Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does any senator wish to have the question put on any of those meetings?

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

Mr President, can you please be clear with the Senate—is leave required to speak in relation to any of these meetings?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the practice now is that, unless any senator wishes to have the question put on any motion, it is deemed that those motions are agreed to—that those meetings can take place. But we always ask at this juncture whether any senator wishes to have the question put on any one of those committee meetings. You have the right to have the question put without any debate or without any amendment. It just goes straight to a vote.

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

Do I need leave if I do wish to speak about one of the committees?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, then you need to seek leave.

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

I seek leave to make short statement about the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for three minutes.

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

I would like to indicate that Labor will support the holding of this meeting, although I want to draw the attention of senators to the way this inquiry is being conducted. When senators turned up for the first time after the message from the House that we were allowed to participate as members, we found a fait accompli—so the invitation for us to participate was a complete farce. We arrived and were told, 'Here is the witness list, here is the time and here is the opportunity for people to have their say.' When I suggested that perhaps there might be other Australians interested in putting forward a submission or appearing at incredibly short notice, I was successful in putting forward one name but was then told that that was it and there were to be no more changes to the agenda as listed. Then I arrived in my office this morning to find an email saying that the government had decided to change a witness!

This is the way the government is treating the Senate—with the complete complicity and connivance of the Greens. We have a farcical process where Australians who might have an interest in this issue are being denied an opportunity to put forward their point of view and are being denied an opportunity to attend and participate as witnesses. Then we are going to have it rammed through with a report next week.

It was suggested on the ABC this morning—a rumour—that the government is no longer intending to try to force this legislation through this chamber this week. Golly, what a concession! But, if that is the case, I say to the government—and particularly to the Greens, who claim to care about transparency and democracy—that there is no need to keep the current reporting date for the inquiry. There is no need for the haste. There is an opportunity to hold a hearing next week so that more than just the government's approved witnesses can turn up, so that more than one side of this argument can be heard.

Minor parties could be given an opportunity. They do not have the machinery of the Greens, the opposition or the government to put a submission in. Given there were only two days to lodge a submission, I am not surprised they have not been able to get one in, and I am not surprised they have declined to be witnesses, as is claimed in a note I received this morning. They have not had a chance to prepare for this. I say to those in this chamber—especially if, as the government are now privately indicating, this will not go forward this week—that there is an opportunity to revisit JSCEM having a longer inquiry.

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for three minutes.

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

The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, as the expert committee of the parliament to look into this proposed legislation, is of course in charge of its own destiny in putting together its agenda and its approach to dealing with submissions. The important point to make is that what the government is putting forward as a proposal responds directly to the considered recommendations—the unanimous recommendations—of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. That means it responds to the recommendations put forward and endorsed by Labor's deputy chair on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Mr Griffin, the member for Bruce, as well as the still serving Labor shadow minister and spokesperson on electoral matters, Mr Gray. The government was somewhat surprised that Labor's national secretary, George Wright—who is also on the record supporting these reforms put forward by the government—has declined to appear as a witness and indeed has declined to make a submission. No doubt this is because he found it a bit difficult to make a 180-degree turn from the submission he previously made in support of the sorts of reforms the government is pursuing. We have a situation where Labor's shadow minister, Labor's deputy chair on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Labor's national secretary and Mr Feeney—who was asked by Mr Shorten to chair a Labor Party committee—have all recommended support for these reforms.

In relation to Senator Conroy's assertion that the government somehow had an intention to ram this bill through the Senate this week—that is completely false. That has never been the government's intention. The government's intention has always been to commence the debate in the Senate this week, on Wednesday, 2 March. As senators know, on Wednesday we have a limited amount of government business time. On Thursday we have hardly any government business time. So our intention would be for the debate to continue into the subsequent sitting week, which I believe is the week of 15 March. That has always been the government's intention and it continues to be the government's intention. But of course we are very keen for this important debate to get underway and we hope that can happen on Wednesday morning.

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for three minutes.

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

Senator Conroy comes in many forms. There is the tough man, there is the reasonable man and there are many things in between. Today we have seen an extraordinary Senator Conroy putting himself out there as a defender of democracy who is concerned for the small parties. Firstly, let us get on the record what happened at JSCEM last week. Senator Conroy and all the other senators were invited to be participating members. They can come along and make suggestions. That was done. The committee is working in a very respectful way.

To say that he was told—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

I know I should ignore the interjections. What they are essentially doing is wanting to defend the status quo when it comes to the current system of backroom deals. Remember this about Senator Conroy. Yes, he is a senator, but where has he come from? He has come from being one of the experts in backroom deals, and that is what he wants to defend. That is the essence of all the tactics that played out last week and that are playing out today and that they are cooking up now.

Let's go back to the JSCEM hearing last week. Apparently, he was not told who the witnesses were. He emphasised when he just spoke that he was not told about the time, the witnesses, when they would come and how long the inquiry would go for. It was like any other inquiry that we go to where the secretariat puts in a great deal of work and comes forward with proposals. He could have made suggestions. All Senator Conroy did was throw a few bombs, complain bitterly and then storm out, banging the door. That is how helpful he was.

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

I was thrown out!

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

You are misleading the Senate, Senator Conroy.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on both sides!

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

It was just a bit of theatrics he had up his sleeve. He then comes into this place and makes out that it was a shocking process.

To show us how extreme and irrational the arguments are from the opposition side, they have been complaining that there is not enough time to debate. What is very clear is that we will start debating this week and then the debate will extend into a further sitting week, because we do need the time. But also, remember, as we have put on the record many times before, we have had this position. We have had one inquiry into this. The issue has been alive for two years. Let's remember that amongst the few senators here we have one position from Labor. We have another position from the Labor Party set out in the original submission to JSCEM. We have the position set out by their former Special Minister of State and now opposition special minister of state. We have a position set out by Jennie George, a former Labor MP and former head of the ACTU, urging that this reform the past. So it depends which Labor position you want to listen to. (Time expired)

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for three minutes.

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

That was a very interesting contribution from Senator Rhiannon. It was an interesting contribution that was lauded by members of the National Party and Senator Brandis. Politics does make for some strange bedfellows when you have Senator O'Sullivan, who is well known for his progressive views—I am saying that ironically, Senator O'Sullivan—lauding Senator Rhiannon's speech. It does say something about where the Greens are today.

I will make a number of points about that contribution because much of it was erroneous. The most important point is this: what the Greens are proposing is to support the government on the largest voting changes in three decades because they think it will advantage them. Although apparently Senator Hanson-Young does not support it. I do wonder how much Senator Rhiannon dislikes Senator Hanson-Young. But let's leave that to one side. These would be the biggest changes in 30 years with half a day's hearing.

I have been here for many debates where the Greens have gone on and on about the importance of process and transparency.

Senator Di Natale interjecting—

There is no wonder you are shouting, Senator Di Natale, because it is completely unjustifiable. Your position is embarrassing. You come in here and you demand transparency and you demand proper process—except when you have cut a deal. It was a half-day hearing. You say, 'That's because there was a hearing two years ago that came up with a different model which we have amended bit because we think we should, but we are only going to have half a day's hearing.'

I would commend to the Greens Ross Gittins' article today because he makes a number of good points. One of the points he makes is that this matter deserves proper process, proper transparency and a proper inquiry. He makes the very good point that the country needs time. He said:

… the usual Senate public inquiry would do—to hear from the experts and examine the properties of the voting system one side of politics has come up with and wants to ram through.

He also makes the point that it is a non sequitur. To suggest that there might be problems with the current system does not lead to automatically backing in the deal you have done. Whatever criticism you make of Senator Conroy, or the rest of the Labor Party, none of us have got up and said the current system is perfect—we just do not think you have found the right answer and we do not think that ramming it through the Senate because you think there is a benefit to you is the right thing to do either.

As many progressive voters in Australia are, I am bemused by the fact that the Greens are enabling a double dissolution, strengthening the government's arm when it comes to a double dissolution. We are bemused about why you think that is in the interests of progressive policies in this country and we are appalled by the way in which you are participating in nothing more than a half-day sham inquiry, and justifying it.

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

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted? Leave is granted for three minutes.

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

Sometimes in this place we try to hide behind process—it is what we do, because we do not have the courage to take an issue on on its merits. On one hand we have Senator Wong quoted in the papers saying that it is remarkable that we would support legislation that would disadvantage our own team, and then during the week that has just gone we have Senator Wong making statements that this is an arrangement the Greens have supported because it is in their own interests. You cannot have it both ways. There is something that is often in short supply in this chamber, and that is logic. How can it be good for us and bad for us at the same time? It simply cannot work.

Let us go to the question of process. We had a very thorough, detailed inquiry into this issue, which the Labor Party supported at the time but they have changed their mind. Is anyone suggesting that if we had an inquiry that went for a week, a month, a year, that the powerbrokers, the factional backroom dealers inside the Labor Party who have changed their position, would change their position again? Is anyone suggesting that, that simply having a longer inquiry would change the outcome of this legislation? Of course it would not. They do not support the legislation. So what they are doing is hiding behind process, like cowards. It is all about the process.

The truth is they do not support giving power back to voters. They do not support the notion that it should not be the Stephen Conroys and Sam Dastyaris of this world who decide the outcome of elections by gaming the system but it should be voters. That is okay—you can have that position—but do not be cowards; do not hide behind the notion of process when you do not support the fundamental principle behind this legislation. That is your prerogative. There are obviously people inside the Labor Party who disagree with you—Gary Gray, for example. Gary Gray made a very cogent argument as to why this needs to change. I have spoken privately to a number of Labor Party MPs who are frankly embarrassed by your position. We had Jennie George, former head of the ACTU, saying it is laughable that the ALP would support an arrangement that continues to entrench power within the hands of factional operators but does not give power back to voters. It is a very important principle. We believe in democracy, we believe that the party that will benefit from this is the party people vote for.

Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for three minutes.

Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is Third World stuff—wiping out Independents is what they do in Third World countries. Voters will continue to find other ways of having their voices heard. You need in this place independent people who do not toe a party line. Independents play a vital role here. I accept that, on my own, I am a nobody in this place. However, I am one of 79 minor parties and Independents who ran at the last election, and we will not take this lying down.

I do accept that some people are concerned about above-the-line group voting tickets. The solution is simple: make it easier for people to vote below the line by letting them just number from one to six below the line—which was the original JSCEM recommendation.

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for three minutes.

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

I want to direct my comments towards what Senator Conroy said at the beginning of this debate. I am battling the temptation of suggesting that he made misrepresentations to the Senate. I will default to the position that he was simply confused. He came into the committee in a blustering manner, did not want to listen to anything that was said and wanted to talk over the top of all the other participants. As is normal with this committee, there had been a meeting four days previously at which all the participating members were invited to make submissions about who should be on the witness list. On the day, as I walked into the committee room and slipped over on the blood of Gary Gray—his read was rolling around under the chamber table—Senator Conroy arrived as a participating member and a protest was made about participating members not having had time to make a submission to the committee. But in fact all committee members had had four clear days.

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

We were only invited the day before.

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

That is the truth of the matter. Senator Conroy put forward a witness and the committee resolved to accept his witness. He made one suggestion during the committee meeting—only one—and the committee resolved to support him. I dare Senator Conroy to go and get a copy of the minutes and to bring them into this place and read them into the record verbatim—because they will be in conflict with what he is saying.

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

I was not allowed to stay.

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

Senator Conroy suggests he was thrown out. The committee started to discuss another matter, unrelated to the bill, that was only for the members of the committee to consider. Senator Conroy tried to bluster his way to remaining in the room. I say to you, Senator Conroy: your presentation here today—and there were only a couple of us who were in the room—was completely misleading. I invite you to come back into this chamber and read the minutes of that meeting verbatim into the record.

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for three minutes.

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

I am pretty gobsmacked by the contribution from Senator Di Natale. Senator Di Natale wants to be in the mainstream—that was what he said when he became the Leader of the Greens, that he wanted to take the Greens into the mainstream. I know lots of Greens who do not want to be in the mainstream, and they certainly do not want to be in the mainstream if it involves Senator Di Natale doing deals with the coalition government.

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

What about the one you did on refugees?

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

Senator Di Natale has such a glass jaw that he cannot sit quietly for one minute and accept any criticism of where the Greens are heading under his leadership. We see where they are heading—in a pact with the National Party. I have never seen Senator O'Sullivan so animated and so happy, clapping Senator Rhiannon when she was up there giving a speech. It is unprecedented in this chamber that the Greens and the National Party are as one in destroying democracy in this country.

Senator Di Natale spoke about process. This is not an argument about process; it is a fundamental argument about democracy. It is about how we can get a voice for those who do not want to vote National Party, do not want to vote Liberal, do not want to vote Labor and do not want to vote Greens. What the Greens have done is that they have denied any opportunity for any democracy to take place in this country in the future when a new party seeks to come up with new ideas, because the old ideas of the Greens under Senator Di Natale will take us nowhere. We know what they are going to do. They will be like the Australian Democrats—deal after deal after deal till they end up disappearing. That is the problem they are going to have, and we see that they are prepared to sacrifice their own senators for this push to the centre. They are going to sacrifice one of their most effective senators in a whole range of areas because their leader, Senator Di Natale, has some view that he wants to be in the mainstream. Well, the Greens do not want to be in the mainstream. The Greens people I speak to are appalled by what is going on. We are going to see huge divisions in the Greens, and we are going to see Senator Di Natale under more pressure. That is why he is so vocal. That is why he is so animated. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for three minutes.

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

I was going to seek leave to make a long statement, but I will deal with it in a short one. I think it is important to get some of the facts on the table about what exactly is going on with this process. What has gone on is a sham inquiry being rammed through as part of an already-done deal to do in a handful of crossbench senators. And let's be clear: right now the government are walking the halls of the media offices on level 2 of this building bragging about how they have got everything right and set up for a double-D election on 2 July. Why? Because they will then be able to do the ABCC. They will then be able to do registered orgs. They will then be able to do a series of legislation which you have been in here and opposed.

We will fight these issues. We will fight for these causes. But, Senator Di Natale, you have walked in and done in half of your own senators in a double-D situation. You did not do the modelling. You did not look at it. Let's be clear: the self-interest from the Greens is that, in a half-Senate election, wiping out the minor parties and the primary vote that they get is good for the Greens. A double-D election will result in either Senator Simms or Senator Hanson-Young not being here, and that is another win for Senator Rhiannon. That is another win for Senator Di Natale. That is another win for them as well. It is win-win for them: it is either more senators or getting rid of some of the senators that they do not like.

But, frankly, the bit that is horrible here is this: how on earth do you not have a proper debate? How on earth do you not allow the proper different organisations and community organisations out there to have a say? There was a half-day hearing. Senator Di Natale, you should hear what your colleagues are saying about you when you are not in the room. You should hear what they are saying to the journalists. You should hear what they say about you. It is not very pleasant at all. This is a Greens party that has completely lost its way. This is a Greens party that will ram through electoral reforms with a half-day Senate inquiry—the same Greens party that will sell out tax transparency; the same Greens party that will sell out cause after cause, issue after issue on some kind of a pragmatic road towards getting some political outcome that they want. And, Senator Di Natale, you will be held accountable—if not by us, then certainly by your colleagues.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This all commenced when I asked if any senator would like the question put on any of those committee motions. Does anyone wish to have any of those motions put? We shall now proceed.