolishes 'group and individual voting tickets'. And of course it introduces 'a restriction that there be a unique registered officer and deputy registered officer for a federally registered party'. It is primarily aimed at what the coalition would argue is to provide transparency and to reduce the confusion. In fact, what it does is the opposite, and it is not unsurprising for the coalition to dress-up their legislation in such a way.

This debate, of course, did not start this evening. This debate has been going for some time. The original group voting tickets were introduced some time ago. For nearly 30 years it has stood the test of time and principally it was introduced—that is, the current system—to ensure that the informal voting growth that had started to occur in the Senate was constrained and remedied. Today, we have an informal vote which is by all accounts very, very small. This is a new change that is untested, one that could wrought havoc in the voting system in the Senate. It could ultimately change the way that Senators are elected and the way that people might bring themselves to vote. It could create outcomes which are as yet unknown. Informal voting could rise. But we do know a couple of things. We do know that it will disenfranchise many who vote for minor parties and Independents in the Senate, which is a significant portion over the last couple of years; it has arisen to well above 25 per cent. All that might sound worrying, but the coalition does not appear to be worried one jot, and nor do the Greens, who have signed up to this. The Greens, the government, and we can throw in Senator Nick Xenophon, have all agreed to alter the laws governing the election of senators. In this place those who have the numbers tend to win. With the coalition and the Greens and Senator Xenophon, they will ultimately have the numbers.

Our role as an opposition party is to highlight where we think the government have made substantive errors. The first error I think is easy to identify. The coalition have sought to rush this legislation through with little scrutiny. The vast work of the Senate in scrutinising legislation has been sidelined by the coalition and the Greens. What that review brings to the table is that, where there are unintended consequences, mistakes and foreseen areas that should be rectified, none of that will get an opportunity to be aired.

The government has deigned to allow a very short inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to report by 2 March 2016. The government desires to have the legislation passed as soon as possible so that it can implement these changes before an election. That means that the Senate committee in this instance that is charged with examining electoral matters, JSCEM, will not have the opportunity to receive well-reasoned, considered submissions into this bill. It will get submissions. I hazard to guess there are many who are interested in providing comprehensive submissions about changes such as these. They will not all get to put pen to paper. There will be some submissions that will not be heard. There will be submissions that have had to be rushed. There will be people who will not have the opportunity of examining all the implications of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016. All that does not hark well for this bill.

The government and the Greens will implement what they claim to be the JSCEM recommendations. But that does not mean that they will represent Labor's position. It was a majority report. No-one can cavil with that. But the coalition and the Greens have reduced it to a bill to be introduced into parliament and it should get the appropriate scrutiny of every other bill. It should have a proper inquiry. There should be the ability for submitters to be heard in respect of the bill. The bill should be allowed to be examined in detail. But this coalition government, with the support of the Greens, is treating the Senate like it treated the Senate between 2004 and 2007. It treated the Senate as a sausage machine and it brought us Work Choices and a raft of other legislation that had very little scrutiny and was brought in because it had the numbers to crunch the legislation through the Senate. It did not end well for the coalition. Some suggest that it contributed to its ultimate downfall. When you have that sort of power, it is clear what it means. When you have unfettered power of that nature, it will corrupt. When the coalition between 2004 and 2007 had unfettered control of the Senate, it ultimately lead to corruption of the legislative process. That led, I think, ultimately to their demise.

This is not comprehensive reform. If the government were serious about comprehensive reform then they would have done like Labor have done and provided a green paper or white paper on the reform process with the support of all those on board and then ultimately brought legislation through with proper Senate scrutiny and proper House scrutiny through the JSCEM and then proper scrutiny of the actual legislation itself to bring changes in this place. But that was not done. It was not done at all.

Much has been said about the Greens and their role in all of this in this place during this debate. Some say they have naively signed up to this process. I do not subscribe to that view. I think the Greens in this instance have made a very deliberate decision to support this bill because they see an ultimate benefit for them. That is not the Greens of old. That is the new Greens. We might refer to them as a new party now because they are moving from being a protest party to being a centre left party of minor party status, seeking, I think, the role the Democrats once played in this place. There is a risk you run in pursuing a centre left minor party role. When there is a debate between the major parties they will have the ability to support either the Liberal coalition or Labor. They will then get to hold the balance of power in this place. It is a difficult thing to hold, maintain and control. Ask the Democrats how difficult it is when you move into the balance-of-power role within the Senate. The Democrats held that for some time but ultimately they disintegrated because of policy differences, personality differences and differences across nearly every other spectrum you could imagine within their ranks.

Not that I am apt to give advice, but the Greens ought to take notice of history in this place. They are moving from being a genuine protest party with a base that was founded on a range of policies—and I agree with many of them. They have promoted those policies, but they will not get them up as a balance-of-power minor party in the Senate. The coalition will not support them, so they will have to compromise. They will have to compromise their values and their policies to achieve a minor party balance-of-power status in this place. All that means ultimately is that the gain they have viewed that they will take out of this might be short-lived over time.

There are genuinely held, different views about Senate reform, particularly when it comes to voting reform. There are options that have been floated from the green papers on electoral reform from Labor which dealt with the introduction of threshold systems for counting votes, the introduction of single-member constituencies and amendments to the ticket voting system to allow for preferential above-the-line voting or optional preferential voting below the line. All of these have been canvassed for some time. Ultimately, if we were going to choose a particular system, I do not think it is up to the coalition or the Greens to settle on one system from a committee report. You need to develop a properly reasoned position from a green paper or a white paper through to taking the electorate with you on Senate reform. If you do not do that then I think the only alternative answer is that it is designed to benefit both the coalition and the Greens, and give them significantly more power within the Senate. When you look at how the changes might come about, you wonder whether those changes will create an appropriate system, a fair system and a transparent system, as they would say.

It is also proposed to amend the legislation to implement key elements of Labor's longstanding policy to enhance transparency and accountability in relation to political donations. These amendments would enact key elements of the reform proposed by the previous Labor government in the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill. Labor was unable to proceed with this legislation as the coalition joined with the crossbench to block it in the Senate. The main objects of the bill included reducing the donation disclosure threshold. These are truly matters of reform that the coalition could embrace. Labor has continued to ensure transparency around political donations. The coalition, on the other hand, have maintained a steadfast opposition to transparency around political donations. Why, you ask? They do not embrace transparency particularly well. They do not embrace the objects of transparency. That is why, when I see it written in this bill as being an object by the coalition, I find it hypocritical, and I doubt strongly whether this government intends to actually embrace transparency in any way, shape or form.

The Greens and the coalition have come to a concluded view that this is the way forward. Why? Because back in the 2013 election there were minor parties who managed to ensure that people got elected. People differ on whether it was sharp practice or whether they gamed the system or whether they used the system to the best of their advantage. The question that I have not formed a view about yet is whether or not you can continually do that even if the next election remains unchanged from this, whether the system would correct itself because people—the major parties or the Greens or the minor parties—are aware of how the gaming occurs and could put in strategies to defeat it by, or whether there is the same impetus for the minor parties. I have always found voters who are smart enough to understand the system not to be fooled twice.

The question then is are we rushing to change the voting system in the Senate, that stood the test of time for over 30 years, for a short, political fix and gain by the Greens and the coalition? If we are doing that and it fails will we be back here in three years time or sooner with more amendments, with more change? It will drive a seesawing or pendulum system of change around electoral changes or voting systems for the Senate. You will ultimately lose the support of the voter if you choose to head down this path without taking the voter with you. They will find the new system and whether they will embrace it or not is a moot point because they have not been asked to make submissions, to be heard or to be taken on the journey of Senate reform.

Many might say that it is an insider's game. But, ultimately, it is about the franchise. It is about the opportunity for people to cast their vote in the Senate. If you are going to make a substantive change such as this, then it should not be rushed. It should be considered. Any change should be thought through more than this piece of legislation that is being rushed through. It comes on the back of what is described as 'small party success'. It ignited fairly heated debate about the fairness of the voting system, given the distribution of preferences which delivered seats to minor parties. We have heard from minor parties who have benefited from that system and who have embraced it. We have now heard from the Greens who find it underwhelming, which is odd if you look at the Greens' history. They want to ensure that the minor parties, the independents, do not get a voice in the Senate, that they do not get heard. I would have thought it was anathema to the Greens' position that they want to stifle minor parties, stifle debate in the Senate, and ensure that only the Greens, the coalition and Labor get the opportunity of speaking in this place, of being heard in this place, and of discussing and reviewing legislation in this place. It is not a position that the Greens have articulated in this place over time. The Greens have also not articulated a position of cutting short Senate inquiries and of cutting short debate on legislation.

The Greens have loudly, sometimes unfairly—mostly fairly—complained about the opportunity the two big parties have taken to put legislation through. They are now party to that. Be aware: you are now party to this debate. You cannot, tomorrow or the next day, walk away from that position. You have put your foot fairly with the major parties on the way the Senate will be managed into the future. Do not come back into this place tomorrow or the next day or next year and complain if legislation that you want to be heard on is treated in the same manner, if legislation is rammed through, should the coalition, post the next election, gain the majority in this place. It is with your hands that you have achieved it—no-one else's. You do not have to do this, but you are. You have now moved to the Centre Left position on the pendulum and you should take responsibility for all your actions in this place on that point.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been motivated to speak on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016, which has been received from the House of Representatives. I concur with so much of what Senator Ludwig contributed to this debate. There is a message for Greens senators in this place, who, at every opportunity, like to take the high moral ground. How many times have we in this place heard about how bad it is for whoever is in government to cut off debate? Well, the Greens are party to doing exactly that when it comes to changing the laws to elect senators.

For 30 years the electoral system has worked very well. Under the laws currently in existence, the Australian people have been represented by all of those who have been elected to this place—irrespective of whether or not I agree with them.. I can only speak for my home state of Tasmania, from which an array of senators have been brought to this place over the decades to contribute to debates on very important legislation.

In this instance, we see the Greens of old—a point on which I disagree with Senator Ludwig, because unfortunately for far too long we in Tasmania have had to deal with the Greens always wanting to take the high moral ground, always talking as if they are the only people who represent their communities with a principled position, whether here in the Senate or in the state parliament. My colleague Senator Bilyk, who is here in the chamber tonight, and I know only too well that the Greens are an opportunistic party. They condemn the major parties and make those sorts of accusations against us, but they want to limit the scrutiny of this legislation by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which represents both members of the House of Representatives and senators. As a former member of that committee, I can say that committee members might have had different views on the issues that came before us, but we always had the respect to allow proper contributions by those who wanted to make a contribution. Whenever we held hearings, we ensured that people representing all views on the issue before us had the opportunity to come and make a contribution.

But what do we see here? When the Greens are motivated, along with the government, by an opportunity to improve their self-interest, to improve what they perceive to be the chance to put more Greens on the leather seats here in this chamber, that is exactly what they will do. I am all for taking an opportunity if you think it is in the best interests of the community, but if you are going to do that you do not roll over so easily and sell out. The Greens have come in here and preached about the sorts of reforms you believed were necessary in relation to political donations. They had their opportunity to really do something about having proper scrutiny of political donations, about having transparency. But what did they do? All they said was: 'Yes, government, we will support Mr Turnbull and we will support Senator Brandis to ensure this legislation gets rushed through. We will support reducing the opportunities for those people who have an interest in electoral reform to make a contribution or to be part of scrutinising legislation by reducing the amount of time the committee has to pass judgement and to take evidence on this proposal.' The Greens never took the opportunity to have real reform.

We in the Labor Party have said many times that we should be looking at electoral reform, but with that comes the necessity to have a proper strategy for ensuring that all issues on the table are considered. When the government are talking about tax reform—although they were not very keen on talking about that in question time today—they say that everything is on the table. Isn't it funny: when it comes to electoral reform, which affects every Australian over the age of 18, they do not want to put everything on the table; they just want to run their own agenda. That agenda is being part of a dud deal that ensures the Greens have finally, once and for all, put it out in the arena that they can be bought, that they are not a group of people with any real principles. They are prepared to sell out the Australian people because they see an opportunity to maybe increase their representation. That has yet to be determined. There were no negotiations. The Greens just agreed to whatever the government wanted. I ask: if you are really serious about reform, about scrutinising political donations, why didn't you negotiate that point with the government?

This is just a dirty deal which purges the Senate of small parties and independents. It prevents new parties from ever getting elected; it exhausts the votes of 3.3 million Australians and risks turning the Senate into a rubber-stamp for a coalition government. All those issues that the Greens go out into the community and say they are sincerely committed to—ensuring that we have proper climate strategies in place, changes in the environment and climate change—all of those are at risk, because the coalition government will rubber-stamp. As someone who was here during the Howard government, when it had outright control of the Senate, I know exactly what they will do—they will use their numbers every single time. It will not matter if the Greens have nine, 10 or 12 senators, the policies that you purport to hold dear will be rolled over in the same way you are trying to roll over the changes in electoral reform by participating with the government.

It was never envisaged that the Senate should be made up of the two major parties and the Greens. It was the intention at Federation that all states have equal representation of senators. But what we see now is a government which is not prepared to talk about the big issues—about taxation reforms or the economy and the plan for strengthening that. When I asked a question in the chamber today we had Senator Brandis say that the Prime Minister was too busy to outline his plan, not only to the Australian people on tax reform, but also—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. That is an absolute misrepresentation of what I said, Senator. I said no such thing, and you are misleading the Senate in attributing to me words that I did not use—

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, what is your point of order?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is my point of order.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I love it when I get those sorts of interjections.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I dislike liars!

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, withdraw.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said in this place today, we heard that the government and the Prime Minister would not respond to questions. What is so different about this Prime Minister? What reasons did he give for knifing Mr Abbott? There is nothing different. When it comes to the government wanting to rush through legislation— when we were in government, we heard those opposite cry foul rushing through legislation and closing down debate—they are hypocrites along with the Greens. It is a shame that, when we have an opportunity for some serious reform, we do not get people together and we do not produce a white paper or a green paper. What we do is ram through what we perceive to be in our own best interests. That is what this debate is all about.

Experience tells me that legislation rushed in this place all too often ends up being bad legislation. It is rushed through without due consideration or scrutiny. We will see with this legislation, as we have seen with other legislation, that it will have to be amended. After all, this is just a dirty deal that has been done to expedite the coalition's motivation to call a double D to get rid of the crossbench—a crossbench, to be fair to them, that has brought a vast array of experience to this place, and I think this Senate has been much richer for it. We have certainly all learnt daily from contributions that have been made by those senators. It is politically opportunistic of this government. Instead of waiting and having proper due process, this government wants to go to a double D, and this is the opportunity to wipe out the crossbench. The Greens will then see themselves as being the ones to determine the outcome of any legislation by holding the balance of power, along with Senator Xenophon.

Things do not always fall the way you think they will. It is really disappointing that the opportunity for proper transparency has been missed. The government side is always having a go that unions which are affiliated with the Labor Party make donations to us at election time, but we know that the arrangements those on that side make with their various interest groups—the business community and so on—they do not want to have transparency when it comes to political donations because they would be exposed.

The big losers in this debate will be not just the crossbenchers, who no doubt will be wiped out, but the Australian people. They will no longer have the same opportunities to express their motivations for the people they vote for. It will cause the Electoral Commission, the AEC, before this double dissolution election is called, to rush around to make sure that the Australian people have some idea about having a formal vote at the next election.

As I have said, there were a lot of things that Senator Ludwig contributed to this debate that I would want to agree with, but Senator Whish-Wilson in his contribution tried to outline to the Senate the processes by which Labor caucus arrived at our decision. He is totally and utterly wrong to suggest that we had a different view to the one we are espousing and will continue to espouse when the legislation comes before the Senate. There was never a decision to support this type of reform. We have always said that the reform process needed to be full and frank and open to scrutiny. The views of one member of the caucus, whether it is a shadow minister or not, do not tie us to supporting this type of legislation. They do not bind us to do that. We have open and frank conversations and debates within our caucus.

Senator McKim is one who knows only too well how to sell out his community and what sort of dirty deeds and deals he has to do. Before he came to this place he did some amazing details to suit his political opportunities at the time. But here we have a real opportunity for the Greens to convince us on this side of the chamber and the Australian community that they really are people of principle. If they were people of principle, they would have used this opportunity and they would at least have had some respect for ensuring that there was transparency in any political donations made. That is what the Australian community expects. If you are going to reform a voting system, make sure it is for the betterment of the community and this country. They have failed that test in this debate.

Those who say they are people of principle, those who take the high moral ground, have been exposed for what they really are—political opportunists. That is all this amounts to. Otherwise they would not be closing down the debate, they would not be closing down scrutiny of this legislation before it comes to the Senate for a vote. Instead of rushing it through and expecting this legislation to be passed this week, they would allow full and frank scrutiny of the legislation by the relevant committee. It is very disappointing that they want to rush through reform of legislation that has stood the test of time for the last 30 years—for three decades. It is the same system that brought all of us to this place, and I thought it was a good system that enabled the Australian community to know that when they were casting their vote they were going to be electing people who had principle and who would be voting in the interests of the Australian community. That is clearly not the position of the Greens, who have so quickly jumped into bed with the government and done this dirty deal. That is all it can be seen as—a dirty deal that they believe will advance themselves.

As some of my colleagues have said to me in relation to this reform, don't the Greens really like Senator Hanson-Young? She will be under threat. Or are they going to get rid of Senator Simms? We do not know the outcome—we do not know whether there are going to be changes in South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria or Queensland. One thing we do know is that those people who vote for an Independent or a minority grouping will no longer have their voices heard to the extent that they currently do now. Whether the next election is a half-Senate election or a double dissolution, we do not know what the final make-up will be. We do not know whether those Independents who sit in the chamber today will be the same as those who will sit here after the election. But to ensure that they do not risk their opportunities to maximise their own position, they have got into bed with this government on something as important as electoral reform. As I said, I could have some respect for them if they really wanted to see proper reform by having a proper inquiry that enabled everyone who wanted to make a contribution to do so. As a participating member of the committee—I am no longer a full member—I would have no chance at all of asking a question in the inquiry that will be held tomorrow because quite clearly there will not be enough time. That is unfair to every senator in this place who wants to make a contribution to this very important issue.

The Greens could have said they would only vote for this package if they got meaningful donation reform in this country. But they did not—they did not take that opportunity. The only opportunity they took was one that they believed was in their best interests. It would be very interesting to know how Senator Macdonald, who constantly interjects in this place and hurls abuse whenever the opposition and the Greens vote together on any legislation, really feels about it. I bet he will get in behind this legislation because, once again, it is in the interests of the government and the Greens and no-one else.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this message from the House of Representatives concerning the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill. As senators would know, I am one of the newer senators in this place so I have not been as involved in some of the discussion about Senate voting reform as other senators may have been. However, in the last two weeks or so I have been having a look at this, and certainly a closer look in the last weeks since the legislation was tabled. There are a couple of things that raise some concerns with me. The only experience I can talk from is the electoral reform process that we went through in the ACT that was largely around a donation reform, but I do recall very much the detail of the inquiry process that was undertaken for that legislative reform and the fact that we worked very closely with all members of the assembly in that reform process to ensure that as much as possible the reforms were supported across the board where agreement could be reached.

Indeed that was the process I took when we took the decision to seek to expand the assembly's membership. We acknowledged that we needed an absolute majority in the assembly to get that reform through, and that we must work together but we must take the time that was needed to ensure that reforms were supported and could move smoothly through the assembly. The contrast I have noticed with the approach that has been taken here to that experience is that a bill that was released last week for public consideration was going to be swept through. I think we all thought that it was going to be pushed through this week. We now understand that that might not be the case and that we will have a bit longer, maybe another week, before the debate is called on. The laws that will determine how representatives are elected to the parliament would be agreed behind closed doors between only two political parties—I include Senator Xenophon in that as well—and then released to everybody else and rammed through after a sham process. This strikes me to be completely at odds with the approach that should be taken on electoral reform. Indeed, my understanding of the work that was done through the joint standing committee seems to fly in the face of some of the work that was done there. That is my first point.

The second point I would make is that the bill as it is designed will ensure that about 25 per cent of voters, which is around 3.3 million Australians, who did not vote for one of the parties that is going to be advantaged by this proposed change will have their votes exhausted. Whatever you think of who those 3.3 million are voting for, and certainly on this side we would all like them to all vote Labor, the reality is that they are not. They are voting for a range of other candidates. Under the proposed system that is being put forward by the Greens and the coalition, those votes would simply exhaust. I think on any fair measure of any electoral system people would raise an eyebrow at that and not just write it off as, 'Well, that's the change that was needed in order to push through an agenda, in this instance of the government in cahoots with the Greens.'

I have worked pretty closely with Greens over my political career. Probably in the last 13 or 14 years they are the party that I have had to work with the most. Indeed I worked inside a cabinet with a Green member. I think I am certainly pretty experienced in working with Greens, but I can tell you in that time, I probably sat through more lectures than I can remember about appropriate process, due process, accountability, transparency and giving the public the opportunity to comment and to understand. In fact I could name several inquiries where extensions were sought and certainly where positions had to be amended and conciliated and compromises had to be reached because of a very strident position on some occasions that the Greens took on process. We heard Richard Di Natale, the leader of the Greens in the Senate, today stand up and say, 'Sometimes we can just get too caught up on process,' when we have the opportunity actually to make the decision and get that decision done. I think it is the first time I have ever heard that from a member of the Greens political party, but I can recite example after example where—including my own preference—a decision that was taken would have to be negotiated, conciliated and work through the relevant Greens committees, co-conveners and party membership in order to get a position agreed to. The position that the Greens have taken on this bill flies in the face all of my experience of working with that political party.

Then you must come to the next question, which is why would the Greens political party take a position so different and so at odds with the approach they take on every other piece of legislation? Even in my short time in this place, I have certainly been on the end of lectures from the Greens about process, appropriate time and extensions for certain pieces of work to be done and the ability for the community to be appropriately consulted. Certainly that has been much more in accordance with the position of the Greens in the ACT, and yet on this piece of legislation it is a completely different approach. This approach is reduced scrutiny and no transparency in the arrangements that were agreed to. The deal was done; we have committee process being put in place. On any other issue the Greens would be screaming for a change to the way that Senate voting is to happen. This is the biggest change in 30 years, and a half-day hearing of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is to be held the day before the committee is required to report to parliament. Now some cynics—there are probably a few of us in this place—would maybe presume that at this point the draft report is being written. I do not know. It seems to me that the truncated timetable would mean that somewhere, someone in this building is probably working on a draft report as we speak, and that is the farce that we have all unwillingly on this side been pulled into. There is no way that there is going to be time to write a full report on this bill following a 4½-hour hearing tomorrow if it is to report the next day. But that is the sham. Whilst we could accept that it is not an approach that the coalition might want to take, the government wants to see this bill through and they have certainly been very clear about that. We can see some of the ultimate consequences that are advantageous to them so I understand that a little bit more. But to actually have the Greens wrapped up in the sham process, when it looks like potentially they will lose a couple of senators if there was a double dissolution election held in July, is beyond me.

Senator Simms interjecting—

I should not take the interjection but I think it is starting to dawn on certain senators in your team, who are actually starting to work through what the consequences of taking this dangerous path will be. We work in this building and the corridors and the carpet talk. We have heard them. We know that there are a couple of worried people in your group—it is not all Kumbayah and holding hands over there in the Greens this evening.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Gallagher, address your comments through the chair please.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will. We all hear what is being said and there are people who are worried. This sham process has been signed up to by the Greens in completely the opposite way that they usually conduct their politics. For what? To hand the coalition, potentially, a majority in the Senate and, by doing so, be unable to progress the agenda that the Greens political party profess to hold so dearly—things like climate change, things like border control and immigration, things like fair funding for schools, things like hospital funding and things like preventative health. All of those things that we hear are so important to the Greens political party or the ability to prosecute those arguments are challenged by the deal that they themselves signed. They have wandered into a room, shut the door and shaken hands with the Prime Minister. It is absolutely beyond me why that approach would be taken.

But I can say, for senators in this place that get lectured by the Greens on process, accountability and transparency, those days are over. The deal that the Greens signed up to last week, they chose the path and that path was to hold hands with the coalition to single-handedly get rid of the representatives of 3.3 million Australians who did not vote for the Greens, who did not vote for Labor and who did not vote for the coalition. That path was chosen by the Greens and their leader leader—perhaps not by their whole team, particularly the ones that are going to be jeopardised by this change being put in place.

It is not just the Labor Party raising concerns about this deal. I think anyone who read the weekend papers would have seen concerns being raised by eminent commentators such as George Williams, who, while supportive of elements of the bill, still questioned the need to ram it through and not have a proper inquiry process. Richard Denniss, who perhaps is someone that the Greens occasionally listen to and who is occasionally supportive of some of the policies the Greens have, raised concerns and questions about why does it have to be pushed through? He wrote:

A full inquiry into the intended, and unintended, consequences of the Bill negotiated between the Greens and the government would help the media and public think through where we now look headed. In short the new system will help the Liberals and Nationals fend off the rising threat from the likes of Ricky Muir, Glenn Lazarus, David Leyonhjelm and Jacqui Lambie. In the medium term it also helps protect the Greens from the emergence of any "left wing micros".

There we have it pretty succinctly summed up about who benefits from it—in the medium term, certainly the Greens. They are prepared to have a few casualties of their own team in the short term if it all secures a greater long-term spot for the Greens. But that is the price that will be paid for this dirty deal.

I know there are other senators who would like to speak on this but I think this is the last time that I will be lectured by the Greens about process and accountability and transparency and electoral reform and donation reform and all of those—