David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I do take note of this report and the important reform that it will provide the Australian electoral system. There has been a great deal of dialogue over this report and this measure, but I do note here in the chamber that what it will provide for the Australian people is the opportunity for them to exercise their vote and their will in terms of where their preferences actually flow. One of the concerns that have been consistently raised with me—and I took part in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry after the 2013 election—is the fact that Senate voting tickets mean that the backroom deals that are done between political parties mean that voters do not have the choice to provide for where they wish their vote to go unless they fill out every box below the line. Because of the requirements that exist at the moment, in terms of what makes a valid vote, there are many people who do not take the time to do that because of the fear that they will make a mistake and their vote will be invalid.

What this report does is affirm the measures brought in by the government for optional preferential voting above the line, but importantly it also recommends an amendment that there should be optional voting below the line, so people would be encouraged to number between one and 12, or up to 12 places, with the saving provision that six are required for the vote to be formal. What this means is that people, whether it be in a double dissolution or a normal half-Senate election, can make their own choice in a reasonable manner—that is, they do not have to fill out all the boxes—of who they wish to vote for so that there will is actually very accurately represented in the electoral outcome.

We have heard some comments that people's votes will be wasted if minor parties do not get elected. That is no different to a candidate in the lower house or perhaps somebody who is in the fourth or fifth place on their Senate ticket, who stands legitimately—validly. But if they do not get enough support they do not get elected. That vote for a minor party is no more wasted than it is for a candidate in a lower house seat. I have been in the unfortunate position where, as a member, I stood for election and I lost the election. Does that mean that the votes of all those people who voted for me were wasted? No. It meant that in that case the member of the Labor Party who stood, or in fact more particularly his leader, received the support of the majority of people, so he won the election. That is the way democracies work. Votes are not wasted if you do not get elected. This system means that people will be able to put down accurately where they want their vote to go.

If somebody representing a political party an interest group, whether it be motoring or sports or any other group, achieves a large enough percentage of support within the community they will get elected. There is absolutely nothing to bar or stop them getting elected. What this will stop is the practice of multiple parties—we saw after the 2013 election confessions by one of the political parties, in fact one of the senators in this chamber, that he was the public officer of multiple political parties who basically did preference deals with themselves and others in order to maximise the vote they got. This is clearly gaming the system, and that is not democracy as we know it here in Australia. These reforms, which this report supports—with the thrust of the government also making this additional recommendation for voting below the line—provide for the electors of Australia to have their will very explicitly and, importantly, simply translated into the voting system.

One of the unintended consequences of the way the system has operated to date is that, because of this gaming by the minor parties, we see many parties and group voting tickets. This makes voting below the line, which was the only option available to people if they wished to accurately have their will reflected, almost unworkable. This is why you have such a small percentage of people who vote. I am very grateful to those people who at the last election, when I stood, contacted me and let me know that they had taken the time to vote below the line so that they could specifically vote for me. I commend and thank them for that, but I also recognise they are the very small majority because of the task that that huge piece of white paper presented.

What this option and this report will provide from now on is a system where people can, in a manageable manner and time frame—and with very little scope to make errors or to make their vote invalid or informal—reflect where they would like their preferences to go and who they would like to vote for. And so I think this system is actually very democratic and fair. Commentators from universities such as Flinders University and the University South Australia have been saying in the last few days that these reforms are well designed and overdue. I believe they will have the broad support of the people of Australia.

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

I am very concerned about this report. I am in my 24th year in this chamber, so I have seen a few rough committees over my time—but none as rough as this one. If anyone wants to be reminded of the difference in standards between the Senate and the House of Representatives, one should get involved with a joint committee. In particular, they should be engaged with a committee such as this. The chair of the committee, the member for Banks, who is a relatively new member of the parliament, was given the task by this government of ramming through what are some of the most controversial measures this parliament has seen in regard to electoral laws in 30 years. That is what we are discussing here. It is a change to the way in which the Senate is elected and, as a consequence of the role we play in this parliament, a change to the way the Australian parliament is elected. It is the biggest change we have seen in 30 years.

You would have thought something as significant as that would require a bit of close examination. You know, we could actually acknowledge, as Labor Party senators and members of the joint committee have done, that there are legitimate concerns about laws governing the election of senators and the outcome of the 2013 half-Senate election. We could also acknowledge that no system is perfect—and the current system for electing senators is, of course, no exception. Having said that, you would also have thought there would be time for proper scrutiny of any proposed changes so we could look at the implications of these measures.

I note, for instance, that at the proceedings—and I attended as a participating member for most of the hearings—the Electoral Commission told us that they first found out about this particular piece of legislation when they got a copy of the bill on 11 February. This was not legislation that the Electoral Commission had actually drafted, oh no! It was legislation that was actually drafted by the finance department, who this committee refused to allow to appear. So there can be no discussion with the officers of the finance department about the intentions behind the bill, the consequences of the bill and the problems with the bill.

So we discovered that the government sent the bill to the Electoral Commission on 11 February. It was then given to members of the House, for them to cast their judgement, on 22 February. So, 11 days later, the government dropped the bill into the House and rammed it through the House that day; and then it established a committee to look at the consequences, with a reporting date of 2 March.

Of course, the legislation has already been passed in the House of Representatives, so the committee's report is effectively designed for attention in the Senate. You do not really need to consider these matters in detail, even though the legislation did require amendment—which is, of course, what happened in the House. And if we take this report at face value the government has acknowledged that it requires further amendment. This highlights that, when you rush this type of stuff through, you create unintended consequences which leave you open to profound mistakes.

These are the circumstances that we are faced with here. The government is seeking to rush through legislation. What for? What is the intent? The intent here is not to improve the level of transparency and accountability in our governments. The intent here is to provide the circumstances for a double dissolution election. Under these electoral laws when they are accepted—because of the arrangement the government has entered into with the Greens—the government has its best chance of securing 38 seats in a double dissolution election. In fact a double dissolution election is the only circumstance where they could probably get 39 seats, and do so by the middle of the year. That is their intention. In July, they want to be able to fundamentally transform politics in this country to allow the government to pursue its political agenda by securing a majority in the Senate. It has nothing to do with improving transparency. It has everything to do with providing the hard right of the Liberal Party with the necessary resources in this parliament to secure their agenda. No matter what they enter into now, those are the consequences of what the Greens are doing.

I will not say they are naive. I do not think they are naive at all. What happened at the committee hearing when we asked Mr Nutt, the director of the Liberal Party: 'Have there been discussions between the Greens and the Liberal Party about exchanging preferences in inner-city seats in Melbourne and Sydney?' The answer was yes. The question has to be: what is the price for that sleazy little arrangement? The price may well be that the Liberal Party is doing a deal with the Greens to give them a favourable position in Wills, in Batman and in central seats in Sydney.

So it is a question of whether the Greens are prepared to cave in on issues like $100,000 university degrees and the $12 billion cuts to the university system that this government are trying to impose. Those are the consequences of their policy position at the moment that, to this date, they have failed to secure the support of the Senate on. If this arrangement comes into play, I can see circumstances where the government would be able to impose $12 billion worth of cuts to universities over a 10-year period.

Senator Waters interjecting—

You question my judgement on that? Let's go to the expert witness Professor Antony Green. He said that, under this proposed system, in the 2013 federal election the Labor Party would have won a second seat in South Australia and Western Australia, the Liberals would have won an extra seat in Victoria and Tasmania, Senator Xenophon would have won an additional seat in South Australia and Senator Sarah Hanson-Young would have lost her seat.

That is the other part of this little equation. The purge is not just on the crossbenches; it is a purge of those dissidents in the Greens party. The present leader of the Greens party is so desperate to prove how incredibly moderate and reasonable and accommodating he is to the Liberal Party, he has to get rid of one of his problems as a result. This is a very clever bit of political manoeuvring, isn't it? These are the people who claim to be the great party of protest at the same time being complicit with the quislings of the Liberal Party in securing an agenda. I am sure the people of the inner cities of this country will be pleased to hear that the party of protest calling itself the Greens has now capitulated to the hard right of the Liberal Party!

This—and I think the Labor Party has spelt this out very, very clearly—cannot go unchallenged. Last night I went home to my flat and at 9.40 at night an email came in with the chair's draft report. Under the shabby arrangements entered into, Labor senators were forced to produce a dissenting report by 8 am the next morning. This is what we are dealing with here. It is not just that this is such a shoddy process for the gathering of evidence and the hearing and treatment of witnesses. For instance, if you look at the Hansard record, Senator Collins asked, 'Why is the Department of Finance not here?' The chair of the committee said to Senator Collins: 'You are not here to make statements. That is not your job. Your job is to ask questions in the limited time that we have allocated for you in such a way as not to embarrass anybody by gathering information that might be pertinent to the way in which this bill will actually operate.'

Producing a chair's report at 9.40 at night and expecting a return by eight o'clock the next morning is way outside anything that I have seen in this chamber or in any joint committee that I have ever been associated with, and I am moving into my 24th year here. The entire process, as the minority report highlights, has been contemptuous of the parliament— (Time expired)

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

I rise to briefly contribute some thoughts in relation to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report. In relation to the committee process, I will simply state, as I did yesterday, that this was the most biased and unbalanced committee inquiry I have ever participated in. My dissenting report highlights the key risks and issues in relation to the bill. Rather than follow the normal process, I was forced to begin this dissenting report late last week knowing that his process was going to be so rushed. I was well aware that the committee had a predetermined view and expected that most submissions would not be considered, especially considering there were up to 100 submissions which had been handed in by Monday evening. The committee hearing on the Tuesday morning went for four measly hours. There was they chair's report by Tuesday evening and on Wednesday it was tabled in the parliament. If this this is not a pre-written report, I will eat my hat.

This has all been done in the name of urgency due to an impending election. I would go so far as to say that the below-the-line recommendation was left out of the bill intentionally. It was such an obvious omission. I am sure that this omission was engineered to trigger public outrage from both critics and supporters of the bill. That way the committee report could then make a recommendation with follow-up amendments so that it would appear that a meaningful consultation process had taken place. I can see right through that. I suspect the Australian public can and I hope that supporters of the Australian Greens can as well. If the government can go to such lengths to manipulate the process, in collusion with the Greens, I have grave concerns about how the above-the-line savings provision where there is far less oversight might be able to be manipulated.

This morning I have been made aware of some recommendations from the joint committee in relation to below-the-line voting. These are the token amendments that I referred to just a moment ago. Whilst not identical, these recommendations are very similar to a recommendation I made in my dissenting report. However, the joint committee also recommended that a below-the-line savings provision be introduced to ensure that any ballot with at least six boxes numbered in sequential order be considered formal. This suggests that the government thinks that Australian voters are not able to number a series of boxes from one to 12. Frankly, I find this insulting.

The government is arguing that the current system is being gamed. However, the government, the Greens and Senator Nick Xenophon are colluding to introduce a provision to below-the-line voting that can be manipulated and exploited at the ballot box. I do note, in Senator Xenophon's defence, that he appears to share some of my concerns in relation to how these provisions can be exploited. I hope that I can work with Senator Xenophon on this matter. I also hope to work with others in relation to the recommendations and amendments that I will be moving during the debate.

Yesterday, the Australian Electoral Commission said they have presented an optimistic time estimate in relation to implementing the necessary changes in time for an election this year. I have grave concerns that, should something unexpected happen and they are forced to go live before systems are ready and tested, we may well end up with an IT disaster and an inquiry into what went wrong with a Senate election.

I believe that we can make some simple changes before the next election. My dissenting report outlines these and notes that they should be considered transitional arrangements for the next election. They would greatly reduce the implementation task for the AEC between now and the next election. They would also allow for a more mature and comprehensive debate, where all opinions can be considered by the Senate in detail, not just those within the secret club that is the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

My dissenting report presents my concerns with not only the bill but also the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. My recommendations are based on the principle that the system should encourage candidate based, not party based, below-the-line voting. The bill does not go far enough to encourage this. I also propose some inquiries to explore how the Senate can remain free of partisan politics. It is my belief that the system should be changed so the disparity between independent candidates and political parties can be narrowed. I encourage all those listening to read my dissenting report, share it with your friends and have your say to your local senator or member.

The proposal, as it stands, does not give voters full control of where their preferences go. It is very open to manipulation. The savings provisions can be manipulated by a how-to-vote card, and people will be led up the garden path by the parties who support this. There are amendments which can prevent this from happening, and I will certainly be moving them because this is supposed to be about democracy and the people having control of where their votes go.

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

I rise to take note of the advisory report on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016. I would very much like to thank the secretariat for the work that they have put into this. This report and the bill that it examines take us closer to a more open and transparent voting system. Working to achieve this is something on which we should have unity in this chamber. Labor Senator Kim Carr made the point at the start of his contribution that he had made close examination of this report. But then, true to form with what we have seen from so many Labor contributions in recent days, we heard a number of allegations, many of them ludicrous and many of them making attacks, particularly on the Greens and on the proposal that we have before us that is encompassed in this bill. It is worth looking at some of those.

Let's remember what we heard from Senator Carr, which is similar to what we heard from Senator Conroy and Senator Dastyari. They painted a bogeyman scenario in which there would be 38 coalition senators sitting on the government's red benches and in control for ever and ever. When Labor say that, let's remember that they are effectively saying, 'We've already lost the election.' How ridiculous! What a ridiculous way to run a political party, let alone an election campaign. There is a very simple message here: get out, have the courage of your convictions, show us what you stand for and do your job better, as my colleague Senator McKim says. That is what we should be seeing here. But, in speech after speech, they are just claiming that they have already lost the election and that the Senate will be dominated. The Greens will continue to fight against the ABCC bill and what this government is attempting to do to the union movement. That will be solid. It will be solid in the community, and it will be solid in this place. Attempting to misrepresent this does no credit to Labor, and people will see through it. There is a very clear problem in how Labor have been handling this whole debate.

Another piece of ongoing misinformation is that this inquiry has been a disaster. It was a very solid inquiry with excellent evidence. I have spoken about that before. But I have now been informed that at least eight other inquiries undertaken by committees of this parliament had the same number of working days as JSCEM had for this one, or even fewer. From referral to the reporting date, we had seven working days. So eight other inquiries had seven or fewer working days. There has been a misrepresentation that this inquiry did not hold up and was quite useless.

Let's remember some of the important aspects of the work that this inquiry has undertaken, because they reflect on some of the unfounded criticisms that have come forward during this debate. I want to start with the inquiry itself because it was revealing in this very fundamental aspect of what we are dealing with here. Should we get rid of group voting tickets, or should they remain? We have a bill before us that has really delivered excellent transparency and an opening up of the voting process to the voters so they can decide their own preferences. But we have heard from Labor senators and some others that we must retain the current system. At the inquiry, Senator Conroy set out how the current system works. You could not have had a better advocate for how wrong and how damaging this system is, how it minimises democracy in such an extreme way. Here are Senator Conroy's words:

I have probably only met 10 people—most of them have been in this room this morning—who truly understand how it works and who actually have a genuinely full understanding of how that system would work.

He is referring to group voting tickets, saying that he has only met 10 people who understand them. He went on to use much more colourful language in the flourishes he is well known for. It did not reflect well on him or the whole system of group voting tickets that representatives of all our parties have to be involved in if we are going to be able to lodge our group voting ticket to get the box above the line. I was quite surprised how blunt he was, and I do not think he realised what he was walking himself into.

The report also set out the issue of the count itself. We were very pleased that the bill has been amended to ensure that the current counting system will continue. It had been proposed not to count the Senate first preference votes by party on the night. That amendment is in the bill. Current counting procedures have been reinstated, and we feel that was very necessary.

Another area that understandably gets attention, particularly by those who are trying to derail this bill, is the suggestion that there could be a High Court challenge. I absolutely take that seriously because, in dealing with these matters, one needs to look into it, and we received evidence on that issue. Some argued, in essence, that the High Court may find this reform unconstitutional. A number of expert witnesses said that that would not be the case. Very clear evidence was given on that front.

I will share with senators some comments from Professor Antony Green. He noted that there have been no cases with a constitutional judgement on the use of Senate party lists. He highlighted two key facts—that voters can still vote directly for candidates and that he could not see how the proposed above-the-line system could be declared unconstitutional without the existing above-the-line voting system also being ruled unconstitutional. We know that has not happened. I would argue that that advice is very conclusive.

Also relevant in relation to the allegation that the High Court may find this bill unconstitutional is the experience in New South Wales. We gained reforms to get rid of group voting tickets and bring in optional preferential voting in 1999. Since then there have been four elections. Not only has there not been any High Court challenge—or any legal challenge at all—there have been no complaints about the system. The system is working well, it brings greater democracy, there are much fairer elections, and minor parties are being elected to New South Wales on the basis of preference flows. It is a very good example of how this electoral reform can work in a beneficial way to improve our democratic process.

Senator Carr attempted to entertain many allegations and flourishes when he spoke. One particularly outrageous one was that, in negotiating this bill, the Greens had made some deal about preferences in lower house seats. That is ludicrous. It is ridiculous. It reflects on how so many Labor MPs approach these issues. They think others work like they do. They are out there doing deals, selling out their principles, seeing what advantage they can get when they go forward in these negotiations. All we negotiated on—

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

You don't do deals?

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

Do you want a mirror?

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

I am again happy to acknowledge the interjections. What we negotiated on was purely this legislation before us. That is all we negotiated on, to get better outcomes, and we have been successful in improving this bill—something Labor would have been wise to do.

Opposition senators interjecting—

I am happy to acknowledge the interjections for Hansard. There are many outbursts from the Labor side of this parliament. What we have here is an example of how the Greens work. We went in there to improve the legislation. We have been working hard for years to get this legislation. In the first place, it was not perfect, then we worked to improve it. Surely that is what you should be doing in this place if, overall, legislation brings an advance for the people of Australia—and in this case that is what we have achieved. This bill brings greater transparency and gives voters the right to determine their preferences. That is what is needed. It is time Labor got on board and got out of the backroom deals.

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

I have made a number of contributions on this subject over recent days. I almost feel like I have been burdened with the role of being the conscience of the Senate.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

No, seriously. We're mates at the moment—don't you start interjecting. I have paid attention to listening to what everyone—

Opposition senators interjecting—

No, it is the Australian Labor Party that I am helping out here. There have been massive gaps in the contributions made by your speakers. Over the last few days, we have noted that Labor are working their way through the alphabet. I mentioned in a contribution last night that they have chopped heads off—I will not go into that ghastly description again, but they have decapitated all the key players. Faulkner is no longer the honourable father of both the Senate and the Labor Party. He is no longer the conscience of what is right and fair and transparent in the processes of the Senate and indeed Senate elections. He has been gone for a couple of weeks and, somehow, everything that was thought of him has gone.

Faulkner is out and Mr Gray from the other place, who is probably across this matter in much more detail than his colleagues in the Labor Party, has gone too. Guillotine there is rolling around on the floor and Mr Griffin from the other place, who was a fair and reasonable individual, has also gone. They have been replaced. They have got to the Cs in the Labor Party—we have Carr, Cameron, Conroy and Collins. Sterlo, you are never going to get a brief here; this is going to be over before we get to the Ss. They have now trotted out a brand-new team. Why are they brand-new and not entitled to make a contribution to this? Where have they been since May 2013? This is not new subject matter—there is nothing new about what might need to happen with electoral reform, especially Senate voting. This is nearly older than I—this has been around since May—no, I am known to embellish on occasions.

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

Only a little bit!

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

Senator Ludwig is dead right there—he has known me for a long time. To be serious for a moment—and I find that difficult to do too—the point is that these questions have been under consideration now for almost three years. It is coming up for its birthday in May. I know this because I have participated in the process; I have represented the interests of the National Party on the committee as it considered these very difficult questions, some of which arose as a result of occurrences in the last federal election. I listened to Senator Muir for whom I have very high regard—I was one of the first people in this place to go out and speak positively about Senator Muir. I thought in the weeks and months leading up to his arrival here that he was treated very unfairly. I am qualified to speak to Senator Muir, because he has been criticised for working in a sawmill and now is in the Senate. I too have worked in a sawmill and a dozen other jobs of that nature, and that does not disqualify anybody. One's background does not disqualify anyone from being in this place.

As I have listened to the contributions, particularly from the Australian Labor Party, I have not heard the word 'voter' used once. Not once have they mentioned it; not once have they talked about the issue of transparency or fairness in the electoral process—it has not come into their conversation. I should not mislead the Senate and so I withdraw that and will qualify what I have said. I have heard those terms used by Senator Faulkner before he left this place, by Mr Gray and Mr Griffin and I heard them used while sitting through dozens and dozens of hours of inquiries that we conducted all over this great nation on this very vexed question. They talk about urgency. In almost three years and after dozens and dozens of hours of sitting and listening to contributions by anybody who wanted to make a contribution—if that is urgency, then we are in a lot of trouble.

The fact is that the committee took the time to invite and then to consider 216 submissions. I like quite a number of the crossbenchers and opposition senators, but I have to admit that I do not like some of them at all. None of them attended any of the meetings I was at, and I suspect that I was at them all. They never attended a meeting—not once did they joined us on the journey as we looked at this vexed question of introducing fairness and transparency into the electoral process. I am full of admissions tonight—but, being a retired detective, there was a whole phase of my life to be very careful about making any sort of admission—and I must admit to this: rather than listen to those whose contribution might have suited my year, I focused on those whose contributions might not suit my ear. I found myself drawn into the argument being made by the Australian Labor Party, because it made sense.

Some of the ALP's submission made sense to me. I read it—I will not revisit my contribution from last night—but I will bet you London to a brick that many of those on the other side have not read their own party's submission. That submission is proving to be completely inconvenient to them today—in fact it is embarrassing to them. Sometimes I hang my head because I feel the deep embarrassment which visits upon you with this particular subject matter. You made a submission through your party, and I imagine that was approved, then you put some of your luminaries onto the committee to make their contribution—Mr Gray, Mr Griffin and Senator Faulkner, all wise men. As I listen to them, my ear became attuned to what they had to say; I was drawn to their arguments that it was clear that this process needed to be revamped. Clear—C-L-E-A-R. There was no ambiguity or confusion or qualification about what they had to say. They said it was clear. I must admit I do not spend a lot of time poring over contributions from the Labor Party, but I did on this occasion. I was drawn to their argument. I thought it met the tests of fairness and equity with changes that needed to happen in the electoral system, particularly in Senate voting.

Here we are now, three birthdays on, 1,000 days down, and what does the Labor Party do at the eleventh hour? They knock the noggin off all the reasonable contributors and replace them with the four Cs from the Labor Party. When you see the four Cs come in the room, you know there is a fix on. (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016. One issue that Senator O'Sullivan refused to go near when he was making his contribution was the process—the process that has got us to this point. It is a process where we saw the AEC say to JSCEM that they had only seen the bill on 11 February—it is not the same bill they would have seen because of course it has been amended, because it has been rushed; there has been an obscene effort to rush this legislation through this parliament because they do not want proper scrutiny. What is wrong with a bit of proper scrutiny? The Greens are always the first ones to scream about having transparency and scrutiny, but not when Senator Rhiannon is in charge—they are not interested in any scrutiny or transparency then.

Senator Rhiannon's contribution indicated that somehow the Greens are above politics. I can tell you, they get down and dirty—they are in the back rooms, they are doing the deals. At every federal election they do deals for preferences, so they cannot come in here and try to pretend that they are not doing deals on preferences. Of course they are.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have to, it's the law.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rhiannon said that is not what they do—they do not go out and do the dirty deals, they do not go out in the back rooms. I am glad that Senator McKim has owned up. I am glad that Senator McKim has said that yes they do go into the back rooms and they do do these preference deals.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Brown is misrepresenting what I just said. I have not indicated that we go into back rooms at all, I simply indicated that it is the law to lodge a group voting ticket.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a debating point. There is no point of order.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a bit of sensitivity there. We should go back and look at what Senator Rhiannon actually said. She talked about the Greens not doing deals on preferences. Nobody requires you to go and do a deal on preferences—you could put a group voting ticket in without doing deals. But everybody knows that the Greens go in, they go in hard, they get down and dirty and they are in the back rooms and they have been in the back rooms with the Liberal Party on this piece of legislation. The AEC first sighted this piece of legislation on 11 February. They say that they can get it ready in three months, but we have already had amendments that will be put through.

This inquiry process has been an absolute disgrace and a sham. We have seen the legislation introduced in the House on the 22nd and rammed through in one day. There was complete disrespect shown to senators on the joint standing committee regarding the amount of time we were able to cross-examine witnesses and the witnesses that were called. They were hiding the Department of Finance—they were not allowed to be cross-examined. We cannot be sure that the resources that the AEC need to put this proposal into place will be there, because we were not able to ask anyone. It was a complete sham, and the Greens stand condemned.

Debate interrupted.