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

by leave—I seek an explanation as to why the minister has not provided the documents required by the Senate under the orders agreed to by the Senate on 24 February, 29 February and 2 March. I note, as Senator Ryan indicated, that Senator Carr previously made queries with respect to one or two of the matters listed on the Notice Paper at page 13. I am specifically enquiring in respect to item 111:

Senate—Electoral law changes—Communications and minutes—Order for production of documents

By the Minister for Finance and the Special Minister of State, by 9.30 am on Thursday, 3 March 2016, documents recording all communications, and 'round table' meeting minutes in relation to Senate electoral law changes.

In fact, that one is more of a summary I think of the full motion. I should, perhaps, for the benefit of Senator Ryan, read the full motion that was passed by the Senate where it was requested:

That that there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance and the Special Minister of State, no later than 9.30 am on Thursday, 3 March 2016:

(a) documents recording all communications with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) by:

(i) the Minister for Finance,

(ii) the Acting Special Minister of State,

(iii) the Special Minister of State, and

(iv) the Department of Finance;

relating to proposed changes to the Senate voting system, including the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016, since 1 September 2015; and

(b) the minutes of all 'round table' meetings that have taken place in which the AEC participated.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Collins, I did ask whether this was a matter that was raised by Senator Carr, earlier. He raised two issues earlier and this was the second one he raised.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Can I just inform the chamber about some facts. I said I would bring information back into the chamber and I have. With respect to No. 107 and No. 109, which were two queries related to the CSIRO, I do not know the content, but some documents were received by the Table Office at 12.09 pm, today. I table documents relating to the orders for the production of documents concerning the CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere division restructure. I hope that addresses one of your concerns, Senator Carr.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I ask the minister to clarify whether the documents that he has just tabled, which we look forward to receiving shortly under OPD No. 107 and No. 109, are the complete list that was requested under each of those orders or are they simply a subset?

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I honestly have just received the documents, Senator Waters, and you will receive a copy. You are probably more informed on the detail of the request than I am, to be honest. The documents are now with the attendants so we may hear more from you about that. I have also received some advice from the Office of the Special Minister of State. There has been a bit of work involved and a response will be tabled shortly.

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

by leave—What was most telling was the government's refusal to allow the Department of Finance to give evidence to the inquiry when it was quite happy for its other constituent parts, the Liberal Party's national director and the National Party's federal director, to take up time giving evidence on something that they actually helped construct and clearly agreed with. The government is clearly in a rush with this legislation. I have to leave to one side, given time limitations, the amazing about face of the Greens in that they would, it seems, support gagging debate to ram this legislation through in the next sitting week. My question is: why is the government deploying the big guns, sealing the mother-of-all backroom deals built on the mother-of-all captains calls by the Greens leader, by using the mother-of-all gagging approaches for the next sitting week to ram this legislation through. Why the rush?

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

I seek leave to move a motion to take note of Senator Ryan's explanation.

Leave not granted.

The traditional response to a matter such as this is for me to seek leave to take note of the minister's response—

Senator Ryan interjecting—

and I have done so—

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

I am happy for some discussion across the chamber if it actually helps the chamber move forward, but we need to limit that.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make an explanation.

Leave granted.

These queries were raised with me 40 minutes ago. In that 40 minutes we have tabled a response to two of the queries raised by Senator Carr. I have informed the chamber, Senator Collins, that with respect to this query officials are checking documents. I have said a response will be provided shortly. With respect, we were not provided notice of you seeking to move a motion. I have sought to answer you and gather as much information as I could in less than 40 minutes while I was in the chamber. I think, in that case, the government have responded to these queries particularly rapidly.

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

I thank Senator Ryan for anticipating what my statement might be, but I simply want to respond to the explanation that he has provided us with respect of dealing with this order for the production of documents which was required by 9.30 this morning. So I, again, seek leave to move a motion to take note of the explanation.

Leave not granted.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We won't grant leave for the motion but we will for a five-minute statement.

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

I am getting an indication from the Government Whip that leave will not be granted for you, Senator Collins, to move a motion, but leave may be granted for you to make a five-minute statement. If you want to readjust your request for leave, it is a matter for you, Senator Collins. I am happy to put whatever question you want again for the government and see if leave is granted.

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

Mr Deputy President, I appreciate your attempts to facilitate this. If it helps the government that I seek leave to make a five-minute statement rather than seek to move a motion, which is the traditional response in respect of an order for the production of documents, I do not see that that limits my capacity to speak. I would like to clarify, because I know other senators—Senator Day was one, but I think there may be others—want to know the situation on this matter, whether they would be able to also make a motion or a statement on this.

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

We will have to deal with that as it arises. You now need to make a request to do something.

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

Okay, Mr Deputy President—I will assist you with a request to make a five-minute statement.

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

Leave is granted for five minutes.

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

I would like to make a statement in respect of not so much Senator Scott Ryan's response to our queries on the order for production of documents that moves are still afoot to bring this information forward. I thank Senator Ryan for that explanation and appreciate that hopefully that will be fairly soon. 'Shortly' can be a somewhat vague term. I would instead like this opportunity to bring to the Senate's attention that the next item of business on the red is the bill that these matters relate to. Resumption of the second reading debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 is the next matter in the Order of Business. The information that we are seeking here is very important information that has still not been provided on the Senate committee that reported yesterday at eight in the morning and which the government very promptly responded to by noon! I would like to know when the government actually met. Where was this cabinet meeting that met to consider the recommendations in the committee's report? That is what is before us without the information that the committee discussed in the hearing. Indeed, we were advised that the AEC could not provide it but that the Department of Finance could.

Again, to give yet another example of the haste in which this process has proceeded, today I sought out—and this might benefit other senators as well—the answers that the AEC gave to the committee in the hearing. Unfortunately, the procedures of this joint committee through CommDocs were a bit fraught. I mentioned the other day that I had difficulty accessing the chair's draft because I was not in the building at the time. Unfortunately this committee did not advise senators that answers had come in either. So today I went hunting for the answers from the Australian Electoral Commission and, indeed, I discovered that a little time back the AEC had actually responded to our questions but that the response was very limited. For instance, on my question around the role of the Department of Finance and what had occurred there, the AEC's response was, 'The development of legislation was managed'—and this might assist other senators—'by the governance and public management division of the Department of Finance.' So we know that much now. We know which element of the Department of Finance was working on this matter, not that the minister or the committee would allow them to appear at the hearing. Unfortunately, the next point from the AEC was that the AEC could not comment on the considerations of the government, which is why we are waiting for the answers from the Department of Finance before we can promptly consider this legislation.

I know Senator Carr and other senators have revisited this but, seriously—and this is a message to the Australian Greens—this is basic governance 101. When you are considering complex, detailed legislation and its implementation, the committee needs to talk to the relevant department.

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

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Could you please remind Senator Collins that she is to address her comments to the chair.

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

Of course. Senator Collins, please address your comments through the chair.

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

I am thankful for the reminder that I should direct my comments to the chair, because I know that the Greens have raised that they are particularly sensitive about senators looking at them in the chamber. We cannot look at the Greens in the chamber as it seems at the moment they are so sensitive about this backroom deal.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Mr Deputy President, if I am not to look that way, could you please protect me from the interjections, because I am being tempted! I am being provoked to look that way!

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

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps if Senator Collins had not made a mistake in her recollection that it was Senator Ludwig who raised this issue in the first place when I was speaking—

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

I think you are now debating. Senator Siewert, that is not a point of order. Resume your seat. I remind senators that if they are going to interrupt another senator speaking they should do so to raise a point of order, not simply to engage in further debate.

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

Let me conclude, since I only have five minutes at this point, on the critical point here: we are being asked to consider this significant electoral reform legislation—the first of its kind in 30 years—which is based on backroom discussions between the Australian Greens, Senator Xenophon and the government, with no information. But, for the first time in my parliamentary experience, we have been shielded from the department. The committee and the government would not allow the Department of Finance to appear before the committee, and we are waiting for this information so that we can give proper consideration to what the government took into consideration. (Time expired)

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

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

Leave has been granted for five minutes, Senator Day.

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

Why the rush? Where was the public outcry? Where was the harm and the imminent risk to the Australian public to justify getting this legislation through in the next week? The Australian Electoral Commission appeared before the hearing. We did not get the opportunity to question the Department of Finance, because they were not permitted to attend. We asked the Australian Electoral Commission about their capacity to educate the public and what their likely success would be in educating the public in voting 1 to 6 above the line, and they could not say. In spite of prompting and saying, 'What about the New South Wales experience?' and asking, 'What is the likely result? What percentage of the population are likely to vote 1 to 6 above the line?' they could not say. But I think we all know what will happen: the majority of people, over 90 per cent, will simply put a 1 above the line—and their votes will die, make no mistake about that. Their votes will exhaust.

I heard Senator Fawcett last night saying that people voted for him once when he lost and isn't that the same thing? It is clearly not the same thing. It is totally different. People backing the wrong horse and the horse losing is completely different to not putting any money on a horse at all. If the person who you put a 1 alongside has no chance, your vote dies. The great feature of the Australian electoral system is that every vote is precious. We have a preferential system. If the person you vote for as number 1 is not successful, then your vote transfers to your second choice. There is an obsession with these best-on-ground performances. Look at how many first preference, best-on-ground votes Senator Muir got. He did not get very many, but so what? Senator Muir may be the best back-pocket player in the world. He may never get a best on ground or even a second best, but could get, time and time again, one point every week. Our votes all add up. Preferences all add up.

These changes to the voting laws are a sham. The minor parties and Independents being wiped out is not going to be a consequence; it is an objective. That is the objective. The Liberals, the National, the Greens and Nick Xenophon want it for the next election—what it is looking every day more and more like a double dissolution. This Senate is supposed to be a house of review. Senator Xenophon and the Greens have regularly pontificated about the dangers of rushing debate. I have not been here all that long, but I have seen so many mistakes being made and having to be corrected. Why? Because things are rushed. My father used to say that it is more important to do something right than to do it quickly, and we should pay heed to that.

This order is about getting the facts on the table immediately as to how this legislation was put together and, more importantly, when. When was it agreed to? What were the dates that it was agreed to and, indeed, what are the steps that have led to it being amended already by the government? It has not even passed yet and there have been amendments. I support the motion.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave for to speak for just under three minutes until 12.45 pm.

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

Leave is granted.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said earlier, when I was presented with their queries after I entered the chamber at 11.45 am, I made some queries, as I promised the chamber I would. With respect to the first two, orders for the production of documents regarding the CSIRO, they were provided to the chamber earlier this afternoon. With respect to the third request from Senator Collins, I have made it clear that officials are finalising that proposal and they will be presented shortly. I take Senator Collin's comments that 'shortly' can have an elastic meaning. Indeed, when I was sitting on the other side of the chamber I do recall it having quite an elastic meaning. I understand that 'shortly' will be in the common use of that terminology, as in 'sometime soon'.

I know that those opposite's spiritual political cousins in the US are the Democratic Party, but their attempts at Strom-Thurmond- and Richard-Russell-like filibustering over the course of this bill over the course of the last few days have brought this chamber, quite frankly, to a new level. I have never, in my nearly eight years in this place, seen a debate that went for more than a day on a message from the House of Representatives. At every single opportunity that has been presented to this chamber, those opposite have sought to prevent deliberation on this bill. They have sought to prevent debate on this bill. And I say particularly 'those opposite', because the filibustering, Senator Day, in response to yours, was driven by those opposite. The point is that this is a bill that reflects the findings of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and it reflects those findings that were signed off by the Labor Party and indeed submitted by the Labor Party.

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

No, it doesn't.

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

The filibustering techniques undertaken by those opposite will not prevent Senate deliberation on the bill. We will not descend to the juvenile tactics shown by those opposite, which seek to prevent debate and deliberation.

Debate interrupted.