Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have seen a lot in my time in here, but I have to say that something as shameless and slimy as the deal that has been struck between the government and the Greens just astounds me. And, my goodness me, the performance yesterday of the Greens leader, Senator Di Natale was extraordinary to say the least. First off, Senator Di Natale issued a challenge to Senator Wong and then gagged her for making a contribution. I just could not believe it. I know he is under pressure but, crikey, I would have thought that the pressure would not have mounted until at least Thursday—and hit it yesterday. How embarrassing for the Greens—but, even more, how embarrassing for Senator Di Natale, the Greens leader. The Greens also assisted the coalition in delaying the debate on the ABCC bill. Then the Greens, the bastions of progressive politics, said no to a debate about marriage equality and anti-coal seam gas bill debates. If the Greens had supported Senator Leyonhjelm's motion, the same-sex marriage bill would have been voted on before the Senate rises this week. Thanks to the Greens, this will not happen.

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

It is going to happen tomorrow.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens are happy to support the government's ridiculous situation of a $160 million plebiscite. You are shameless. You seriously are shameless. You reckon a $160 million plebiscite is alright—$160 million of taxpayers' money. We in this place get paid $200,000 a year, and you think it is alright that we do not have to make a decision and you think it is alright to support that pathetic, weak escape hatch that will let the people decide after $160 million is spent. I have read quotes that it could be $500 million. I am not going to fall into that silly game. I do not think it is going to be anywhere near that but, at $160 million, you are guilty. You can scream as much as you like from the corner, but you are guilty.

You might ask what all of this was for yesterday. It was so they could sure up this filthy, little voting reform legislation to knock off the crossbenchers in the Senate. It is my belief that, as far as the government and the Greens are concerned, nothing else matters. Their grubby little deal takes precedence over anything else—and I have mentioned those other bills.

The government claims that this bill, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016, implements the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its interim report on the conduct of the 2013 federal election, but this is not the case. This bill is not the product of the JSCEM recommendations. It is the product of their slimy little deal cooked up behind closed doors. I have heard the Greens carry on about cooking up deals behind closed doors and how they are going to stop it. It still rattles my head. I have no idea what they are talking about. They have just done one.

The government likes to say that this legislation at least implements the substance or 85 per cent of the JSCEM recommendations, but this is not true. The deal done between the Greens and the government is designed to serve partisan interests. It is as plain and simple as that.    These reforms aim to exhaust preferences early so Independents and so-called micro parties are deprived of votes.    Its objective is to prevent new players from entering the Senate, thereby entrenching the electoral dominance of existing players. Whether the Greens choose to acknowledge it or not, the principal beneficiary of the new voting system will be the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party's motivation for supporting this legislation is to achieve lasting electoral dominance in the Senate for the conservative parties and, over time, a lasting Senate majority in their own right.

As I have said before, if there is a problem with Senate voting laws, Labor believes that the appropriate response is for parliament to deal with it through a considered, principled and transparent process—not by rushing through an ill-thought-out piece of legislation that was conceived behind closed doors by the leader of the Greens, Senator Di Natale, and his best mates—Senator Xenophon and the Prime Minister. The outcome must be and be seen to prioritise the democratic rights of the Australian people above all other interests, especially partisan self-interest. There can be nothing more important to public confidence in the parliament than the integrity of laws which dictate who is elected to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 fails this test.

This bill was not the product of any principled and transparent parliamentary process. It is the tawdry outcome of a slimy deal between the conservatives and the Greens. The Australian public cannot have confidence in the coalition or the Greens, as this legislation lacks scrutiny, lacks credibility and lacks integrity. Integrity is something that is very important to me. Let us have a look at the definition of the word as explained in the Oxford Dictionary. It says: 'Integrity: the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles'. Let me say that again for those listening and particularly those in that corner to my left: 'the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles'. The Greens, in joining with the government to rush through these reforms and in shutting down debate on issues that they claim to be their own, like marriage equality, have shown that they are neither honest nor do they stand by their morals.

In my previous remarks, I took great delight in informing the Senate of what could happen to the Greens as a result of the reforms and if there is a double-dissolution. I would like to remind the Greens and those listening that it could mean that we might be saying bye-bye to either Senator Siewert or Senator Ludlam in Western Australia or—it gets better—we might be saying bye-bye to Senator Simms or Senator Hanson-Young in South Australia. I put this contribution on social media and not at any point was I or have I been confronted by anyone who had a problem with what I said. Doesn't that say something?

I again have to ask the question: do the Greens know what they are getting themselves into? Quite a few commentators have said that the Greens have not properly done their homework on this matter. There has been a growing chorus of academics and analysists who have criticised this legislation cooked up by this sneaky new coalition that we have seen develop. Malcolm Mackarras has said that this legislation is: 'A filthy deal concocted by an unelected dud prime minister in the Greens Party'—they are not my words, that is from Mr Malcolm Mackarras—'a party known for its moral vanity.'

Do the Greens really know what direction their leader is taking them in? One thing that is very clear is that Senator Di Natale is moving the Greens more and more towards the right. Under his leadership, the Greens are growing ever closer to the conservatives on the other side of the chamber. This is not the first time that Senator Di Natale has sold out the Australian public via a deal with this government. First we had Senator Di Natale's sneaky deal with the Abbott-Turnbull government to cut the payments of part pensioners. Then we had Senator Di Natale's little deal with the Abbott-Turnbull government to water down tax transparency laws for multinational companies. Now we have Senator Di Natale's filthy deal with the Abbott-Turnbull government to alter the laws governing the election of senators, which will increase the chances of the coalition gaining a majority in this Senate.

As leader, Senator Di Natale has spent a lot of time talking about these grubby deals in the Senate chamber. For a party that prides themselves on fighting for a better Australia, including advocating for Indigenous affairs, climate change and asylum seekers, I am baffled by how little Senator Di Natale has actually focused his time on any of these issues in this place. Compared to one speech on Indigenous affairs, two speeches on climate change and four speeches on asylum seekers, Senator Di Natale has given a total of 16 speeches on separate deals the Greens have done with the government since becoming leader. In his desperate ploy to deal himself into political relevance he is dealing the Greens out of their political values.

In putting his desperate desire for mainstream media attention before the Greens' political values he is sacrificing his party's integrity on the altar of his own vanity. He continues in his words, 'At some point in the future, we will be a party of government,' Senator Di Natale said. I nearly wet my pants—sorry about that! 'Never say never' is the quote I would use about everything in politics.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that back. I should have said that I nearly wet my pants laughing.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Do you think it is funny? I think it is hilarious. You might think that might happen, Senator.

On 9 March, Charis Chang wrote an article online at news.com.au entitled 'Greens leader Richard Di Natale says the party will form government one day'. I did find this article both humorous and insightful. It extensively covered the views of Senator Di Natale as the leader of the Greens with respect to their love-in with the government. It also provided a range of views concerning the coverage of Senator Di Natale in the GQ magazine—a photo shoot with men's magazine GQ went live online at 7.00 am and has sparked comparisons to children's music groups, hipsters, Steve Jobs and one famous American folk duo, that being Simon and Garfunkel,' Chang reported.

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

They wore socks!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not fair, Senator Carr. When one reader asked who Senator Di Natale was following the article, another consumer responded by saying, 'He is that tactical turtle-neck guy.' Another tweet went on to suggest that, with that black skivvy, he could become the new member of The Wiggles. So in that vein, I say this to you, Senator Di Natale—and, as a father, I know this line all too well—Wake up, Jeff! Seriously, wake up. Senator Di Natale's approach is a world away from the view of former leader Bob Brown, who often talked about 'replacing the bastards'—and I am quoting Senator Brown's words there—'not joining them at the cabinet table'.

Bob Brown must be absolutely livid with what has become of his beloved Greens party. Senator Di Natale in the article later acknowledged that some people in his party would rather not do anything with the Liberal Party. He continued though, and said: 'But it is my view and the view of my party room that you have to put policy first and then the politics look after itself,' he said.

I do find this a bit rich. This deal has nothing to do with policy. It is being done purely out of self-interest and that is it. It is very interesting that Senator Di Natale has opened up the Greens to forming government with the conservatives. Greens senators ought to think very carefully about what their leader is signing them up to. Senator Di Natale is basically saying that Senator Simms may one day be on a joint ticket with Senator Bernardi on the Safe Schools program and marriage equality. Senator Di Natale is also saying that Senator Hanson-Young may one day be on a joint ticket with Senator Cash on asylum seekers and women's policies. Senator Di Natale has also signed Senator Ludlam up to a joint ticket—are you ready for this?—with Senator Brandis on terrorism laws and data retention. Senator Waters must have been delighted to hear that she may one day share Senator Seselja, Senator McGrath and Mr George Christensen's environmental policy. The mind boggles as to how the Stalinist senator from New South Wales, Senator Rhiannon, could even share a policy platform with Senator Abetz. But this is the direction the Greens are heading in.

I say to the Greens senators: if you do not like the direction that Senator Di Natale is taking you in then do something about it. Take 20 steps out of this place and publicly tell the Australian people that you will never support a Liberal-Greens coalition government. I dare you to! This new love affair, however, is not all rosy and peachy, as some might have you believe. While Mr Michael Kroger might have walked off the reservation a bit, conservatives from the Liberal right, including Senator Abetz and Senator Bernardi, are not as welcoming of the Greens as their party officials are.

Mr Jeff Kennett, in an article written by Joe Kelly and Rick Wallace in The Australian, said that a preference deal with the Greens was a 'major departure from what's happened in the past'. Senator Abetz has publicly and very clearly shown his disgust in the Greens/Liberal-National coalition. Most recently he said that he was alarmed that Liberal preferences had helped elect Senator Rhiannon in 2010, which sadly forced out my mate former Labor Senator Steve Hutchins. I would be alarmed at that too. I suppose in one way it is like a happy ending: the Liberals helped Senator Rhiannon get elected and now their parties are going to become aligned. I think Senator Abetz will regret that move.

Senator Bernardi went further and labelled the Greens a 'dangerous bunch of extremists' and warned they would never assist in the formation of a coalition government, a view which is quite contrary to that of Senator Di Natale, who said, 'He is confident that one day that mob over there will be a party of government. Please!

At the end of the day, the Greens have done a quick and dirty deal with the government to change the Senate preference system without allowing time for proper and fair scrutiny of this reform. This will ultimately lead to the coalition having greater control over the Senate and the purge of the minor parties, neither of which will be good for our democracy nor our country. We are opposing this grubby deal between the government and the Greens because it will purge the Senate of small parties and Independents, prevent new parties from ever getting elected, exhaust the votes of no less than 3.3 million Australians and risk turning the Senate into a rubber stamp for coalition governments.

Just for the Greens benefit, I want to enlighten them on entering into this slimy deal. If it is the case that the coalition are the winners out of this and the coalition get to that magic number of 39 senators in this place, or that Senator Xenophon may have a brain snap and want to back-in the government on some terrible IR issues, working people will remember you as the ones that contributed to the loss of more jobs in this nation. Whether we like it or not, it is no secret that the government want to get rid of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Congratulations if your deal delivers that, because you will have given another win to the government!

Let's not forget a very important factor. To the Greens senators and the Greens supporters out there in radio land listening to this: if you deliver that number of senators to the coalition, where they do not need to deal with anyone on this side of the chamber, you will be responsible, should Minister Cash follow her desire to emulate her political idol in, one, Maggie Thatcher, for delivering the death knell to hundreds of thousands of young Australians who rely and depend on penalty rates in the hospitality and retail sectors.

We know what Minister Cash and the government have done. They have flicked over the recommendations of the Productivity Commission. We are not stupid; we know what the Productivity Commission is going to come back to. Of course, it would be foolish to think that they are not going to recommend that penalty rates be adjusted, removed, changed, downgraded—whatever. If that does happen to the thousands of young Australians and other Australians who rely on the penalty rate system in the retail and hospitality industry to make ends meet, you will not have to worry about me standing here—the little, fat truckie from WA with the big nose having a crack at you; the rest of Australia will remind you at every opportunity what your slimy deal with the government can deliver in this chamber to hundreds of thousands of Australians who relied on us on this side who have actually had dirt under our fingernails and do not pretend to be the champions of the working class because we would never in a pink fit do a deal that would screw them over.

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

The coalition and the Greens talk a lot about transparency in relation to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 and they argue that it is necessary to make the allocation of preferences transparent and clearly reflect the will of voters. This is a particular irony because what has become really apparent are the motives that rest behind this bill's supporters. This is a bill that is not being rushed through the parliament with quite unseemly haste because the government want to create a more democratic system for electing the Senate. This is a bill that is being rushed through this parliament because the government are frustrated with the way in which the Senate has operated. Remember, this is a Senate that refused to allow the $7 Medicare co-payment, refused to allow the $100,000 university degree and blocked most of the inequitable measures of the 2014 budget.

The Turnbull government want to eliminate as much of the crossbench as it can because it is uncomfortable with what has actually occurred in these last two years and they now feel comfortable with its new best friend, Senator Di Natale. In that process, the government are not acting out of altruism; the government are actually hoping to shore up its own vote. It is pushing this legislation through the parliament to give it an option of a double-dissolution election in which the crossbenchers will not survive. The government are afraid that if they do not have these changes, they will see an increase in the number of malcontents that they cannot control. So the government have made a decision that the crossbenchers have to go.

I find it truly remarkable how this government have stumbled blindfolded into this minefield. It is quite clear that when this process started, the government thought it was riding particularly high in public opinion and it could ride out any opprobrium that would come from these clearly unnecessary and unreasonable measures. But, of course, what we have now discovered is that the government have not thought through the implications of a double-dissolution election in the time lines that they are proposing. They did not think through the implications of having to call a double-dissolution election the day after the budget. They did not think through the implications of having no supply and of having to try to get a supply bill through this parliament in a day. They did not think through the implications of a three-month election campaign fought in winter. They did not think through the implications of what it is like to go to your electorate when your position has deteriorated so dramatically in public opinion and when, on the best measures we have available, it would appear that the parties are pretty much fifty-fifty.

What we do know about first-term governments is this: the average swing against a first-term government is 3.5 per cent. If you look at the historical evidence on that, you will find it is the case. What is the swing required to remove this government? It is 3.4 per cent. With the government's indecision and its completely chaotic condition, it is quite possible that that may well be the outcome. This government has not thought through the implications of its actions in its desperate effort to purge the crossbenches, because they cannot get their draconian measures through in this parliament. As I say, they have wandered blindfolded into the minefield of politics in the Senate and, of course, sought to find a simple solution to what is quite a complicated problem. They have even decided to remove their poodles—the people they have relied upon for 80 per cent of the votes in this chamber. They have decided that they are dispensable. The ruthlessness of this position really is quite breathtaking.

Senator Day has warned the government about these unintended consequences. He has even suggested that he should take this matter to the High Court—and heaven knows he has got the resources to do so. Maybe that is another unintended consequence they have not thought about. Despite the fact that he has voted with the government 80 per cent of the time, Senator Di Natale says, 'Senator Day's remarks are made out of self-interest.' Isn't that amusing? The self-interest of the Greens in this matter is breathtaking. The Greens remain the major beneficiaries of the existing voting system in the Senate, and now they want to make sure that they deny the opportunity for anyone to come along behind them and replace them. What they want to do is to deal themselves into the power equation of this country. As I have said before, they are pretty much like the Democrats in many respects. There are a group of very, very wealthy people now who dominate the Greens. Inner city politics is run by people who are exceptionally wealthy. They have the best social conscience that money can buy, but they adopt an increasingly conservative position—which is befitting their personal wealth.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Senator Di Natale's appeal to be respected, to be loved, to be appreciated by the conservatives of this country should take on such vigour. We saw that in the interview with Senator Di Natale in GQ magazine just last week. In one of his answers to the journalist's questions about the Greens forming an alliance with the Liberals, he said:

In my view it's much more likely that the opportunity rests with Labor, but you should never rule out any possibility, though it's unlikely… 'Never say never' is the quote I'd use about everything in politics.

I am really quite interested to know what Green voters would say about that, because the principle of 'never say never' is not a sentiment that I have traditionally experienced in this chamber—certainly not from the work of Bob Brown and Christine Milne. It is an extraordinary proposition in many respects, because many of us appreciate the point of why we are actually in politics. We are defined as much by what we oppose as what we support. I noticed an article in the Herald Sun this week in which Shaun Carney wrote about Senator Di Natale's remark. This an article headed 'Flirting is a tricky game'. Flirting is a tricky game indeed for the Greens—with or without socks. It states:

Politicians are supposed to say 'never'. That’s why people support them. This is particularly so for the Greens, whose supporters are especially purist on such things as open borders, the undesirability of all military action, giving security agencies more powers and coal.

There are times when we simply must say 'never'. But apparently that is not the view of Senator Di Natale—not anymore, anyway. He is intent on dealing his party into power and his mantra now is 'whatever it takes'. That means he is prepared to do the dirty deal with the Liberals. He is prepared to deliver the Turnbull government the power to implement their inequitable measures from the 2014 budget. He is prepared to become the quisling of the hard right of the Liberal Party. Senator Abetz was reported yesterday as saying, 'The way you allocate preferences says a lot about what you are as a party, what you stand for and what matters to you.' It is not often that I agree with Senator Abetz but he is probably right about that. Every indication is that that is not the way the Greens see the world these days.

The president of the Liberal Party in Victoria, Mr Kroger, has spoken warmly about the prospect of an electoral pact with Senator Di Natale. He said, 'The Greens are not the nutters they used to be.' Well, Senator Di Natale, with the lack of candour that deserves, no-one is enjoying being courted. It is quite clear that that is the case. He does enjoy the courting game. He is openly selling his party's favours, such as 'never say never'. He was more than happy to have preferences directed to the Greens in inner city seats like Wills, Grayndler, Batman and Sydney

He can say, 'We'll never put the Liberals ahead of Labor,' but in those inner city seats it does not matter, because their preferences would never be counted. That is how they see the world. But in the outer suburbs, he says, 'We'll just give an open ticket,' to favour the Liberals. He sent a member of my staff a very indignant email just recently, complaining about what my colleague Senator Dastyari had said about the Greens. Senator Dastyari had called them a cancer on progressive politics. Well, the cap fits. What we see generally is that progressive parties do not do dirty deals with the Liberals to cut pensions and reduce tax transparency for large corporations, and they certainly do not do dirty deals to help the coalition win control of this chamber.

The government and the Greens have cobbled together a deal to protect their specific interests. The government is seeking a blocking majority, a minimum of 38, which is best secured through a double dissolution, because it is easier to secure seven seats out of 12 in a double dissolution, where the quota is cut in half, than it is to secure just three seats out of six in a half-Senate election. The deal, which would abolish the group and individual voting tickets and introduce optional preferential voting, would see a situation which would encourage the strongest possible result for the conservative parties and bolster the Greens' position, as they see themselves as the great fixers of political power.

It is said that there is a savings provision involved in these propositions. We all know what the Electoral Commission has said—that a vote of '1' above the line will be formal. The effect of this arrangement may well be to have a first-past-the-post system for this chamber in this country. It comes down to a very simple proposition—that people can put '1' above the line and do not have to allocate any preferences. In my view, that will become increasingly the case.

The Howard government, when they secured a majority in this chamber back in 2004, gave us Work Choices. They had not mentioned it in the election campaign. That majority allowed them to pursue their long-held obsession with destroying the trade union movement, destroying people's capacity to organise, getting rid of penalty rates and getting rid of people's rights at work. What troubles me greatly about these arrangements is that that is exactly what we will see again. We know there is a deep train of thought that runs through politics in this country, whether it be on our side or on the other side of the chamber. We saw it with health care. Labor struggled to secure Medibank and Medicare. That struggle went right through the seventies and eighties, until Medicare was so firmly entrenched in the country it made it impossible to get rid of. But the conservatives today, 40 years after that great initiative, still constantly work away at trying to undermine it. On trade union issues, the struggle around rights at work is a ribbon that has run right through the middle of politics since Federation, through the history of the Commonwealth. If the coalition secure a majority in this chamber and in the other chamber, it will lead to opportunities for the very hard right of Australian politics to secure their dreams. That is what really concerns me about the arrangements the Greens have entered into.

They say the benefit of that is that the Greens will be entrenched as the balance-of-power party. That is not necessarily going to happen either, because, if Senator Xenophon is able to secure the sorts of votes I expect he will, he may well find that he is in the position of influence, and he may well take an entirely different view to the Greens on some questions. These arrangements will in fact enhance conservative values in Australian politics.

If people were genuinely concerned about what is happening with regard to the election of senators with very few votes—and I think there is a legitimate issue for people to be concerned about—it would have been better to have a proper look at what other countries do and to ensure that the proportional representation system is not distorted. I have long supported the view that we need a threshold in the election process. Right around the world, that is what occurs. The threshold is as high as 10 per cent in some countries, like Turkey, but in many places it is two or three per cent. In Denmark the threshold is two per cent. Four or five per cent is typical in most European countries that use proportional representation systems. Some would say, 'It doesn't fit with our constitutional principles.' That has never been tested, and it has never been properly discussed how those matters could be overcome. Section 7 of the Constitution talks about the principle of being directly elected. We will see what happens if this bill, which will be passed, is put into law, because Senator Day has said he is prepared to take that matter to the High Court.

I think there is a possibility for action to introduce systems other than the one that is being proposed here. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which the government says was so important to its deliberation on this matter, presented a whole different set of arrangements. The joint committee proposals are not the same as those that are being considered here this evening. The bill before the Senate does not match the recommendations of JSCEM. The government has said that it implements the substance of them. On other occasions, it has said that it implements 85 per cent of them. The truth is: this bill is very different from the proposals that were discussed by the joint committee.

We have the prospect here of contests being pursued in this chamber which will have, in many senses, unknown circumstances. I am very concerned about the direction that one can expect will arise from these measures. I think many Green voters would equally be very concerned about the direction that these measures are taking us in.

I know for instance in the article I referred to there are matters here that would appear to be simple, but Ted Baillieu found in Victoria, after discussions following the election of Adam Bandt in the seat of Melbourne, that the Liberals were not served by providing a preference deal with the Greens. There was a proposition that arose essentially out of the result of a rank and file revolt within the Liberal Party itself about such preference arrangements between the Greens and the Liberals. I think the proposition we have here is of course in part a down payment on that preference arrangement. I raised the question with the director of the Liberal Party, Mr Nutt, who has confirmed the discussions were had just this weekend. Mr Kroger has met with the Greens to further these talks in regard to the arrangements that have been mentioned. I think the point was made well in the Herald Sun last Tuesday:

Meanwhile, what are the Greens idealists to make of this new development, with a leader who contemplates partnering up with the Liberals? Just because leaders and party officials make deals or private agreements, it doesn’t mean their supporters will honour them. Supporters tend to attach themselves to parties because of their beliefs, not because of 'arrangements'.

It concerns me greatly that we have a measure before us here tonight, which will invariably be carried in one form or another, and a new-found zeal from the coalition and the Greens in the name of enhancing transparency to reinforce the privilege of those already privileged in our society and undermine the best hope that the most under-privileged people have in this country—that is, a Labor government in the future with progressive policies passed through progressive laws passed through this parliament. That is what is at stake here.

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

I rise too tonight to speak on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 and to put my remarks on the record with regard to this outrageous piece of legislation that we are seeing pushed through the Senate with what I think can easily be described as unseemly haste and with a degree of arrogance and hubris from those who will inflict this on the Australian people despite 30 years of our electoral reform holding us in good stead and delivering for us a very stable democracy that has become increasingly representative of the breadth of views and the different types of talents that are happily an indication of the sophisticated country that we are.

What disappoints me about this particular piece of legislation is that it is dressed up as reform. There is a saying—a monkey in silk is a monkey no less. This is absolutely not reform; it is something much other than reform. As members of the Labor Party, we do not believe that by putting a sticker that reads 'reform' on a piece of legislation that it constitutes reform. The window dressing might be good enough for the grand alliance, the Greens, the National Party and the Liberal Party—now one great and awful alliance—but it is deeply concerning to see that the Liberals and the Greens announce a deal that will favour themselves. The Green party politicians, the Liberal party politicians and the National Party politicians believe in this abortive and arrogant way of proceeding in the chamber to bring about the most significant change to our operation as a nation in 30 years.

The proposal that the Greens and the coalition have put forward with this piece of legislation effectively consigns three million votes to the bin. In the last election, more than three million Australians exercised a vote for a party other than one of the major parties. I always find it hard to understand why people would not just automatically and every time vote Labor. The reality is we have a range of views in our community and there are people who do not want to vote for the Labor Party but they do not want to vote for the coalition party. They do not want to vote for the National Party, who are letting them down profoundly, particularly in regional Australia on the areas of health and education. Of course I can understand why many people who might have voted National before will not be voting again for them this time. But there are people who do not want to vote for the Greens either.

What they did in that last election was—and there are three million Australians who made this decision with their vote—vote for candidates other than from these larger parties which dominate the political landscape of the country. It looks like the legislation will get through because of this dirty deal. Three million people voted at the last election for candidates other than those from these three parties. Their votes are going to 'exhaust'. They are 'exhausted' simply means they are not counted. They are going to end up not being involved in the election of anyone. Twenty-five per cent of the voting public will end up with no representation of their view of who should be here, and that hardly seems fair.

The Senate is supposed to represent more than three main parties. I bemoaned much of the commentary here in the chamber over the last couple of sessions, where people have been speaking about their delight with what they are trying to enact here. It is supposed to be a positive for democracy that we have a range of views. It can hardly be a positive for democracy when you construct a system and do a deal here in the Senate to discount the value of the votes of three million Australians. I do not think you can possibly consider it reform to leave three million people and their will out of the democratic process—not just delete them out, but to actually construct a model which will exclude them from registering that kind of response.

Imagine if the Liberals were in control of the Senate when Tony Abbott was Prime Minister? That is what is being cooked up here—control of the Senate by the Liberal and conservative forces of this country. Already we would have seen them implement their 2014 budget. They would have just been able to do it. They would have just got the rubber-stamp and said, 'Here, off we go—let's do it!' Students would now have been in a deregulated market and paying $100,000 for a university degree. We would have seen cuts to Medicare. We would have seen the $7 GP tax become law. We would have seen further cuts to family payments from the ones we have already seen. We have been able to hold up so much of the worst excesses of this government.

Labor is absolutely up for reform. But just because the Liberals and the Greens have done a deal, drawn up this bill and put a 'reform' sticker on the front page does not mean this piece of legislation should be allowed to continue to masquerade as a piece of reform. Reform that entrenches the control of the right wing of the Liberal Party and reform that entrenches control of the balance of power to the Greens is not reform. It is a recipe for economic problems and it is a recipe for gridlock in Australian politics. When Labor looks at reform we want to make sure that it does not harm the interests of the Australian people. I support reforms that are sensible, but not reforms like this, that are constructed deliberately to wipe away every minor and different voice.

The bill was brought into the parliament by the Greens, and it reflects this deal that I have been talking about, done between the grand coalition of the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens parties together. But in their haste to bring it in and in trying to pretend that it has come from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters they have tried to muddy the situation so much that some clarity around its true status is a little hard to find.

The Senate system of voting recommended by the joint committee is not the system that is in the bill that has now come before us. What we are debating now is not what has come from JSCEM. It is what the Greens, the Liberal Party and the National Party decided was in their own interests. One of the key challenges in this deal is that future voting under this bill, which sees the biggest changes since 1984, means that people will have to vote in a very different way from what they have become accustomed to.

Our concern, as the Labor Party, arises from that change in practice and the increase in informal votes that is likely to flow from that. But we also have concerns that there are challenges, like how we present how-to-vote cards to our supporters, given the requirement to indicate one to 12 or one to six above the line on the ballot paper. This is going to be complicated and it is going to be very challenging. I was actually able to attend the hearing the other morning, which was in no way any representation of the best practices of this Senate. To see questions so controlled and contained by the chair that morning; to see the relevant committee prevent the finance department coming to that meeting to answer any questions and to see the gross misuse of the committee process to achieve this dirty deal was a real insult. It was an insult to the people of Australia and it was something that I will not forget. It was like something that I have seen at the movies, where people's rights were clearly removed. It was completely inappropriate.

These changes that look like we are going to have happen will give rise to a degree of complexity, as I have indicated, that will almost certainly lead to a rise in informal votes, and the proposed system that we see relies on a large number of voters exhausting their votes. We are not satisfied that it is democratic. It is easy to have suspicions about the intent behind this, because the stated aim of these reforms is, in fact, to wipe out minor party players. It is easy to be sceptical, which is not my general disposition towards life, but when the Liberals and the Greens are doing this with a clear and expressed hope to produce more senators of their own persuasions you can hardly call it a good piece of legislation—a fair piece of legislation. It is certainly not a reforming piece of legislation.

It is also very interesting that the Greens have decided that they are now the best minor party in the land. They have decided that they do not want anybody else to come in and have a go. Having been the beneficiaries of the system that we have had in place over the last 30 years and securing their place, now they want to pull up the drawbridge and everybody else can go home. They just want to stay here themselves and get rid of those other smaller parties.

From Labor's perspective these are very big changes which, as I have indicated, might mean a growing informal vote but which also mean that a lot of voters are going to have their ballot papers exhausted. That is not democracy in action and it is not support of diversity, and this display of the arrangement between the Greens, the Liberals and the National Party is absolutely nothing like a democratic kind of arrangement.

The Greens should go out amongst their voters and tell them that they have done another dirty deal—another dirty deal!—with the Liberal Party. In fact, through this piece of legislation and through putting their votes with the government of this day they are permanently providing a blocking vote in the Senate for the conservative forces. They have sacrificed all their principals on so many issues, but this is particularly iconic. They have sold out to the conservatives of this country.

The Greens are getting into bed with Mr Turnbull. Let's have a look at what it is that they have actually decided they are going to join up with. Mr Turnbull and Julie Bishop conspired to assassinate the duly-elected Prime Minister in his first term—Mr Abbott. The result is a deeply divided and dysfunctional government that is constantly contradicting itself and backflipping on itself. It is unable to provide any degree of certainty and security to the Australian population or to our businesses and our economy. They cannot even confirm, despite many requests to do so—that the budget will happen on the date for which it is indicated. They cannot even confirm that basic requirement of a government.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'll let you know!

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

I will take that interjection. The interjection from Senator Scullion, in which he said, 'We'll let you know,' reveals the hubris and arrogance that is the telltale of the way in which we have seen this government operate from the minute they got in here. I know that you recall, Acting Deputy President, the early days in which we arrived in this chamber. We can see how contemptuous the government have been of the people who have come here on the crossbenches.

I recall the first dinner that I had with Senator Muir and his wife, with Senator Lazarus, with Senator Day, with Senator Leyonhjelm, with Senator Dio Wang and with Senator Lambie. We had conversations right at the beginning of their journey here. For many of them it was their first encounter with this place, with this chamber, and instead of giving them the respect that they deserved as elected representatives the government concocted their program for this place in a way which forced the new senators to vote very quickly on the legislation that they were putting forward. It was a ploy. They came and they thought: 'They're all new Johnny-come-latelies sitting on the side benches there. They don't know what they are doing. They don't deserve our respect, because really we should not have the riffraff like them in here. They don't belong in here.'

We have seen that Senator Muir is perhaps one of the most maligned of all of these. Senator Muir has been maligned in the press and then maligned so many times by this government because he has come from working in a sawmill. I remember my first conversations with him. He had a cup of tea with me at about 10 o'clock one night and I said to him, 'What would you normally be doing at 10 o'clock at night?' He said: 'I probably wouldn't be sitting here in a suit. I'd have different clothing on. I'd have some sawdust in my hair and I'd be making sure I didn't drop sawdust into my coffee.'

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

He would be having a beer. It was 10 o'clock.

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

Probably it would have been. No, he was at work at the sawmill. It would have been 10 then. He was probably having a beer in my office. The reality is he represents a person who has a basic education in Australia, who legally secured a position in this Senate and who arrived with a skill set that he identified was not a perfect match for here—but this is a country that believes in people participating in democracy. That is what I thought it was—that we would make space for everybody to be here and that if you could get here you would be accepted and you would be able to participate. But instead what we have seen is it has hit a point where the government have been so arrogant, so rude and so insulting to the crossbench from the very beginning that they cannot govern in the way that they want. So they have cooked up this deal with the Greens to get rid of the problem, because everybody in the parliament should be like them. They come in here with this veneer of civility, education and entitlement that they belong here—that is what the Greens have signed up with. They are absolute advocates for themselves and absolute excluders of diversity in the most arrogant and shameful way, to put on the record, in so many ways they think the crossbench are beneath the role of this Senate.

I do not agree with them. I accept the fact the Australian people sent the people here that we have here and I accept—despite their too often voting with the government in my view—their right to be here and their contribution to this place. That has never been forthcoming from the government. That is why they are delighted that they finally got the Greens, who also have that air of ascendancy and sense of entitlement. I think in his comments Senator Carr was quoting an article called 'Political flirting is a tricky game,' in which the writer of that piece described the Greens as purists. They are purists in a different way. But the two purists have got together to get rid of the riffraff. That is what is going on here—the arrogance that comes with that. That is what they are saying.

What we are seeing with this piece of legislation is not reform; rather we are seeing a purge. We are seeing a smugness that will see the exclusion of a variety of voices. We will see fewer Independents, we will see fewer small parties and we will probably see no new parties because of what the government, in their deal with the Greens, have been able to stitch up. The sort of dirty deals that we are seeing daily with the Greens were probably an indication that they were going to go this far all the time—although I continue to be surprised that they actually have done that.

Under his leadership the Greens are growing ever closer to the conservatives on the other side of the chamber, because we look at the deals that have been done. The first deal that Senator Di Natale did with the Abbott-Turnbull government was to cut the pensions of part-pensioners. That is what the Greens party voted for in their warm-up to this grand finale that they are trying to enact here. Then we had Senator Di Natale's dirty deal with the Abbott-Turnbull government to water down the tax transparency laws for multinational companies. Labor and the Independents were ready to make sure that the whole lot of multinational companies—we had the votes—had to show Australia what they were going to get. The reality is that they absolutely sold out the people of Australia and agreed with the Liberal-National government to provide an absence of scrutiny of tax transparency laws.

The next deal we had was the filthy deal to alter the laws that govern the election of senators, and that is what we are debating here tonight—clearly increasing the chances of the coalition to gain a majority of the Senate. In this desperate ploy to deal himself into the centre of political relevance in his own mind, this deal by Senator Di Natale with the Greens has sold out all of their political values.

Senator Ludwig, in his contribution to this debate, indicated—I usually rely on his ear on the ground—that he has heard in respect of this legislation that there are more than eight amendments that will need to be moved by the government itself because the bill is so flawed due to the government rushing it through the committee and this place. That is why the scale of what is happening is enormous, the impact is devastating and we should resist this at every turn.

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

I too rise to make a contribution in this lively debate. I want to just put on the record some of the feedback that my office has been getting about the electoral reform bill. In particular, it is addressed to one Senator Robert Simms. It says:

Dear Robert,

Stop the feigned bleeding heart crap, you're not the only gay victim, the Greens have done a greater disservice to democracy and egalitarianism by supporting a revised senate voting system that will virtually ensure that almost 25% of Australians—

Robert Simms (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order—

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

Senator Gallacher, if you could just resume your seat.

Robert Simms (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry Mr Acting Deputy President—

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

Don't apologise. What is your point of order?

Robert Simms (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure how the language that was just used was parliamentary but I do not consider it to be parliamentary. I think the statement should be withdrawn.

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

Senator Gallacher, it would appear that it was a personal reflection on Senator Simms, so if you would not mind withdrawing it.

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

It is not on this issue.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is: I would like to support Senator Simms's point of order that that was a personal reflection on the senator.

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

Senator Gallacher, I just would ask you to withdraw. Let me get into this seat and take control.

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

If it may please the Senate and you, I will withdraw—

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

Thank you, Senator Gallacher.

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

the imputation on Senator Simms's character or whatever you require.

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

Thank you very much.

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

I draw your attention to the state of the chamber.

(Quorum formed)

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Going on with my line of communication, it says:

… the Greens have done a greater disservice to democracy and egalitarianism by supporting a revised senate voting system that will virtually ensure that almost 25% of Australians won't be properly represented in the Senate of the Australian parliament by non-leading party parliamentarians.

The Liberals, Nationals, Labor, and Greens at the 2013 federal election received 76.5% of primary senate votes and preferences giving them 89.5% of senate seats or 68 seats, whereas minor and micro party and non-partisan senate candidates received 23.5% of primary senate votes and 10.5% of senate seats or 8 seats.

It remains to be seen just how the Greens interpretation of democracy will play out, but if 23.5% of primary senate votes won by micro and minor party and non-partisan candidates cannot achieve between 8 and 18 senate seats in future senate elections then the fault in such a non-egalitarian senate voting system rests predominantly with the self-interested Greens who claimed the higher ground in supporting the Coalition Government in the legislation for the revised senate voting system.

Robert, contrary to that purported, you and the rest of the Australian Greens in the Australian parliament are an unmitigated disgrace to true democracy and egalitarianism.

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

Senator Gallacher, I would ask that you address your comments to the chair and address participants in the chamber by their correct title. Thank you.

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

Senator Simms—

contrary to that purported, you and the rest of the Australian Greens in the Australian parliament are an unmitigated disgrace to true democracy and egalitarianism.

Robert Simms (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Give me their name; I'll write them a letter.

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

And:

Kindest regards,

Harry Power

I am sure you will write them a letter, Senator Simms. That is why they responded to you. This is the response. It is your unmitigated disaster—a disgrace to true democracy and egalitarianism. That is not from our side of the table but from their side of the table. That is one of their supporters. That is one of their supporters' contributions to this debate. I just mention that in passing.

This is a bill that has managed to pass the House of Representatives without a joint committee report even being completed. It is a done deal. It is a process. Most of us in political life or even in business life, union life or just life in general know what a deal is. It is a meeting of people's inclinations—the way they want to go forward.

It appears very clear that the Leader of the Australian Greens, the new leader, is quite a departure from the Christine Milne model or the Bob Brown model. The Senator Di Natale model is quite different. It is a pragmatic power grab. There is no doubt about that. Senator Di Natale seeks more influence, and good luck to him. He seeks more influence with whichever government is elected in Australia. He seeks for his party to be the party of scrutiny, if you like, or achieving their ends, and that is what politics is all about. But he is going to face the scrutiny of his own membership. He is going to face the scrutiny of all of those people who align themselves with the Greens party.

I suppose, if we look back in history, the Democrats faced the same scrutiny. The Democrats faced the same scrutiny when they made some arrangements with governments which did not turn out to be as fortuitous as they may well have thought. They may have been pragmatic decisions at the time. They may well have been decisions to have influence now, but history will show that the Democrats are no longer represented in this chamber.

That is something that the Australian Greens should properly reflect upon, because you have to be true to your ideology. You have to be true to the people who send you here. This is really never about us. It is never about our time in the chamber. It is our representational efforts for the people who sent us. If you ever forget that and you start thinking it is about your position at the table, your power at the table, where you are in the pecking order, who has to look up or down to you, then you are getting a bit far away from where you need to be.

We believe it has been a rushed reform. The AEC states that it needs three months to get these changes in place. If this does go ahead and there is a double-D, it might have to manually count all the ballots. Who knows?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Heavens! Heavens to Betsy!

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

I will take that interjection. It might mean that the country goes for a number of weeks or months without a decision being made. It is rushed. The AEC has indicated that there is a problem.

The bill may potentially exhaust 3,000 votes. Twenty-five per cent who do not vote for the major parties may not see their vote carried out in the way it has been up until now. You can debate whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but basically I am always very reluctant to change rules. I have found through my working life that people who wrote rules sometimes 100 years ago were very, very good at it, and when we ever changed a rule there were always unintended consequences or unthought-of consequences. So I am a person who thinks, 'If you've got a system, make it work.' I do not really think that the system is broken. I do not think it is broken.

What clearly is broken for major political parties is that we do not attract the majority of the vote anymore. There are up to three million people voting the other way in the Senate. You could argue that that is a good thing. This is supposed to be the house of review. This is supposed to be where legislation is tested, where people actually evaluate what is coming up from the House of Representatives and have a good look at it through the Senate committee system. There is ample evidence of that being a good and proper system for Australia.

I think the average elector actually gets it. They obviously get it because they can vote one way in the lower house and another way in the upper house. They can distinguish their votes. So maybe this Senate that people are castigating is what the Australian people actually want. I accept that there might be a majority of Liberal voters and/or Labor voters who think they have a problem with that, but, when you look at the 100 per cent of people who vote, this is what we have got.

We will have that changed by a grab for power from 'the black Wiggle' and his crew. That is basically what it appears to be: a very pragmatic, driven, outcome focused, Greens leader whose major challenge will be to take his party with him. That is where I would say that he may have the most difficulty. He will not have the difficulty in this chamber. Senator Simms I think is here without even getting a vote. I do not think he has actually got a vote from an elector yet. He may well in a double-D. He may well, in a double-D, have a very short career. I do not wish that on him. I do not wish that on anybody, however they get here. He replaced a very good retiring senator in Penny Wright, a great contributor here. He replaced Senator Wright, so he is fully entitled to be here. But it will be interesting to see how this deal that has been done plays out in South Australia. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out in South Australia.

I will continue on the theme of the change in the Greens. I have not been here long. I knew Bob Brown. I respected his contribution to the chamber. I did not often agree with him, but I thought he was a very, very effective parliamentary performer. I happen to have a story to recount about the leadership of the Greens in this whole matter. A member of parliament attended a conference in Geneva, and he attended the conference with Senator Brown. Within hours of Senator Brown landing in Geneva, he had a crowd of 500 people, an enormous number of media, in attendance, and that person said, 'I knew I was in the presence of a world-class environmental leader.' That was his reputation. When he came into this chamber, he carried that gravitas. We did not always agree. We almost never agreed on a lot of issues but you never doubted the absolute integrity of his beliefs and his commitment to the Greens ideology.

When he left, Senator Milne carried that on. She carried that on, I think, in an exemplary manner. I remember a contribution she made here one morning—and she could be quite aggressive and quite combative in her stance—when she tore strips off Senator Abetz's threat to keep us here over the weekend. She was a very able and committed performer and someone who engendered a lot of respect in this chamber.

With what has happened now, I do not see that respect continuing forward with Senator Di Natale's position. He has now left that clean-driven green ideology and he is now playing with everybody—on his personal position, his party's position and the power they can bring to bear. That is fine, but it is a change. They have always been as pure as the driven snow. They always wanted to be environmentally clean and correct and right. They never actually wanted to get in and exercise real power. That is a change.

The Greens have changed. This week is the week the Greens have changed to actually play the game and not be pure and ideologically driven. They are going to be here to play. And, once you make a deal—as you well know from your business career, Mr Acting Deputy President Edwards, and as I know from my union career—it is addictive. Once you make a good deal, it is doubly addictive.

So they made a deal today, or they will make a deal at the end of this week, and it will be addictive. That surge of power they get, that little bit more media they get, that little bit more esteem they get—and maybe another GQ, maybe another poloneck bloody photoshoot, whatever it takes to get—

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

Not a poloneck; a turtleneck.

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

A turtleneck was it? Sorry. I take that interjection. They have moved very clearly to being a deal-making party. I would say there is another party that did that, and that was the Australian Democrats. They made some arrangements that did not bode well for them. It actually destroyed them. I do not think that will actually happen to the Greens, but this is a really big shift.

Since Senator Di Natale has taken over as the Leader of the Australian Greens, they have voted with government in the Senate to cut age pensions by $2.4 billion. I do not know whether that would have got through Senator Milne or Senator Bob Brown. I am not sure that they would have actually stumped up and whacked $2.4 billion off age pensions.

They voted to pass Mr Abbott's and Mr Hockey's budget measures. No-one liked the 2014 budget; not even the Liberals liked it. The Nationals certainly did not. But hang on; we have it here. They voted to pass Mr Abbott's and Mr Hockey's budget measures, cutting the age pension for 330,000 elderly Australians. They want to get into the real game here. They want to actually get into the economic game. They want to be players in the tax market. But then you hear Senator Whish-Wilson saying: 'We don't need a defence force. We shouldn't be spending $30 billion on defence.' My goodness! There is a bit of work that has been going on over there and it is not all good. So they voted to cut the pensions of 330,000 elderly Australians. I am not sure that Senator Milne or Senator Bob Brown would have led them in that way. That was June 2015.

They have also let big companies keep secret how much tax they pay. They are okay to whack the 200 wealthiest Australians, but the big companies are allowed to keep their taxation secret. These are decisions which have all led them to the electoral reform bill. Once you make a deal, once you get a little bit more skin in the game, once you get a little bit more access—a little bit more, 'Come into the Prime Minister's office and we can talk'—it is alluring and it is addictive. And they are playing in that field and they are doing it.

They have joined forces with the government to deter job-creating investment. They have voted with the Liberals and the Nationals to erect new barriers against investment by reducing Foreign Investment Review Board screening thresholds for proposed investments in agriculture and agribusiness. Mr Acting Deputy President Edwards, you and I know that if you are American you can do a billion dollars of business in Australia—no problem; FIRB does not even look at it. Sorry: $1 billion they would, but $999 million would go straight through.

Why is the capital that is coming from our largest trading partner subject to—with the voting of the Greens—more scrutiny? Why is that? Money is money. I can remember when the Japanese economy was at the tip of its peak, or the peak of its worth, so to speak, and they bought whole lots of stuff in Queensland. There are plenty of cheap golf courses in Queensland because the Japs—sorry—the Japanese came in and bought up wholesale. They bought it up. They invested everywhere. And then their economy went down the gurgler a bit and now they are not so prevalent. So capital flows in and out of Australia—

Robert Simms (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I must again refer the senator to his language. This is twice now that we have heard, I think, quite unparliamentary language. And I think he should be called to order.

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

On that point of order, I think it is quite clear that the senator immediately retracted. He said sorry right away. Let's not make something out of nothing here.

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

Senator Cameron, resume your seat. I concur. I did hear Senator Gallacher correct himself.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. And I do withdraw any imputation on any nationality. It was a slip so to speak. We do know that there has been capital flowing in and out of Australia for the whole 200 years of its history. It is necessary. It is always finds its place. It is not always successful; that is the point I was trying to make. I think it is really interesting that the Greens political party, who have now become addicted to this allure of making deals with the government, is dabbling in that area as well. The Foreign Investment Review Board screening thresholds for investments in agriculture and agribusiness were done in their interests for purely electoral purposes; they were not done in the best interests of Australia

Anyway, back to the matter at hand: the simple facts are that Senator Simms will be arguing for these reforms as a good member of his party—ably led by Senator Di Natale—and I do not think he has actually ever received a vote. Senator Hanson-Young and Senator Simms, if there is a double dissolution, will probably be fighting it out for a spot. We go down through the history of these sorts of arrangements, and I think '83 and '87 were the last two double dissolutions, so we do not have a lot of real groundwork to go on. We do not really know what is going to happen in South Australia, but there could be well be a situation where this will not actually play out for the Greens political party, and it may be that some of the new-found pragmatism and deal making in the Greens political party will actually impact on their membership in this chamber, and that may be an unintended consequence of the arrangements they are making.

It is fair to say that this arrangement has been debated for a couple of sessions now and with a few more to go. I actually think that the voters of Australia can be trusted to get matters correct. I do not subscribe to the view that this needs dramatic overhaul. I think we can trust the electors of Australia to pick up a House of Reps ballot paper and fill it out and pick up a Senate ballot paper and fill it out. The situation that has prevailed since '83, I think, should continue and I think it is disingenuous of the Greens to take an opportunity which they believe may favour them, as the party who may hold the most crossbench seats, so to speak, in this place outside the Nats—do not forget that the Nats will have a few. Sorry, Senator Simms: that is the Nationals, in case you want to take exception to that, but we have always used some abbreviations here. I simply think that the arrangements in place at the moment have suited Australia since '83. They should continue. I do not think that the deal that has been done with the government and the Greens will advance either party, but if it does advance a party it is more likely to be the conservative side of politics than the Greens.

(Quorum formed)

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be supporting this amendment and I agree wholeheartedly with all of its elements. I should note that I am all for Senate voting reform, as I feel the system needs to be simplified to make it easier for the people of Australia to participate in our system of democracy, but I am of the view that the reforms proposed as part of the dirty deal between the Greens and the coalition are an extreme form of reform which will crucify democracy in this country. As a result, I will be putting up a range of amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 to try and improve the proposed changes. However, I am not confident these will be properly considered given the dirty deal between the Greens and the coalition has already been done. It is clear that the Greens only like to support transparency and process when it suits them to attack everybody else. Despite voting reforms, I also strongly believe that our system of democracy needs to be more transparent and there needs to be more accountability around government decision making, which is why I will be supporting this particular amendment.

I think most Australians would agree with me when I say that most people do not trust politicians and they do not have confidence in our political system. Having been in this place now for just under two years, I can understand why people feel this way. I shake my head at many of the things that happen in this place. When we see elected officials—such as the Turnbull government, who were voted in to lead our country safely into the future—making decisions which are not in the best interests of Australians, this hardly generates trust across the country. I am talking about the decisions like allowing 1.2 million 457 visa holders from other countries into our country to take our jobs while the number of unemployed Australians sits at around 800,000. I am talking about decisions such as the Turnbull government's decision to award a $2 billion Australian Defence Force shipbuilding contract to a Spanish company, which will generate 3,000 jobs in Spain and decimate the Australian shipbuilding and maritime industry across our nation. I am talking about decisions like allowing CSG mining companies to come onto people's land and destroy their properties, water, health, land values and farming businesses while landholders have absolutely no right to say no. I am talking about decisions by government such as allowing farmers and hardworking decent Australians across rural and regional Queensland to suffer due to unprecedented drought while the government supports pipelines to be built from one part of the country to the other to move gas, while water sits idly in reserves in South-East Queensland dams—water which should be moved to where it is desperately needed.

I am talking about decisions such as allowing the Chinese and other countries to buy up significant chunks of our land, including key agricultural land and farms, which take away Australian jobs for Australian workers and the opportunity for Australia to produce its own food and sell it to the rest of the world for a fair price; decisions which allow the Chinese and other countries to set up large coalmines in the middle of our country's key agricultural food bowl on the Liverpool Plains, which will affect the integrity of our underground water supply and in turn risk the viability of our farms and people's livelihoods; decisions which involve the sell-off of our major ports and other infrastructure to the Chinese, including ports which house our Navy vessels; and decisions which allow areas of North Queensland to suffer at the hands of job losses and high unemployment while fat cats sit comfortably in their offices in Parliament House oblivious to the pain and suffering people are experiencing right across our country. I could go on, but the decisions are depressing and leave people wandering what on earth our elected officials are doing.

I certainly wonder this myself, but unfortunately I have come to realise that most decisions made around here come down to donations, and this is the main reason I support this particular amendment to the bill. I want the issue of donations cleaned up and I want political parties to be held to account for the decisions they make and the reasons they make them. Lowering the donation disclosure threshold from $13,000 to $1,000 is a key means of achieving this and is a good start. It is not going to solve everything, but it is going to start shining a light on what is really going on in governments across the country.

Political transparency is a cornerstone of a free and democratic society. Without transparency there is corruption, deceit, filthy bargaining and self-interest. Transparency should be all about holding public officials to account and enabling free, open and informed debate on political issues. It should also be about ensuring that the right issues are dealt with by the right people and in the right way. Transparency ensures issues that are of importance to the people are addressed and are not kicked under the carpet. It is of critical importance that increased transparency is extended to political donations, because money talks and it is crucial that the people of Australia are fully informed on how donations are impacting on party politics and the decisions governments are making.

I believe making politicians disclose donations of above $1,000 is far better than the current amount of $13,000. The current threshold of $13,000 is a lot of money. The average income earner in Australia receives around $70,000 a year. Average Australians are not going to make political donations of $13,000, unless there is something really shady going on. Anyone donating amounts like that is likely to be a very wealthy donor or a corporate donor. I think all Australians have the right to know when a small number of people are influencing politicians and the decisions governments make because they have a large amount of money. I think it is in the public interest to know who is donating large amounts to politicians. If a political party is under no obligation to disclose political donations less than $13,000, donations are able to change hands without being linked to decision making.

Reducing the threshold to $1,000 will increase transparency and enable voters to make more informed decisions regarding who they vote for and why. In short, the people of Australia will have a better idea of who they want to support and why. For example, if a party is taking donations from a mining company, you can bet they will put the interests of the mining company ahead of the interests of the people. Under the current system, the majority of political donations go undisclosed. By reducing the threshold, the Australian public will be privy to a substantially larger pool of data regarding political donations, allowing even more informed decisions to be made.

Further safeguards must also be implemented to ensure that political parties are not abusing the system to avoid their disclosure obligations. In the past, major parties have accepted multiple small donations from the same donor of a total value greater than the threshold, but have waived their disclosure obligations because the donations were taken through different branches. Lowering the threshold to $1,000 would make it far more burdensome for donors to split their donation between branches to avoid disclosure requirements. The amendment before the chamber helps to avoid politicians cheating the system and misleading the public about where their donations come from. Parties have also abused a loophole whereby funds are received by the party's associated entities which then directs funds to the major party.

These dishonest practices greatly diminish political transparency and prevent the Australian people from being fully informed of their party's donors. I believe these changes will improve transparency in Australian politics. By lowering the threshold, a far higher number of donations will be disclosed, giving the voting public unprecedented information to hold their party accountable for policies which favour large corporate donors over their constituents.

I also support the need to place a $50 cap on anonymous gifts or donations. In fact, I would prefer all anonymous gifts or donations to be banned and, if a political party cannot clarify where the donation came from, the money must be given to charity to assist people who need the money. I, like many Australians, think this whole political system stinks. What value is there in allowing large anonymous donations to political parties? Who honestly thinks this practice is in the best interests of public scrutiny? This amendment is an important step in ensuring transparency within our political system.

Despite the real scepticism in the community, many Australians do place a great deal of trust in their elected officials and expect them to do the right thing. So it is very important that we deliver the highest levels of transparency and accountability for these people by placing a $50 limit on anonymous gifts, and by requiring a substantially greater range of political donations have declarations of the donor's name and address. This would ensure that strong records are held of who is contributing financially to each political party. In doing so, political parties could be held to a higher degree of accountability because the record would state precisely where the donations had come from. The other element of this amendment that I support is the banning of foreign donations. I talked earlier about decisions made by government that are not in the national interest. The thing that has sickened me most in this place is that I have watched the coalition government make decisions that have benefited other countries while crucifying our own industries, harming our own people, killing off our own jobs and wiping out our own businesses.

In summary, they have made decisions that are not in our national interest but are in the interest of other countries. I have left Parliament House some days feeling so overwhelmed by the stench of corruption in this place that I have felt sick—sick to my stomach that any government would make a decision based on what benefits a donor from overseas, even if the decision was in direct conflict with what is in the best interests of our nation. I cannot state any more strongly that foreign donations must be banned.

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

Jesus—you got here on Chinese money!

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

Order!

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In fact, I would like criminal penalties applied to any parties that receive donations from overseas parties—

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

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

Senator O'Sullivan!

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

whether they be governments, businesses or individuals. Overseas donors are only making donations to political parties in Australia because they want something from us, not because they like us. They want something—like an Australian government contract of water to their business, or they want to buy our farms or our land and want a favourable decision from the government in relation to the sale, or they want policy or legislation changed to enable their business to expand at the expense of Aussie businesses.

Have we seen any government decisions that we think might have been impacted by overseas donations? Let's have a look. Let's see. What about the Shenhua mine? Did a Chinese company donate substantial amounts of money to state and federal governments to get favourable decisions—decisions which benefit the Chinese owned mine but decimate our country's agricultural land and local farmers? What about overseas CSG mining companies that are given full access to undertake mining on our people's property?

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

You got in on Chinese mining money!

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

Order!

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The current laws give CSG mining companies all the rights, even though governments know that the people do not want it and that CSG mining is harming their health, their land, their water and their livelihoods. How much money are these overseas CSG mining companies donating to political parties? The political parties are prepared to turn their backs on the needs of hard-working, decent Australians who desperately need help and are being so badly abused. These people need our help. They pay taxes. They, like all of us, expect governments to do the right thing, but governments do not do the right thing—far from it. They actually do the wrong thing. Who is speaking up for the people? It is not the large political parties; they have all been bought out. The only people standing up for the people of Australia and the interests of Australians are the crossbenchers, but because we are being problematic and are putting pressure on governments to do the right thing instead of working—

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Minister for Rural Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is rubbish—it is absolute drivel!

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

Order!

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and looking after their donors, they want to get rid of us. This voting reform rubbish is not about getting rid of the crossbench because we are blocking legislation. It is about getting rid of the crossbench because we are exposing the big parties for what they really are—ugly, donor orientated political machines that have no interest in doing the right thing by the people. They are only interested in doing the right thing by their political donors. If the people of Australia have not worked this out, I hope they see my speech here tonight. I hope everyone hears it, because the Senate voting reforms are not just about democracy. They are about making sure the crossbench is removed so that we cannot continue to expose the sickening corruption and money changing that is really going on.

If the government were really interested in voting reform they would be doing positive, productive things like making voting easier, by getting voting online and making it available nationally on an electronic basis so that the process of actually voting is easier and more convenient for people. They would be removing non-voting fines for older Australians or the ill or busy young families or those who have to work because they need the money and cannot afford to take time off. They would be installing electronic voting into Australia Post outlets and agencies so that people can go to their local shops to vote. This would support struggling Australia Post business owners across the country and push people to their local shopping centres. They would be creating set terms and set voting dates to give the community and the business sector confidence and stability. This would also stop the system being gamed by greedy and unethical political parties. If the coalition were really serious about voting reform they would be doing things to ensure voting is improved, because our voting system is so antiquated that the entire country has to stop for a day to vote. People cannot go to work, businesses suffer, workers lose their salary, parents have to juggle getting kids to sport as well as getting to polling booths. The entire country is pretty much brought to its knees.

If the coalition were really serious about voting reform they would be doing things to improve the voting system as a whole, but they are not. All of the above are good ideas that the Glenn Lazarus Team has come up with. Instead of improving voting, the coalition, with the support of the dirty Greens, just want to get rid of the crossbench because we are becoming a problem for the government. We are asking too many questions. We are digging too hard.

The crossbench and I are annoying the government and their donors. I am asking the government why they are allowing people to suffer while CSG mining companies prosper. I am asking the government why they are giving Australian taxpayer funds to the Spanish to build Australian navy ships when the ships should be built here to support our country and to provide Australian jobs for Australian workers. But, as we suspect, the Spanish have probably donated a hell of a lot of money to the coalition and, as a result, the coalition has awarded the contract to the Spanish. And the Australian shipping industry will suffer.

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

You got in on stolen Chinese money!

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am asking the questions. I am shining the light on the actions of big political parties. They do not like it, so they want to get rid of me. Well, they can try—

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

Acting Deputy President Edwards, a point of order. Senator O'Sullivan should withdraw the allegation he just made against Senator Lazarus. I just think that is totally unparliamentary and it is unacceptable.

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

Can I speak on that?

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

No. You address the point of order.

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

It is a matter of public record that a court in this land found that the money used to fund the PUP campaign was unlawfully removed from—

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

Senator O'Sullivan, you are well versed in the practices of this chamber and the standing orders. You are now debating. If you do not have a contrary point to make then I would ask you—

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

Just withdraw, mate.

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

I do not feel inclined to withdraw, Doug.

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

if you believe—

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

I do not feel inclined to withdraw.

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

Order, Senator O'Sullivan! I ask you to make an explanation or excuse yourself.

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

I have attempted to make an explanation. But in deference to the chair, I will withdraw the remark.

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

Thank you. Senator Lazarus.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They can try to get rid of me, but we are not going down without a fight. Evil prevails when good men do nothing and I am a good man and I am not prepared to do nothing. I am not going to let the big political parties get away with this rot without exposing them for what they are, and they are traitors.

The more Independents and microparties there are, the better. We need voting reform, but what has been proposed is too extreme. This matter will end up in the High Court and, I believe, the High Court will rule that the reforms are unconstitutional. But until then, the coalition may do quite a bit of damage. Let's hope that everyone across the country is alive to what is really going on and supports the crossbench to keep up its good work and its important role in keeping this government accountable.

As I have already explained, we cannot keep them honest and they will not agree to a national ICAC to keep them honest, but we can continue to a shine a light on them which will keep them accountable. That is my promise to the people of Australia: I will always act in your best interests and the future of our great country and I will work hard to keep them accountable.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to voice my strongest possible opposition to the rushed, ill-considered antidemocratic bill that is the Commonwealth electoral amendment above-the-line bill 2016. This bill grossly fails any test of fairness. It ignores the will of more than three million Australians who chose not to vote for the major parties and sets the scene for a possible coalition majority in the Senate.

The bill before the chamber is nothing more than a dirty deal and a desperate power grab by the Liberals, designed to entrench conservative power. If the worst plays out, it may lead to the coalition gaining a disproportionate number of Senate seats in relation to its primary vote. We might not know exactly what the outcome of this rushed legislation may be, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if the Liberals have signed up to it then it is in their favour. What we do know is that this is just the first step for a government intent on destroying the crossbench before it goes to a double-dissolution election.

Do not let them kid you that a double dissolution is about the Australian Building and Construction Commission or any other issue they may confect outrage over. It is about stopping current crossbench members from completing their six-year terms and getting as close as they possibly can to securing conservative rule in the Senate.

If the government gains a majority in the Senate through a combination of the proposed changes and a double-dissolution election, progressive Australians should be very, very concerned. If the Senate is stacked with Liberals and Nationals, there will be no checks and balances on this appalling legislation. Again and again, they put sectoral interests and brutal ideology ahead of the national good. If there is even the glimmer of a chance that the bill before us today coupled with a double-dissolution election will close the door on a progressive and responsible Senate, then it is a risk I do not think we can afford to take.

I have spent the biggest part of my life fighting for a more progressive country. I have fought for a country that looks after its workers and provides robust protections against exploitation; understands spending on health and education is an investment in a productive, cohesive society not just line items to be struck off with a red pen; provides a strong safety net for those who are down on their luck; and supports Australian families to raise happy, healthy and well-educated children.

We need to be a country that recognises all Australians deserve protection under the law, regardless of age, race, gender or sexual orientation; where fairness and equity are at the heart of all policy decisions and which actively strives to address the growing problem of inequality; and recognises we do not enter this life on an equal footing and responds by providing support to help people overcome challenges and live healthy and productive lives.

I believe in a country that embraces strong action on climate change in recognition that this is not just a moral and environmental obligation but also offers significant opportunities that open up new markets, drive growth and make businesses more competitive; where people are free to marry whoever they choose, regardless of their gender; and where our environmental assets are not seen as an expendable resource ready to be sold off to the highest bidder.

I want to live in a country that values due process and accountability in our parliamentary systems, where policies are made for the benefit of all Australians not just the rich and powerful. I have fought for many years for these things and I will not stop.

Labor will not support our parliamentary processes being abused in a transparent attempt by the government to legislate away its opposition. The bill before us today is an absolute betrayal of the many millions of Australians who wish to see a more progressive Australia. And I am absolutely dumbfounded that the Greens are jumping into bed with the government to change the rules to the benefit of conservative agendas, and they should be ashamed of it. Even Greens supporters can see what is going on. In fact, a recent Essential Media survey showed they oppose this dirty deal at a rate of two to one.

So why don't the Greens in this place get it? Why are they supporting legislation that may well see them lose Senate seats at the double-dissolution election the government is clearly planning?

I would urge the Greens to rethink their role in this unholy alliance. I would entreat them to drop this dirty deal before it is too late. Of course, some commentators would be critical but many more would praise the Greens for choosing a path of careful consideration rather than rushing through the most radical electoral changes we have seen in 30 years. If this chapter in Australian politics plays out as I fear and the conservatives gain control over the Senate at a double-dissolution election, the responsibility for this outcome will rest squarely with the Australian Greens. If Australian university students are shackled with debt sentences in excess of $100,000, the Greens will be to blame. If our Medicare system is torn to shreds and bulk-billing is axed, the Greens will be to blame. If penalty rates are axed and working conditions are trashed, the Greens will be to blame. If the conservatives make it even more difficult for hardworking Australians to join together and organise in their own interests, then the Greens will be to blame. If TAFE is sold off and schools are forced to shut down through lack of funding, the Greens will be to blame. And if Australian families see their support payments unceremoniously slashed, the Greens will be to blame.

If the coalition deems that the NDIS is 'too expensive' to continue, the Greens will be to blame. If marriage equality is permanently shelved, the Greens will be to blame. If the GST is hiked to 12, 15 or 20 per cent, or even more, the Greens will be to blame. If all support for renewable energy is canned and the transition to a clean energy economy grinds to a halt, the Greens will be to blame. If foreign aid is axed, the Greens will be to blame. If our World Heritage forests are opened up to indiscriminate logging—that's right: the Greens will be to blame. I shudder to even think about the horrific direction in which the Liberals and the Nationals could take Australia's response to asylum seekers if they do not have to consider a robust Senate.

While it may cause some short-term pain for the Greens to back out of their deal, this is nothing compared to the fury the progressive people of Australia will unleash on them if their actions usher in unfettered conservative control in the Senate. Say what you will about the validity of the election of individual senators in this place. Not even the Greens could deny that the current crossbench has helped to block some of the most vicious and unfair legislation we have seen in this place in decades. Clearly, the Liberals do not like the fact that they have failed to impose some of the most cruel and short-sighted measures in living memory. They are dirty that the Senate has been so effective in doing exactly what it is supposed to do: reviewing government policy and rejecting it if it is not in the national interest.

The Liberals do not want to work within the confines of the democratic process. Rather than presenting measured and reasonable policy and arguing the case rationally, they want to short-circuit the process by legislating to abolish their opposition. Make no mistake: this could be the stitch up to end all other parliamentary stitch ups. If passed, there may be nothing to stop the radical right of Australian politics from ramming their vicious agenda through the parliament. The reality is that more than 20 per cent of Australians do not vote for major parties. There are certainly lessons in this for both sides of politics, but it is entirely undemocratic to simply remove the option for these people to have input into the people that represent them.

The Liberal government, with its born-to-rule attitude, has completely failed to get support for its appalling 2014 budget measures, so now it wants to remove the need to justify their policy. I am not saying that the system is perfect or that changes could not be made to make it better. But I am absolutely sure that we should not be tearing up due process so that the government can rush to meet its own deadline to hold a double-dissolution election.

It is not just me who thinks this process has been a complete shambles. In a recent article in Crikey, William Bowe described it as 'obscenely hasty'. It is a fact that the entire process of bringing this legislation to parliament has been completely chaotic. There was less than a week between the bill being tabled and the closing date of submissions. There was less than a day between the closing of submissions to the start of the public hearing. And the committee had less than 24 hours after the public hearing to consider the evidence, make its deliberations and deliver a report. Anyone who thinks this report was not written in Liberal offices weeks ago is kidding themselves. What an absolute joke. What a farce this process has been.

Clearly, the government never cared about legitimate inquiry, and clearly the 'hearing' was nothing but a show trial to try to justify their craven attempt to destroy minor parties and deliver themselves unchecked power. Why did they even bother referring it to the committee when they had already decided to ram through a vote in the other place before the committee had even met—let alone held a public hearing? You must ask that question. In fact, those opposite actually voted to ignore the outcome of the report when they suspended standing order 148. This standing order very sensibly requires that if a bill is to be considered through a committee then it makes sense to wait for the outcome of that report before you vote. That is right: the Liberals, Nationals and Greens in the House of Representatives actively voted to ignore whatever came out of the committee—the very same committee that they based their arguments for change on. Talk about a senseless abuse of process.

This bill has been rushed through in a transparent attempt to annihilate opposition and silence dissent before an unseemly dash to the polls. This is from the same government that want us to believe that the reason they do not have a single tax reform policy, 2½ years on, is that they are wedded to careful and methodical consideration. So it has taken 2½ years to generate not a single tax reform policy, but they want us to believe it is okay to ram through some of the most radical changes we have seen to our electoral system in less than a month.

If we ever needed evidence that the government have rushed the process, you just need to consider the fact that they had to amend the bill themselves only two days after introducing it. The amendment was made because the government, in their wisdom, had completely failed to allow time for the counting of Senate ballot papers. This was a very serious error that illustrates precisely how chaotic and what a desperate debacle this has been. And do you know how the error was discovered? I will tell you. It was not one of the great minds in the government that picked it up. No—far from it. They found out about it in Antony Green's blog. If Mr Green had not been so quick to scrutinise the bill, this glaring error would have sailed right through. Those opposite could not even get their own bill right and now they are trying to ram it through the parliament with scant scrutiny, no due process and nowhere near enough time to consider potential adverse impacts and unintended consequences. What is to say that there are not other botched measures that the government have not noticed yet?

To say that this process has been shambolic would be incredibly kind to those opposite. Sweeping change such as this should proceed cautiously and not be used as a rough, ready and desperate strategy to wipe out your opponents. The Greens and the Liberals continue to bleat that this bill merely enacts the will of the consensus report from the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters. This is absolutely untrue. The bill does not implement the recommendations of the JSCEM report. In fact, the Turnbull government has not even bothered to respond to this report, so how can we tell if the legislation is faithful to the recommendations? I will tell you how we can tell. We can hold a proper inquiry, not just a mickey mouse show trial to tick a pesky box. We can give the experts and members of the Australian public the time they need to thoroughly digest all the details of the legislation, along with all its potential implications. We can take time for proper deliberation and engage the Australian people in a genuine national debate.

The truth is that this government is in chaos. This government knows that its policy offerings have been fundamentally rejected by the Australian people, so it is trying to wipe out opposition through dirty deals and a double dissolution. The Australian people are starting to see that, despite the change in leadership, nothing has changed. And those opposite are starting to panic. The government knows that Australians are catching onto the fact that, despite having a new leader, nothing has changed in the Liberal Party. They still have the same appalling policies that saw their first Prime Minister fall, and now they want to change the rules, before cutting and running as quickly as they can before too many other Australians catch on. If minor parties have been accused of gaming the system, then the Turnbull government surely is stitching up the ultimate game in a desperate attempt to eradicate opposition. The bill before us today is fundamentally antidemocratic. It attempts to sidestep the will of 20 per cent of Australians and stop the Senate from performing the very role it is designed for. That is exactly what the Senate has been doing for the past two years—exactly what it is supposed to do.

Just imagine what Australia would look like today if the Liberals owned all the seats currently held by Independents and minor parties. Just imagine what would have happened if there were no checks and balances to their radical agenda. We would have thousands of young Australians forgoing university to avoid a Liberal-imposed debt sentence of $100,000 or more. Those that chose to study would be looking at a debt sentence that would hang over their heads for many decades to come. We would be looking at the reality of being an island nation with no local maritime sector—they are doing everything they can to kill that off—and no skills to protect our economic future, our environment and our national security. We would have seen the abolition of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which not only helps to deliver future-focused renewable energy projects but brings a positive return to government in doing so. We would see older Australians working till they are 70, only to move onto a much smaller pension, thanks to the government's changes to indexation formulas, supported by the Greens. Our emergency departments and hospitals would be bursting at the seams as entrenched co-payment for all visits to the doctor would see people forgo medical treatment until problems become more serious and the cost to the taxpayer is even higher. We would see young Australians forced to consider criminal avenues when the Liberals cut off their income support for up to six months if they find themselves out of work, which is happening to a lot of people in this country because the Turnbull government is giving our jobs away. And the list goes on.

True, the crossbenchers could not have blocked these toxic measures without Labor's support, but, without them, the Abbott-Turnbull government would have had free rein to impose their vicious conservative agenda with no checks to their power. In fact, it is a matter of public record that many of those opposite still see absolutely no problem with the appalling 2014 budget, and many others think it should have gone further. If this bill passes, I fear this is a possibility that could happen. If the government are successful in changing the laws to abolish dissent, there are some very, very serious risks to this country and Australians into the future.

Senator Muir was absolutely right when he said that it was the crossbench that saved the government from themselves. Those opposite cannot bear the fact that they have had to work within the confines of the longstanding democratic process, so they just changed the rules to benefit themselves. Their slapdash race to annihilate the crossbench, in a race to eradicate dissent for the next term of government, is antidemocratic. We will not support legislation that will open up Australia to the untrammelled ideological will of the radical right of the Liberal Party, with no checks and balances to their senseless agenda. If the government get their way and secure a voting majority in the Senate—which is, after all, what they are trying to achieve—they will be able to run roughshod over all the things that make Australia great. This is coupled with the government's clear intention to cut and run to a double dissolution election and remove the existing crossbenchers who have stood up to their radical agenda. I urge the Greens to reconsider the implications for the advancement of progressive politics in this country. (Time expired)

(Quorum formed)

Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to make a contribution to this critical debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016. Abraham Lincoln once said, 'The ballot is stronger than the bullet.' As my colleague Senator Conroy said on ABCNews yesterday, this Senate reform bill heralds the most significant voting change in 30 years and will dramatically change the make-up of the Senate. It will give a massive advantage to the coalition and the Greens. This will mean that no Independents or smaller parties will get a seat in this chamber, and it will disenfranchise many Australian who do not vote for us or the coalition, and forget the Greens. They probably will not exist either, and good job to them.

Yesterday, 15 March, the Prime Minister said at his press conference that this bill is a 'critical piece of democracy' and that it will do away with the preference whisperers. Whatever or whoever they are, I would like to know. He also said that parliament would be more democratic and transparent. The Prime Minister went on to say that this bill will ensure that the winners are not political parties but the voters. His press conference finished in a train wreck when he refused to answer legitimate questions on how his brand of democracy will be played out this week in parliament.

What did the Greens and the coalition do yesterday in this chamber? They shut debate down. They cosied up again to stop us exposing their little love-ins. The government and the Greens have gone to great lengths to push these reforms through. The government is so desperate to try and get rid of the crossbench they are willing to forego debate and voting on a union-bashing bill to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which they insist is an extremely important bill. The Greens are so desperate to win more seats in this chamber that they were willing to forego debate on a vote on marriage equality. Why? For nothing more than electoral gain. That is the only reason to get rid of the crossbench and to gain more seats. So much for transparency and total disregard for the three million Australian voters who put them here in the first place.

What we have heard so many times in this chamber is that this bill is nothing more than a grubby little deal between the Greens and the Donald Trump of Australian politics, Senator Xenophon. The government cannot force the Senate to bend to its will to pass some of its unfair laws. What I say is, 'What a cosy little trio.' The government throws a little tantrum, and what do the Greens and Aussie Trump or should I say Aussie Chump do? They behave like millennials. They chase after the latest—

Senator Dastyari interjecting—

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: That is a reflection upon a member of this place. The Senator should withdraw.

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

You are spot-on Senator O'Sullivan. I ask you to withdraw that,. Senator Peris.

Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

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

Thank you, Senator Peris. Continue.

Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government throws a tantrum, and what do the Greens and Mr Xenophon do? They behave like little millennials and chase after the latest, the newest shiny bauble on the market they desire, simply overcoming any form of reason.

Finally, we see the true colours of the so-called Greens, supposedly the colour of nature and harmony. It should be noted the colour green also denotes a lack of experience, someone who is considered green is a novice, new to the job, and inexperienced. A dull, darker green is commonly associated with money, the financial world and banking. Dark green is associated with ambition, greed and jealousy. Yellow-green can indicate sickness, cowardice, discord and jealousy. So what shade of green are the Greens? I ask. Perhaps they are so indecisive between dark green and yellow-green. I do not know. Take your pick. Perhaps we should have another meaning for the colour green: opportunism, because that is what the Greens are—opportunistic carpetbaggers who would rather lead the Australian people down a not-so-green garden path in favour of political bastardry.

What do the Greens now stand for? What are they offering their supporters, who believe that they stand for an alternative point of view from the major parties? Where does this bill now leave them? Are the Greens now telling them to vote for the conservative coalition forces or to vote for the dark side? Is Senator Di Natale the new Darth Vader? The question is: are the Greens still offering an alternative view? I think not.

In fact, the Greens have not been green since their last leadership change. Poor Bob Brown, the principal Greens visionary whose leadership enabled the current Green members to get this far—I wonder what he makes of his party now? Has anyone asked him, or cared about asking him? What about Christine Milne, who succeeded Bob Brown as the Greens leader? Has anybody asked her what she thinks? Do the two most experienced and, I should say, respected leaders that they have ever had support the stance that the Greens have taken?

What about Greens party members around the country? What have they told them? I do not know—I get plenty of messages—

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

What about the members?

Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. All of them surely must be shaking their heads in disbelief, and they must even be crying that this current crop of Greens is doing a deal with their traditional enemies.

So the Greens have decided to join the grownups, except they have not learnt how to bluff yet. Sadly, the Greens are moving further to the right and will join in with the eccentric crew of the coalition to form a government, if it comes to that. The sad thing is that this would be funny, if it were not a serious issue.

The real issue—what has been thrown around—is that the Greens are actually suffering from 'relevance deprivation syndrome', which is a sad indictment on how they will take any opportunity to claw back some of their relevance that was nurtured and given to them by both of their former leaders. It is relevance that they lost at the last election, when they lost the balance of power in the Senate to the Independents. That is no secret: it is no secret that this bill will wipe out the Independents and the small parties. They will not get a seat in the Senate.

And it is no secret that the government cannot deal with the crossbenchers—we heard that from Senator Lazarus earlier on. It is all too hard for them. Our first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, had a much more difficult Senate to deal with but, unlike this government, the Gillard government knew how to negotiate with the crossbenchers—

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Minister for Rural Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's because you were in coalition with the Greens!

Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and treated them with respect—nothing that you know about! There you go! I will take your interjection!

Independents and microparties are a vital part of the Australian political system. Without them, we lose a great deal of faith from the Australian voting public by restricting—

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Minister for Rural Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But you were in coalition with the Greens!

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Nash! Interjections are disorderly and I ask that Senator Peris be heard in silence. Is that clear to everyone here?

Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, the Independents and microparties are a vital part of the Australian political system. Without them, we lose a great deal of faith from the Australian voting public by restricting their voting options

I am not ashamed to say that I actually enjoy working with the crossbenchers. I actually even do not mind saying that a few of them have become acquaintances. I would not go as far as saying 'friends', but I do believe, and the Australian public believes, that they bring diversity and vibrancy to this chamber—not to mention their colour and movement, and their sometimes unique and unusual points of view. All of this will be lost: without them in this chamber, our workplace—this Senate—would become a lot less interesting. I believe that the uniqueness of our minor parties are important to the Australian democracy.

Recently, I worked with Queensland's Senator Lazarus on the arts funding inquiry. He attended the hearing in Darwin last October. As chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Senator Lazarus understands the importance of regional communities and the place that arts and culture have in our communities. Maybe they are not as important as sport—and I might be a bit biased—but he certainly knows that we are stronger in our diversity in both of these areas.

The same goes for Senator Leyonhjelm. He is not quite my cup of tea, but in many ways I respect him as a fellow senator. Just during the last sitting, he introduced a private senator's bill to restore the rights of the territories, namely, the Northern Territory and the ACT, so that our legislative assemblies can make laws for the peace, order and good government of our communities and citizens without the fear of being overturned by an overzealous federal government. For that, I thank him and respect him.

Surely it is more important that the nation's parliament reflects our whole country and all our communities, rather than just a narrow inner-city view where the Greens snipe away at the efforts of Labor and Independents to find pathways for a progressive, smart country that takes the regions with it—like we strive to do in our nation's Northern Territory.

One of the major issues I have with these reforms is the lack of clarity for the voting public. As we all know, the entire Australian public need to be aware of voting rules and how to vote. This helps lift voter turnout and helps limit informal voting. My electorate of the Northern Territory is one of the most ethnically diverse constituencies in Australia. Consequently, a huge proportion of Territorians do not speak English as their first language. Many speak English as a third or fourth language. And, of course, many do not speak English at all.

Of the 200,000 people living in the Northern Territory, about 40 per cent of those speak a language that is not English as their first language. Around 4,000 Territorians speak Chinese as their first language; 3,000 Territorians speak Greek as their first language; about 2,000 Territorians speak Tagalog as their first language; another 1,500 speak Filipino; 1,000 Territorians speak Indonesian as their first language; and another 1,000 Territorians speak Vietnamese as their first language. And, believe it or not, about 40,000 Territorians speak an Aboriginal language as their first language. So in total, about 60,000 Territorians do not speak English as their first language. This seems to have been ignored by the supporters of this bill. It can be difficult for English-speaking Australians to understand our voting system, let alone for people who do not speak English.

Voter education is extremely important, but you want to tell 60,000 Territorians you are moving the goalposts on them within months of an election. In fact, the Australian Electoral Commission has said it will take three months to implement these reforms from the time the bill passes. If that is how long it takes for the Electoral Commission, imagine how long it will take to explain these changes to the 60,000 Territorians who do not speak English. This is made worse by the fact that most Aboriginal people who do not speak English live in remote communities and will be further marginalised by this bill.

Turnout is already low in remote communities and informal voting is already high, and your plan to address that informal vote is to change the rules on the Senate voting within a few months of an election. You move the goalposts for Aboriginal people, many of whom do not speak English as a first language, who do not receive the same voting education that people in the cities do, and then you wonder why turnout in remote communities is so low—not to mention the millions of our fellow Australians who do not actually give a toss about politics and politicians and do not engage with the political process at all. What about them? How much community awareness is going to be conducted between now and the election? How much will that cost? What measures will be put in place to make sure every last Australian fully understands the Senate voting process?

The question is this: will this bill put power back in the hands of the voters, as the Prime Minister asserted yesterday? Voters already have the power. Ninety-six per cent of Australians voted above the line at last election. As my colleague Senator Polley pointed out last night, 25 per cent of voters—that is 3.3 million Australians—did not vote for Senate candidates representing the coalition, the Greens or Labor. This bill is not a vote for democracy. This bill is born out of spite. In 2013 the Australian public exercised their democratic right to elect members from across the political spectrum to represent them.

Whatever you call it—holding hands, hugging or loving up this coalition government—the Greens have lost all their virtue and all their credibility, but unfortunately they have not lost their naivety. They have graduated from being a protest party to becoming a full-blown dunce. Congratulations, Senator Di Natale: you have finally shown us the way you go. This bill stinks. It is a dirty deal. I will end by repeating what Abraham Lincoln once said: 'The ballot is—indeed—stronger than the bullet.' I encourage all Australians, including the Greens supporters, to use the ballot to vote this lot out.

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

Let us be clear: the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 gives effect to a dirty deal between the Turnbull government and the Australian Greens. It is a grubby backroom deal that disenfranchises three million Australian voters and increases the risk of a coalition majority in the Senate. This shady, shabby deal includes an attempt to rush through the biggest changes to Senate voting in Australia in 30 years without proper scrutiny. I say shame on Senator Di Natale and shame on the Australian Greens for supporting this farce and for supporting—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I would like to be able to speak without interruption, if that is all right. Could you pull those on the other side up, as you have done earlier this evening to this side.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right. I was just seeking some advice from the Clerk. Continue, Senator Bilyk.

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

It was not you, Mr Acting Deputy President; it was your colleagues on the other side.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Continue, Senator Bilyk.

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

Thank you. As I said, I say shame on Senator Di Natale and shame on the Australian Greens for supporting such a farce and for supporting the rushing through of this bill without proper scrutiny and without proper transparency. Then what happened today? Up they jump because there was going to be something rushed through and there was not going to be enough time for scrutiny and transparency. What a bunch of hypocrites.

If we cannot convince the Greens to change their minds then it is up to us to convince those Australians who have voted for the Greens, and who might not do so again, and to remind them about what the Australian Greens once were and what they have become. If Greens supporters understood the extent to which their party has sold them out and sold out its principles, I doubt that many for them would ever vote for the Greens again.

What we are really debating here is Senator Di Natale's filthy deal with the Abbott-Turnbull government to alter the laws governing the election of senators, which will increase the chances of the coalition gaining a majority in the Senate. In his absolutely desperate ploy to deal himself into political relevance, what is he doing? He is dealing the Greens out of their political values. In putting his desperate desire for mainstream media attention before the Greens' political values, he is sacrificing his party's integrity on the altar of his own vanity. We have not seen this type of behaviour since Meg Lees helped John Howard deliver the GST, and we all know how that ended.

Here is what the Green voters need to realise in particular: in his interview with GQ magazine, Senator Di Natale outlined the ultimate goal for moving the Greens to the right: forming government with the conservatives. Yes, that is correct. Senator Di Natale announced that he and his Greens colleagues were open to forming government with the conservatives. According to GQ the senator said he would 'never say never' about one day forming a coalition government with the Liberal Party. As Adjunct Associate Professor of Politics at Monash University Shaun Carney said in an opinion piece published since that interview, about Senator Di Natale:

He has to be kidding. Your politics are defined as much by what you refuse to support as by the things that you propose. Politicians are supposed to say "never". That’s why people support them. This is particularly so for the Greens, whose supporters are especially purist on such things as open borders, the undesirability of all military action, giving security agencies more powers and coal.

I wonder what Senator Di Natale's predecessor Bob Brown would say, as a number of people have mentioned, because Senator Brown always categorically ruled out forming government with the coalition. But then we do know that Senator Di Natale is no Senator Bob Brown.

I think it is really interesting that Senator Di Natale has opened up the Greens to forming government with the conservatives and I just suggest to the other Greens that maybe they should stop being lemons, following along behind, and think very carefully about what their leader is signing them up to. What does this whole new coalition of the Libs, Nats and Greens mean? What might it mean? What about this: Senator Di Natale is basically saying that Senator Simms, who has just walked in, may one day be on a joint ticket with Senator Bernardi on the Safe Schools program and manage equality—that is if he manages to keep his seat; he seems to be quite disposable to Senator Di Natale.

Senator Di Natale is also saying that Senator Hanson-Young may one day be on a joint ticket with Senator Cash on asylum seekers and women's policy. He has also signed Senator Ludlam up to a joint ticket with Senator Brandis on terrorism laws and data retention. And then we have got Senator Waters, who must be absolutely delighted to hear that she may one day share Senator Seselja's, Senator McGrath's and George Christensen's environmental policies. And the mind boggles as to how Senator Rhiannon could ever share a policy platform with Senator Abetz, but this is the direction in which the Greens are heading. I say to the Greens senators: if you do not like the direction, then stand up, show some gumption and do something about it. Stand up for your principles and stop selling out.

Before I get onto the implications of this bill, I would just like to remind the listeners, those in the Senate chamber and the Green voters, of some of the other dirty deals that Senator Di Natale and the Greens have done with the government. We saw Senator Di Natale in his black skivvy, trying to be one of the Wiggles, so we know it is a hot potato. I was pretty surprised: no socks—that is the ultimate in trend. What a joke! What a poser, seriously. Think about the media for the media's sake. It is just astounding.

We are often led to believe by the Australian Greens that they are some kind of transformational grassroots movement who stick to their ideology. They would have you believe that decisions should be made according to expert advice, yet they voted to allow the health minister to make multimillion dollar medical research funding decisions without following the recommendations of the NHMRC.

They would have you believe that they support greater transparency for corporate Australia, yet they voted with the government to allow hundreds of companies earning over $100 million to avoid having to publicly disclose how much tax they pay—at a time when it was recently revealed that 600 of Australia's largest companies had paid no tax whatsoever. No tax whatsoever—and the Greens supported it.

They would have you believe that they stand up for the battlers—for low-income earners—yet they voted to pass budget measures which cut the age pension for 330,000 senior Australians, and 90,000 of these pensioners lost their pensions entirely. Some single pensioners had their pensions cut by as much as $8,000 and couples had their pensions cut by up to $14,000. This was a $2.4 billion assault on the retirement savings of senior Australians, and the Greens supported it. These are just a few of the examples of how the Greens have morphed into something other than what they claim to be. They come into this place acting with the most incredible sense of self-righteousness as if they were the bastions of moral virtue. Yet they will sell their principles to the highest bidder without a second thought.

This bill—the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill—is the worst example of the Australian Greens' willingness to abandon their principles. This legislation puts at risk the possibility that the coalition will not gain a majority in the Senate—giving them control of both houses of parliament. So let's take a moment to contemplate what it would mean to have a Senate where the coalition has an absolute majority. The last time the Liberal and National parties had control of the Senate under Prime Minister John Howard, we got Work Choices. We ended up with savage cuts to the pay and conditions of workers through Australian workplace agreements, including cuts to penalty rates, cuts to annual leave loadings and cuts to public holidays—in fact every single AWA removed at least one protected award condition. We had businesses with fewer than 100 employees exempt from unfair dismissal laws, leaving workers vulnerable to exploitation.

The consequences of the coalition having power in the Senate were not just in the legislation passed but in the curtailing of Senate processes. We had Senate debate on key legislation—including Work Choices, the sale of Telstra and counter-terrorism legislation—guillotined and cut short without any proper debate. We had inquiries denied and rushed by the government. The Senate was given one day to inquire into the sale of Telstra, only two days after the bills were introduced, and the shadow minister for communications had—grab this—only 12 minutes to question the regulator.

Control of the Senate means not only can the government pass any legislation it wishes but it can effectively put a brake on the Senate's ability to inquire into legislation. It can also hand the government the power to deny or shut down inquiries into government business. The Senate is a vital institution in Australian democracy, because of its powers of inquiry and because of the brake it puts on the excesses of executive government. But that vital protection and that power of inquiry can be waived when a government exercises absolute control in both houses of parliament.

Imagine what disasters we would have, if the current government had a majority in the Senate. We would have even deeper cuts to pensions than the ones that were already passed. We would have young job seekers being forced to live in abject poverty for six months of every year. We would have changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act which would promote, as Senator Brandis so clearly puts it, 'the right to be a bigot'. We would have deep cuts to Australia's renewable energy target, putting the environment and jobs at risk. We would have $100,000 degrees, putting the prospect of a decent university education out of reach of many Australian students.

These are the policy outcomes that the Australian Greens have put at risk with their grubby little deal with the government. Let's not kid ourselves about this: the more extreme elements of the government's agenda have been shelved not because the government discovered they were unpopular, not because the government realised the error of their ways and not because Mr Abbott was dumped in favour of Mr Turnbull as Prime Minister. No, the government put aside the more extreme elements of their agenda—the $100,000 degrees, the changes to RD&C, the cuts to pensions—because the Senate rejected them. A coalition majority in both houses of parliament would revive the most extreme proposals of the government, and I can guarantee you that even the 'dead, buried and cremated' Work Choices would rise from the grave.

I ask the Australian Greens: what do you think is more important to you? Is it having more senators in this place or achieving the policy outcomes that your supporters elected you to fight for? No-one voted for the Australian Greens because they wanted to see a cut to Australia's renewable energy target. No-one voted for the Australian Greens because they want to see young job seekers condemned to abject poverty for six months of every year. No-one voted for the Australian Greens because they want Australian students to have to pay $100,000 to get a university degree. No-one voted for the Australian Greens because they want to see a return to Work Choices. But these are the outcomes that the Greens may end up enabling through their support for this legislation. If it happens, if the coalition secures a majority in the Senate because of this bill, we on this side will be reminding the Australian people that it is thanks to the Australian Greens that their pensions are cut, that there is Work Choices and that $100,000 degrees have returned.

The Australian Greens have made a conscious decision to prioritise self-interest over ideology and self-interest over having proper checks and balances in this chamber. Do not be under any illusions. Despite their holier-than-thou attitude, the Australian Greens will not hesitate to sell out their principles for power. Australian voters who have supported the Greens, who have fallen for the pretence that they are some kind of ideologically driven, grassroots movement: you have had the wool pulled over your eyes, quite clearly. A coalition majority is not just a potential consequence of this bill; it is what the bill is designed to do, and the Australian Greens know it.

The government and the Australian Greens are like a bunch of kids who are treating the Senate like their sandpit, and now they even want to decide who gets to play in the sandpit with them. But we know that the Australian people want a diversity of voices in the Senate. A diversity of voices means that there is a lot more scrutiny given to legislation and the consequences of it. A diversity of voices means that the Senate has more potential to be a check on executive government, not just a rubber stamp. We are the house of review. It means that 3.3 million Australians who voted for a minor party or Independent at the last election have a voice in this chamber, a voice that this legislation seeks to take away.

But this bill is not the only way in which the Greens are assisting the coalition. Recently we have learned of secret preference deals where the Liberals have agreed to preference the Greens ahead of Labor in Grayndler, Sydney, Melbourne, Batman and Wills. In exchange, the Greens will issue open tickets, or 'no preferences given', in Richmond, Corangamite, Bruce, Chisholm, McEwen, Deakin and La Trobe. This is extraordinary for the Liberals, given that Mr Abbott, the former Prime Minister, advocated putting the Greens last after Labor. But it is even more extraordinary for the Greens that they would be giving any assistance to improve the chances of a conservative party winning House of Representatives seats over a progressive party. This is a government which has cut the ABC and SBS, has cut funding to the arts, has cut funding to the CSIRO, has made massive cuts to schools and hospitals and has stopped real action on climate change, and it is a government which, if it had its way, would introduce $100,000 degrees, cut penalty rates and reintroduce Work Choices, as I have stated.

Once again, just as they have been in the Senate, the Greens are more focused on increasing their numbers in the House of Representatives than they are on actually achieving the policy outcomes that they previously fought for. This is what the Australian Greens have become: a party that pursue their own self-interest ahead of the interests of the country or the people they purport to represent. Should we be surprised at the Greens' new-found closeness with their formerly ideological enemies the Liberals? Certainly not surprised but definitely alarmed.

Remember, this is the biggest change to Senate voting in Australia in 30 years. I think everybody out there listening would think that something as big as this, with the implications it has, would be subjected to some sort of comprehensive inquiry. Officially, the bill was referred to an inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, but 'inquiry' would be a rather generous way of putting it. This bill was given a half-day hearing, which, for a change of this magnitude, with the implications it has for Australia's democracy, could be more accurately described as a cuppa and a chat than a hearing—a quick and dirty inquiry to give effect to the government and the Greens' dirty deal. The half-day hearing—or the half-day chat—had no witnesses representing minor parties to talk about how the legislation might affect them. Despite the complexity of the issues involved, only one week's notice was given to make submissions. This was a joint committee, formed of both House of Representatives and Senate members, whose purpose was to report to both houses on the bill, yet we had the absolute farce of the House of Representatives passing the bill before the inquiry was completed.

This bill has major implications for the future of Australia's democracy, and it deserves far more scrutiny than a quick and dirty one-week inquiry with a half-day hearing. You cannot and should not rush the biggest reform to voting in Australia in three decades. But then we have the classic example of the farcical nature of this process with the government moving an amendment in the House to fix a flaw in its rushed legislation. And who picked up this flaw? It was not the minister. It was not anyone else in the government. It was not the Greens. It was not the Australian Electoral Commission. No, it was the ABC's election analyst, Antony Green. The fact that public commentators are picking up errors in legislation drafted by the government—

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator O'Sullivan! Order! Continue, Senator Bilyk.

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

Thank you. The fact that public commentators are picking up errors in legislation drafted by the government should ring alarm bells for this whole process. What really worries me is whether there are other flaws and unintended consequences that will slip through the cracks because of the lack of scrutiny given to this bill because the Greens decided to vote with the government to rush it through.

I have heard Senator Di Natale argue in the media that this legislation has already been given scrutiny by the joint select committee in the previous inquiry into the 2013 federal election. I do not think anyone should be fooled by this argument. It is patently false. The voting system that is being proposed through this grubby deal is not the same as the reform proposals considered by the inquiry.

A multitude of experts have been lining up to criticise what the government and the Greens originally put forward in this bill. Michael Maley, a former senior official at the Australian Electoral Commission, said: 'The scheme proposed in the bill is an incoherent one'—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. Senator Bilyk, resume your seat. Senator O'Sullivan, do you have a point of order?

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

I do. I have been in here when you have ruled on this before—about reading the speech, which the senator has done.

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

When you have had two brain tumours—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Bilyk! Senator O'Sullivan, continue.

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

Senator Bilyk is reading the same speech, for a second time, with the same delivery.

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

I am not.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, there is no point of order. We are very liberal when it comes to presenting speeches in this place. Continue with your speech, Senator Bilyk.

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

I just want to clarify, Mr Acting Deputy President. I have not done a speech on this yet—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bilyk, order! Resume your seat. I have made a ruling on the point of order. I now ask you to continue with your speech. Continue, please.

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

I would like to say that, when Senator O'Sullivan has had two brain tumours removed, maybe he will need some copious notes to help him too. Thank you, Senator O'Sullivan.

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

You know I was not making any reflection—

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

You were so—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

I didn't even know—

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

You are a disgrace—

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator O'Sullivan!

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

Order, Senator O'Sullivan, I will bring you to order! Just settle down. I refer you to standing order 197, Senator O'Sullivan. Cease interjecting, please. The chamber will come to order. There will be no argument across the chamber. Senator Bilyk, I asked you to continue with the presentation of your speech to this chamber.

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

Thank you. As I said, Michael Maley, a former senior official at the Australian Electoral Commission, said: 'The scheme proposed in the bill is an incoherent one, with no clear underlying principles apparent'— (Time expired)

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

There has been considerable debate about the process around the introduction of this piece of legislation. In question time today, on another matter, we heard the Cabinet Secretary say that he thought that on this side of the chamber we were more focused on process, whereas on his side of the chamber they were more focused on outcome. In terms of this debate, I think it is important that we look both at the process and what could be the potential outcome.

I was listening closely to Senator Bilyk's contribution, and many of the points she was making about the process of the joint standing committee were things I wanted to raise in this debate. I am a strong supporter of the role of committees in this area, as you well know, Mr Acting Deputy President. I think the role of committees is the strength of the Senate in terms of our ability to review legislation, to review issues and to feed back into the place so that the quality of the debate is as high as it can possibly be.

In this case, the work on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is one of the key areas of work in this place. After each formal federal election this joint standing committee is directed by the minister of the day—in this case, it was Senator Ronaldson in his capacity as minister in December 2013. He referred issues around the conduct of the 2013 election to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for consideration.

They went through their standard process of calling for submissions, calling for people to put forward their views about the issues that concerned them about the conduct of the 2013 election. In due course, this standing committee actually went through a very serious process of review. My understanding is that they had over 20 hearings, which is about standard practice in terms of this committee, looking at all the issues that people raised around that particular election.

Certainly one of the key issues that was raised was Senate voting processes. There was quite a degree of interest in this issue. There were 216 submissions to this original inquiry process conducted by the joint standing committee. They ranged widely from academics to political parties to organisations that have a long interest. One of the things that pleases me most about the way we engage in Australia with our electoral system is that there are so many individuals who take such a strong interest in the way our elections and voting system operate; because, of those 216 submissions, many were from private citizens who just wished to put on record their views about what happened in 2013, and often their concerns ranged much further into the past. You could see that they were regular correspondents to the committee.

The issue around Senate voting was not the only core issue that took up the time and the interest of the committee. There were a number of other key aspects of our electoral process that the committee considered. In fact, they came up with two interim reports during the process, one of which was dedicated exclusively to the issue of electronic voting, because that was another area of concern for the people who took up the challenge that was out there about the best way for our electoral processes to operate.

During that period, from 2013 through 2014 into 2015, the joint standing committee continued to meet, to interact and to put out reports. In fact, this committee put out a first interim report; a second interim report, which was focused exclusively on electronic voting; and then they brought down their third report, on 15 April 2015. That was the formal statement about how the joint standing committee had considered the issues around the 2013 election, taking all the evidence, placing all the information on Hansard, and coming up with a significant piece of work.

That was in April 2015. Until this day, now in 2016, there has been no formal government response to all that work that was done. All that work was done around our electoral voting system and there was no formal response from government. So my question is: why has the government, in this particular report, picked out a number of issues—by no means all the recommendations that were put forward by the joint standing committee—amended in some cases what had come forward, and brought forward an urgency of debate around the core aspect of Senate electoral processes which has to be considered immediately?

My point is that from April 2015—I have checked the Hansardthere has been no debate or discussion on any of these issues. There has been no urgency, no reason for discussion in this place, no notices of motion and no recommendations for debate in this place in the matters of public importance. There has been nothing around Senate electoral reform until two weeks ago, and that to me is one of the core issues of process that need to be considered in this debate as well as the proposed outcome and why the urgency has occurred, because in terms of the way this place operates it is absolutely critical that everyone understand the reason for the discussion and have the full information in front of them and that there be a transparency of debate—a transparency of argument.

When we first had the electoral law put before us as a matter of urgency, my question was: why? Why was it so urgent and why had there been no previous discussion with people in this place who absolutely share a very personal interest about the Senate voting process, because we are all subject to that process? That raises questions for me about the probity of what went on.

Then, when these issues were raised, when this bill was brought forward as a matter of urgency in our last sitting, a number of senators on this side of the chamber raised a very important issue: that we need to have further consideration of this bill, which had not had consideration up to this stage. Then what we had before us was another fault of process. As a token effort—almost as a way of dismissing debate in this chamber and also of dismissing our ongoing interest in effective discussion—we had handed to us a one-day hearing which was not even a full-day hearing. I know other senators have raised this point. But what was put forward to us as a Senate was another sham exercise. I am distressed to use that term, because I am a true believer in the probity of process in this place. It has a long history. Of course, at times there are issues, points of order, games played and people trying to have an advantage in the way that they can bring forward their arguments for a political purpose. But to misuse the way that committees should operate—as I believe was done—again raises an issue of process, because there was an advertisement put out. It was referred on 22 February, submissions had to be received by 29 February and the report had to be tabled and completed by 2 March.

On what we believe is the single greatest series of changes to Senate electoral process in over 30 years, that is not treating the parliament, nor is it treating the community, with the respect I think they deserve. Even though there had not been a lot of publicity—the first we heard of this change was in the media and of course that was the first the community had heard of it as well—there is a significant portion of the community who are transfixed with the issues of electoral voting processes. (Quorum formed)In terms of the integrity of process in this place, I believe that the sham attempt of the discussion that we had on the electoral bill at the half-day sitting that was held in the last sitting of parliament actually did not add in any way to the knowledge around the process. Rather it reinforced my concerns about due process.

If we are going to have effective outcomes, on which I think there is a shared belief, we need to be confident that the processes are effective and that there is an understanding that if we are going to be placing legislation which has not been seen before in this chamber—if we are going to have legislation brought into the chamber that is going to have such a significant impact on everybody in this chamber—it is important that we have the opportunity to have an effective hearing, not just such a tight turnaround, with the lack of opportunity for people to be involved in the debate and also to bring forward the kind of information that we needed to bring back into this place so that we could effectively debate the issues rather than perceived political advantages—because that is what has happened.

I had a look at some of the submissions that were received for that one-day hearing even though it happened so quickly. We had 107 submissions that came in that tight time frame, because people care about these issues.

Debate interrupted.