Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We had a fairly lengthy discussion—and I recall Senator Carr's remarks—when we first addressed this report. But it is very important, in my view, that we go back to a number of issues.

In addressing another matter, I raised some of the issues around this inquiry and this report. I gave one example, I think, at the time of what a hasty, rushed—and I recall, Mr President, that you were here at the time, because I was relaying to you that I felt that my rights, both as an individual senator and also as the Labor spokesperson in the Senate on electoral matters, had been denied in how this process had occurred. Since that time, we have still not had access to the Department of Finance to discuss important issues around these proposals. I note that Senator Rhiannon is not here now. I am not surprised given the shame the Greens must feel about the process they have colluded on in terms of how this report has occurred. I think I coined it as '101 in parliamentary procedure' when I highlighted that it was the only occasion in which I had participated in a committee inquiry where the relevant department was denied senators who wanted to ask questions of it.

Mr President, you will be aware that, in responding to an order for production, some of the material arrived today. As I understand it, there has been an understanding between our leaders that we will address these issues on the next sitting day. But one element that I will highlight at this stage is a response from the relevant senator on this occasion, Senator Mathias Cormann, in relation to the agreement between the government and the Greens party that forms the basis of the provisions that were addressed by this committee inquiry, making the largest reforms to voting in Australia in 30 years. I have mentioned the haste issues, but I want to spend a moment looking at the nature of this agreement.

It is very disappointing, in fact, that no Greens are represented in the chamber at the moment.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They've gone home.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They've gone home! The Greens don't leave the parliament early, do they?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's Thursday.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But I thought that being a major party—in fact, they are larger than the National Party—they would be here every moment that the parliament was sitting. Oh, dear! Anyway, the reason I am revisiting this is that Senator Di Natale took issue at being referred to as the 'senator for half measures'. Senator Di Natale took issue with that and also said, 'The agreement is what the agreement is.' We now know from Mathias Cormann that he is right. We now know from the government that there is no written record of exactly what is agreed. There is nothing. I had the parliamentary 101 yesterday. Now, I want to go to a deal making 101. Senator Rhiannon has spent ages talking about how the Labor Party is only doing this because it protects backroom operators and that the backroom operators want to do X, Y or Z. I think it would be a long stretch for anyone to characterise me as a backroom operator. I know that some people have accused me of being new to this debate, yet I have been the spokesperson for the shadow special minister of state in the Senate for quite a while.

But let's go to deal making 101: look at the written record of the deal. The good thing is: when you have a written record of the deal, some years later when there is a new leader of the Greens—rather than the leader who dealt with it quite sensibly at the time, and who was probably less naive—you are able to dispute spurious claims about what those deals were. The first aspect of that, item 3 of this deal—the agreement between the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party; fully transparent—talks about goals. It does not talk about commitments in the same way as Senator Di Natale suggests. I suggest that he also goes back and looks at the actual agreement. The dispute that we were having earlier in the day related to provisions in the bill. But if I go to, for example, point 3(d):

d) The Parties note that Senator Bob Brown will reintroduce as a Private Members Bill the Commonwealth Electoral (Above‐the‐Line Voting) Amendment Bill 2008. The ALP will consider the Bill and work with the Greens to reach reforms satisfactory to the Parties.

The Labor Party did do that. But this is not the ironclad commitment that Senator Di Natale seems to suggest existed.

Let me refer to another element of the agreement because, again, he misrepresented that—or, in fact the Greens have misrepresented that—but I think my other colleagues in the debate that just concluded have highlighted some of this earlier. Again, it is 101 in deal making. Point (e) of that agreements says:

e) Refer issues of public interest disclosure, where the Senate or House votes on the floor against the decision of a Minister, to the Information Commissioner, who will arbitrate …

No—sorry—that is the wrong one. I want to go to the issues from the earlier debate about political donations.

Again, in the short moment I have here I cannot find that exact provision. But it was not that unequivocal commitment, and the history that has been outlined here highlights the point also that the real reason we got nowhere on political donations was because of the behaviour of the now government.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No!

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes! The behaviour of the now government! So when the Greens had the ideal opportunity—the ideal opportunity!—in their discussions with the government on electoral reforms, what do you think they would do?

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Donations?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you would think that they would raise it. But then we will not know exactly what is in that deal because there is no record of it. Today's example of the deal is a story by Phil Coorey in The Australian Financial Review, which—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was quicker than a one-night stand!

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it might have been!

Phil Coorey tells us that his understanding of the agreement now is that it has been modified to limit the prospect of a double dissolution election. We all know that it has not done that at all. There remain three Saturdays when a double dissolution can occur, despite the Greens adjusting the implementation time frame.

But they have not even picked up the recommendations of the Australian Electoral Commission. The AEC said that they need at least three months after proclamation. Now, three months after proclamation will not be the end of June. So not only do we have a shoddy deal, a dirty deal and a silly deal but we have a deal represented in this report that will not allow the Australian Electoral Commission to do its job properly.

I appeal to Senator Xenophon, who is also not here. I noticed in Senator Xenophon's response to the committee report that he acknowledged the shoddy process that had occurred in this inquiry. He acknowledged that and he said that the consideration of the bill will occur in a way which will allow the robust debate necessary. Now, I do not know, Senator Xenophon—what I have seen between the Greens and the government this week tells me they will ram it through regardless. There will not be sufficient time to address the things we need to address.

One example of that, which I mentioned earlier today, is the significant change around party political logos. What if you are a political party which has a logo at the moment which you never envisaged would be something that would be on a ballot paper, and you decide that if you want to further your political campaign you really need to change your logo? Will there be sufficient time for that? We have no idea. No idea at all, because this is the dirty deal stitched up between the Greens and the government to further their own interests.

I disagree with Senator Cameron—this is not pale green; this is green of every complexion, led by Senator Rhiannon— (Time expired)

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

I am pleased to enter into this debate. I can say to Senator Di Natale: be careful! This weekend he is going to get every union thug in Australia ringing him, along with the few other members that there are of the Australian Labor Party. Just earlier today—what was it?—at 1.48 pm, Mr George Wright, the National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party sent out a message, a plea, to all members. In part it talked about this particular issue that Senator Collins was speaking about. He said, 'Together we can make it clear to the Greens political party that we have concerns about these changes.' I think the Labor Party have made them aware of that without this following message. It goes on to say, 'Can you call the office of Greens leader, Richard Di Natale, and let them know you are concerned about letting Work Choices happen all over again. Click here to get phone numbers and some key facts for the call.'

So, they expect the Greens to fall for the line that all of these phone calls that are going to happen over the weekend and next week are 'concerned Australians' who just happen to have picked up the phone to ring, whereas in fact they will be from every union thug and every other person who happens to be a member of the ALP—and I suspect that is not many.

But this letter from Mr Wright follows some of the outrageous mistruths that Labor members in this debate have said: it is extinguishing the vote of over 3.3 million people—so this letter says. That is just plain wrong. It says that this will allow the coalition to end up with a majority of the seats—that is just plain wrong! And as we heard in this debate in its many forms here, Mr Anthony Green went through and said, 'Yes, the coalition could get a majority if they win a big swag of the votes in the election, and the way we are going, that is likely to happen.' But I think, as I said yesterday, it will not be at the expense of the Greens; it will be at the expense of the crossbench and the Australian Labor Party, who have shown themselves to be completely ridiculous on this particular bill.

I heard earlier today, on a bill that was introduced by the Labor Party, how the Labor Party were lauding former Senator John Faulkner on being the wise man of the Labor Party. He put forward the bill on the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and, because John Faulkner did it, it had to be good. Let me tell you some of the people who sat on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters back in 2014 when there was a unanimous decision to support it. By 'unanimous', I mean it was supported by all parties attending that committee, which were the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Labor Party, the Greens and Senator Xenophon. Let's see who the Labor Party senators were on that. Lo and behold, Senator Tillem, Senator Faulkner and Mr Alan Griffin. That was one meeting, in March. The next meeting had Senator Tillem, Senator Faulkner and Alan Griffin again. The next meeting had Tillem, Griffin and Gary Gray. The next meeting had Tillem, Gary Gray and Alan Griffin. The 7 February meeting—

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that the senator is not addressing members of that committee correctly.

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

I must say, I was not listening intently to that aspect of it. I just remind senators to address members of this place and the other place by their correct title. Senator Macdonald, you have the call.

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

I am not quite sure what that means. Am I getting Tillem's name wrong, am I?

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, whilst former Senator Tillem is no longer in this place, he was a senator, and Gary Gray should be referred to as either the member for Brand or Mr Gary Gray, not simply—

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

You are correct, Senator Lines. Senator Macdonald, I just point that out.

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

Mr President, I was so excited about trying to show to the people who might be listening to this just how hypocritical the Australian Labor Party is again on this particular issue. Senator Tillem is not a senator anymore, but, anyhow, I will do him the respect of saying that the then Senator Tillem was on it, as well as Senator Faulkner, Mr Gary Gray and Mr Alan Griffin. As the Labor Party was saying earlier today, Senator Faulkner is very good—a respected figure when it comes to processes and elections, and yet Senator Faulkner was part of the unanimous support for this particular process. So what has happened in the last couple of years? I do not know. The rest of the Labor Party wanted to go along with it and Mr Gary Gray wanted to go along with it—a guy who, I might say, was the National Secretary of the Labor Party when they had one of their best results at the federal election in the past 20 years. This is the Mr Gary Gray who understands these things. He is not afraid that this new proposal will give the coalition any advantage, because it will not, and Antony Green has proved that.

It is important for those who might be listening to this, as they drive home from work today, to know that the Labor Party are being completely hypocritical again on this electoral matters issue. Anyone listening to this might well remember that, following the 2013 election, there was spontaneous outrage across the spectrum and from every political commentator on how this country could be held to ransom by a couple of senators who were elected with less than two per cent of the vote. It was not a political thing. Anyone who was around at that time, which includes all of the Labor senators, will recall that there was spontaneous outrage across Australia. Every political commentator said the same thing—'This has to be addressed'—and every political commentator, even the left-wing ones, are now saying that the Labor Party have this wrong. It is the hypocrisy that I fear and it should be exposed. We know that the Labor Party do not stand for much. They do what they are told to do by the union movement, but this is just outrageous.

What we are trying to do with this bill and this report from the committee is make sure that the people of Australia determine who they vote for and who they give preferences to. Why does the Labor Party want to stop the ordinary people of Australia making their own decisions? If they want to vote for the Labor Party first, that is fine and, if they want to put me last, that is fine, but it is their decision. But, until now, the backroom boys in the Labor Party would register a ticket which would determine where the votes went. People who voted Labor may well have wanted a different one, and that is what this bill will do.

It is important that the process works. The government introduced a bill—I think it was passed by the lower house—which said: optional preferential above the line, but below the line would be the old system. You could vote where you liked, but you had to go from one to 115, or however many candidates there were, which was an onerous task that not many people, apart from myself and a few others, would do. The committee that met on Monday had a look at these issues and heard a lot of evidence on these issues. The committee—which had a majority, I might say, of government members—decided to recommend to parliament that the bill should be amended to include optional preferential below the line—one to 16. That is a committee of parliament having heard all the evidence saying to the government, 'Government, you actually should go back to what was recommended by the original committee back in 2014,' when Christine Milne was still the leader, by the way, Senator Collins.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know. That was my point.

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

It went back to that time. The committee then said it should be optional preferential above the line and optional preferential below the line. The government brought in a bill only doing half of that. The committee met again earlier this week and said, 'No, we the committee think the government should go back to the original proposal, which was optional preferential above the line and optional preferential below the line. That is the bill that is being debated. How can the Labor Party, having supported that fully with some respected people like Senator Faulkner just a couple of years ago, now change their mind with such a hypocritical approach to what is an essential piece of legislation in our democracy? Poor old Senator Di Natale, just recall, you will have every union thug in the country ringing you this weekend and next week and telling you what the Labor Party line is. I am sure you will not be fooled by it. I seek leave to continue my remarks. (Time expired)