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

I inform the senate that at 8.30 am today Senators Gallagher, Roberts and Siewert each submitted a letter to the President in accordance with standing order 75 proposing matters of public importance. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Gallagher:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

Prime Minister Turnbull's failure to uphold former Prime Minister Howard's position that One Nation "should be placed last on every Liberal Party how-to-vote card around Australia".

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

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

I have to say what is so amazing about this preference negotiation—'deal', if you will—that we are here to talk about today is the fact that the Liberal Party has chosen to put One Nation ahead of not just the Labor Party but the National Party, as well. What an indictment on the incredible work of Senator 'Wacka' Williams over such a long period of time. What an indictment on Barnaby Joyce, the national head of that party. What an indictment on the relationship between the Liberals and Nationals. This shows what they really think of each other—and that, clearly, is not very much at all.

There has to be a line somewhere. We are all into politics. We are all professional politicians. We are all here. This is our career.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very unprofessional!

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

'Mr Milo Man' over here was calling himself unprofessional!

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm an amateur!

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

That is not what your bio says. Everyone here has won an election or has been elected to be in this chamber at this point in time. People are pragmatic about politics, but there are red lines. John Howard placed a red line when he said that the party that he led would not be preferencing One Nation.

You have to ask yourself: What has changed since that period? What has changed in the past 20 years? One Nation have not changed. They will tell you that they have not changed.

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

Senator Dastyari, I am sorry to interrupt you. I have just received the speakers list, and the timing is not the same as the clocks.

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

Five minutes?

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

Yes. I would be happy, Senator Dastyari, to give you the whole time but I do not think everyone else would be, so we will reset the clocks. There are three minutes to go.

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

I have to regain my composure. I was so excited with the seven- or eight- minute speech I had ready.

John Howard turned around and said there was a line, and the line for John Howard was that he would not be preferencing One Nation. So you have to ask yourself: What has changed in the past 20 years? What has changed since John Howard came to that conclusion?

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

Leadership.

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

Leadership! What has changed is leadership. One Nation themselves will tell you they have not changed. Their policy agenda now is the same policy agenda they had them. Sure, it started off with bashing Indigenous Australians, then they were being swamped by Asians, and now, of course, that has been updated and upgraded to being about the Muslims—there are clearly too many of them. I say to my friends from the subcontinent: watch out; you are next! That has not changed. The racist policy agenda has not changed. The economic madness of a lot of what they suggest has not changed. What has changed is that we have a weak, pathetic Liberal Party leader who does not have the strength or stamina to actually stand up to anybody. We had the Prime Minister come out last week and say, 'I'll look billionaires in the eye; I am so tough,' and yet at every opportunity he folds; at every opportunity for leadership he collapses. It is weak. It is pathetic. It is not the type of leadership that this country needs. The policy agenda has not changed; the only thing that has changed is that we have a Prime Minister who is too weak to stand up to it.

The Western Australian Liberal Party has effectively said: 'We will do anything we can to try to hold on at this point in time. Even if it means we will have an unworkable upper house, even if it means we are handing the balance of power to One Nation, none of that matters. Even if it means destroying a long-term coalition, none of that matters, because the act of attaining power is everything.' We have two obligations in this place. Of course we all want to win votes, but there has to be a red line somewhere. John Howard, Ron Boswell—the leaders of those opposite a generation ago—were people of principle who were prepared to stand up. On so many different policy areas you would not find me agreeing with Ron Boswell or former Prime Minister Howard, but where we would agree is that there are some fundamentals of Australian society, a core set of values we have in this country, that have to be protected, and we have to work together to achieve that. Legitimising extremist views is not a way of achieving that.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on this matter of public importance. There are two main points that I would like to discuss today. The first is the nature of the arrangements in Western Australia, about which there has been a lot of misinformation today; the second is the gross disrespect shown by my colleagues in this chamber to our One Nation colleagues. I think it is quite appalling. I will come back to that but first of all I will speak about preference arrangements in Western Australia.

We do things differently in Western Australia on many issues, and our relationship with the National Party is one of those different arrangements. In Western Australia we do not have a coalition; we have an alliance arrangement. The Liberal Party and National Party are not in coalition with each other in Western Australia, and that is because the Western Australian Nationals have preferred that arrangement to preserve their independence. It is quite unlike the coalition arrangements that we have in other states. My own view is that a strong and united coalition like we have at federal level, with direct preference flows between our respective candidates, is always preferable, but I respect the right of the WA Nationals to make their own arrangements with the WA Liberal Party organisation. Again, this is a direct state party to state party arrangement and has absolutely nothing to do with the Prime Minister or the federal Liberal Party.

Upper house voting tickets are officially registered with the Electoral Commission, so it is a matter of public record that, in practice, Brendon Grylls and the WA Nationals have preferenced other parties, including One Nation, ahead of the WA Liberal Party since the 2008 election. Following the 2008 election, both the WA Nats and WA Liberals preferenced other parties—the Shooters and Fishers, the Australian Christians party and Family First—ahead of each other. Finally, and I think very importantly, contrary to some other inaccurate stories earlier today, of course the WA Liberal Party will provide the preferences of our own candidates to the National Party in all the seats the WA Nationals are contesting. My understanding is that our arrangement with our alliance partners in Western Australia, the National Party, are actually no different from those at the last election—our arrangements with the National Party are actually the same.

What I find particularly disturbing about the behaviour of those opposite on this topic is that they would use a state preference decision made by a state Liberal organisation to criticise the Prime Minister. Not only that but, as we heard in the chamber today at question time and just now from Senator Dastyari, they are using this opportunity to blatantly demonise three of their colleagues here in this place—three of their colleagues who were duly elected by nearly 600,000 Australian voters. Even if those opposite have no respect for their Senate colleagues, they should have respect for the 600,000 Australian voters who voted for them.

It is the right of every Australian to have their voice heard in Australian politics and to vote in accordance with their own choice and their own free will. No matter how uncomfortable it may be for some in this place to hear it, it is incumbent on us all to respect alternative points of view. Every one of us in this chamber should know that as parliamentarians it is not our duty to condescend to and dismiss Australian voters or to tell them how to think. Instead, it is our duty to listen to the people who voted for and represented them.

We have seen time and time again in this place, and in the other place, that Labor does not respect the will of the people. They continue to block and frustrate the mandate of this government. They carp, they whine, they block and they say no, but they fail to offer any other solutions. Again today we have heard the Leader of the Opposition claim that he is above the fray. Unfortunately, I do not think that message got delivered to this place and to the Labor senators here today.

Those opposite are continually so afraid of public opinion and so committed to scoring political points that they blocked the plebiscite on same-sex marriage. Had you not done that, had you actually had the will to listen to the voices of Australian people, by next month gay couples in this country would have been able to get married. But you were so afraid of the debate and of listening to what Australian people had to say, you closed it down. You were so afraid and so intolerant of those opposite, of listening to other points of view—remember that shameful episode when Senator Hanson was delivering her first speech. All of us in this place are duly elected by Australian people and have the right to be heard by all of us in this place. But when the Greens walked out en masse in an absolutely cheap stunt, I do not believe I heard anybody in the Labor Party criticise the Greens for it. Everybody else paid due respect to Labor senators and to Greens senators for their first speeches. We might not agree with what you have to say, but we respected your right to say it and we listened to it. Again, that shows how disgracefully intolerant those on the other side of the chamber actually are. You are so full of your own opinions and your own self-righteousness that you cannot tolerate any other points of view. In fact the Greens walked out. They have such sensitive ears that they could not even sit here and listen to Senator Hanson give her first speech. That is a disgraceful situation for this democracy.

Unlike those opposite, we actually do respect the mandate and the people who voted for One Nation. The other thing we respect is that One Nation's policies are resonating not only with coalition voters but with Labor voters. And I think it is incumbent on all of us to listen to what those ordinary Australians are saying. I might disagree with much of what they say, but that is actually irrelevant. We actually have the right to respect their party and respect the people who voted for them.

Labor's sanctimony on preferences is yet another manifestation of their hypocrisy. Labor rallied against the policies and values of former Senator Steve Fielding, when he was in this place; some of you here will remember that. But it was Labor who ensured his election by directing votes to him in a preference deal. Who here remembers what the Greens did at the last election? They voted in Clive Palmer's party and gave him preferences, ensuring that Clive Palmer's party actually got elected and got seats in this chamber. That was on the back of—guess what?—Greens preferences.

So please do not come in here and almost drive one of your Senate colleagues to tears by basically saying that they have no right to be here and degrading the people who voted for them. If you had no pity for Senator Hanson after listening to her speak in response to your attack on her at question time, I do not know how you can possibly look at yourself in the mirror. You might not like what she has to say but she has the right to say it. Many Australians—even though I do not necessarily agree with a lot of what they say—we have the right to discuss it and to respect that.

If you are really true to what you are saying about One Nation, I would really like to see Labor come out and say that they are not going to do preference deals with the Greens anymore—not only because of the Greens' hypocritical deal with Clive Palmer ahead of the 2013 election—

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

Sorry, what was that interjection?

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

I don't know who wrote your speech but it's pretty hopeless and sanctimonious.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sanctimonious? What else have we heard? Senator Dastyari was just up here attacking One Nation as if they do not have any right to be in this place—

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

Senator Reynolds, resume your seat just for two seconds. I would urge you to just ignore the interjections and direct your comments through the chair.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, the WA Liberal agreement, as it has been reported, with One Nation is completely different from any other arrangement. It has nothing to do with the Prime Minister and it is absolutely nothing that the Liberal Party has not done before with the National Party in Western Australia. The fact that you are trying to drag up a situation with John Howard from over 20 years ago, I think, is really quite pathetic. With all of the other issues we have on our agenda here and the things in this place that we should be talking about—child care, national security, employment, education—you are sitting up and dragging three of your colleagues through the mud. You are condemning them for absolutely no reason. They were elected by over half a million people and they have a right to have their voices heard in this place. So, if you are going to be true to your word that we should not in Western Australia do a deal with the National Party or with One Nation or with the shooters and fishers or any other party, have a look at your own preference records; you are completely hypocritical on this, as are the Greens.

The Greens are the party that got Clive Palmer elected with their preference deals. So what are you going to do? Are you going to keep doing preference deals with the Greens? What is the difference? You are completely and utterly hypocritical. This sort of sanctimony and game playing is why the Turnbull government acted to put the powers of preferences federally firmly in the hands of voters with our Senate reforms last year. We believe that voters should choose where their preferences go.

Finally, what also disturbs me is that not only are you going back to 20 years ago, to a completely different political environment, but you clearly do not understand the difference between state and federal election arrangements, because this is a WA state party arrangement with a party that has every right to campaign, exist and seek government in Western Australia. Just because we respect the voters and what the voters are telling us does not mean we have to agree with their point of view.

I want to put on the record how disgraceful I thought Labor's performances were here today. It was wrong for them to attack three of their Senate colleagues on the basis that they have no right to go into negotiations or to deal with any other political parties, and it was wrong that Senator Hanson had to come here to justify her humanity and her existence. Instead of playing the person, instead of vilifying them, why don't you start playing the politics and start coming in here and debating the issues? Come in here and debate the issues they and we are raising, rather than just attacking individuals in the Senate. It is demeaning, and I think it is beneath us all. (Time expired)

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

This preference deal is an attempt from a desperate Barnett government to cling onto power. That is what it is about. Senator Reynolds commented that it is a WA issue, so perhaps Senator Sinodinos should not have made the comments that he made yesterday about One Nation being more sophisticated and evolved. Let me read you a couple of the comments from the 'sophisticated and evolved' candidate for One Nation in the Pilbara in Western Australia. On the comment that Tony Abbott made about lifestyle choices, Mr Archibald wrote:

The first that springs to mind is single motherhood. These are women too lazy to attract and hold a mate, undoing the work of possibly three million years of evolutionary pressure.

Maybe that is why Senator Sinodinos was commenting about their evolution as a party. He went on:

This will result in a rapid rise in the portion of the population that is lazy and ugly. We know what causes pregnancy these days, so everyone who gets pregnant outside of marriage is a volunteer. This is an easy one for defunding.

Mr Archibald also used the article to suggest defunding the disability support pension and child care. He said:

The 800,000 Australians on the disability pension. OK, not all of them. But a good proportion are able to drive cars, bash police and each other, go fishing and so on.

He also then went on to have a go at federally-funded child care. He said:

This is a lifestyle choice. Looking after children is very labour-intensive … If society wishes to encourage childbearing, it should reward that with tax rebates to the childbearing pair and leave it at that.

Perhaps Senator Sinodinos did not read those comments and was not aware of those comments. What about their continual denial of climate change? At a time that we are all suffering the effects of it being either unseasonably hot or unseasonably cold, they are still denying climate change.

This is about Barnett's desperate attempts to cling to power when the broader community is saying: 'No, thank you. We've had enough of your failed policies. You're building monuments to yourself in Western Australia, wasting the money that came from the mining boom in WA and failing to see the flaws in this approach.' (Time expired)

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

Rarely do I come into this chamber expecting to have a lecture from someone like Senator Reynolds. I am used to it from Senator Brandis—we can even have a bit of banter about it between us. But for Senator Reynolds to jump up and spend a good 10 minutes of her speech so sanctimoniously telling us what we do wrong on this side and how everyone should be more tolerant is just beyond belief. I would like to reiterate everything Senator Siewert said. I was going to mention some of that, but I will not go over that as well. Senator Reynolds obviously did not watch Insiders yesterday and did not see Senator Sinodinos talk about how sophisticated One Nation have become. I will leave that at that.

Rarely do we get senators on this side of the chamber standing up to defend the words of former Prime Minister Howard. We heard Senator Dastyari do that, and I am also going to, because one of the few wise things Mr Howard said was that One Nation should be placed last on every Liberal Party how-to-vote card around Australia. We know that some people on that side, including Senator Brandis, are not that keen on Mr Howard—Senator Brandis famously referred to him as, shall I say, an unflattering member of the animal kingdom—but even Mr Howard did not stoop as low as the level that we have seen in Western Australia, that I think we will probably see in Queensland and that I will be very surprised if we do not see nationally. It is a sad day when the Liberal Party show such poor leadership that they cannot even listen to a piece of advice from one of their elder statesman.

Last week I made a contribution to the debate about the lack of leadership within the Liberal Party. With this recent announcement from Mr Barnett and the Liberals, perhaps I made my contribution to that debate a little bit too early. I do not think those who hold the government benches both in Western Australia and in this parliament could show worse leadership than in that decision. Mr Turnbull does not have the leadership to actually stand up and say he will not deal with One Nation, and Senator Sinodinos would not actually say yes or no on Insiders, but this is what I reckon: they will do a national deal with One Nation and they will do over their National Party colleagues. I think we are seeing the extraordinary weakness of Malcolm Turnbull once again. He is beholden to the right wing of the Liberal Party and this is just another example of his weakness showing through.

Only Labor has shown leadership on this issue. We will not be cosying up to One Nation nationally, in Western Australia, in Queensland or wherever it may be. Labor will not make those deals. The Liberal Party leadership has become so feeble that a member of the Queensland parliament elected for the LNP has defected to One Nation. We have to remember that, after 10 years as an LNP MP, Mr Steve Dickson, the member for Buderim on the Sunshine Coast, has left the LNP and joined One Nation. Obviously this is for political gain. In fact, I am sure the whole deal is just for political gain; it is for power at the expense of some of your own colleagues. Who cares as long as they can get and hold power? That is what it is all about. I do not see those on the Nationals side in this chamber jumping up and down, being happy about it and thinking that it cannot happen to them. I think they have probably worked out that pretty soon the same thing might be happening to them.

Despite being in a coalition with the National Party for decades, the Liberals have chosen to preference One Nation even over their national coalition partners. That is the gist the whole debate. Murdoch University political lecturer Ian Cook said that 'the Liberals' jumping into bed with One Nation could backfire and jettison the party out of power. He further said, ' For the Liberals, it looks like a desperate move to hold onto power at any cost. I'd be surprised if it worked.' The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Joyce, from the other place, is warning of an all-out brawl, so we know they are not happy. Mr Joyce described the outcome as 'a disappointing move'. He said he hoped its architects 'clearly understand the ramifications of the decision'. He raised the prospect of retaliation against the move by the Nationals: 'The Nationals could stand in every lower house seat in Perth and preference another party. What would that mean?' (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive—reference Wong, Senator P, 13 February 2017, Senate of the Australian parliament. What confected outrage did we hear from Senator Wong and Senator Chisholm from Queensland in terms of apparent deals for preferences. But wasn't Senator Chisholm cut down instantly by none other than the architect of all this—Senator Hanson herself. Let me quote from only a few minutes ago in this place. This is Senator Hanson responding to the outrage of Senator Chisholm: 'Thank you very much. Well, isn't it amazing what comes across this chamber? You must be really worried about One Nation.'

The whole fact is that Labor has approached One Nation for preferences. Oh, but you do not want to talk about that one. 'How about Evan Moorhead, the Queensland state secretary?' she said to Senator Chisholm. 'You're a former state secretary. Well, he actually called up my staff on 25 January this year and he wanted to do a grubby deal with us.' What a web we weave in this place. So it has come home to roost, has it not—all the confected outrage from Senator Wong and Senator Chisholm, and all we see of course is the hypocrisy, which has been exposed so brilliantly by Senator Hanson. When I say 'hypocrisy', do I think back to some of the preference deals that have been done in her own home state of South Australia—the deal done between the state Labor government of then Premier Wran—

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

Senator Back, I am sorry to interrupt you, but it has just been brought to my attention that on the speakers list you were allocated 11 minutes but the clocks were set at 13 minutes.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to take your direction. Thank you very much, Mr Acting Deputy President.

I then go to the deal between the Labor Party and the National Party which caused Minister Karlene Maywald, the then member for Chaffey, to be in the Labor ministry from 2004 to 2010. We know of the deal done between Labor and the Greens political party in Tasmania. In fact, the Senate has two previous members of that ministry, in Senator Singh and Senator McKim, under the premiership of David Bartlett. So bad a government was it, of course, that it delivered government to Mr Will Hodgman. Then of course we know of the deal done between Labor and the Greens to deliver government for Ms Gillard 2010. So let us not worry too much about the confected hypocrisy of the Labor Party in this particular position.

What it has done, through you, Acting Deputy President, to Minister Payne, is to give a very good understanding of how things are run in the Labor Party. I know, from when I was there last—I have not been for some period of time—that it is the Western Australian division, the lay party itself, the executive, that makes the decision. As we know from out of the mouth Senator Wong today, if the Labor Party nationally were a horse, you would say it were owned, trained and ridden by the CFMEU. Of course, the poor victim of it is Mr Shorten. We know that Mr Shorten, in his turn as the puppet of the CFMEU, directs the Labor Party in Western Australia. So we know how it happens in WA. Well, it does not happen like that in the Liberal Party in Western Australia. It is done of course by the state executive. The second point to be made so strongly is the fact that, as Senator Reynolds said, in Western Australia the relationship between the National Party and the Liberal Party is not a coalition; it is an alliance.

I go back to the election of 2008, which was a cliffhanger and nobody could form government. So what did Mr Grylls, the now member for the Pilbara, as the leader of the party do? Senator Reynolds knows. He entertained the possibility of forming government with the Labor Premier, Mr Carpenter. We know of course, because they are friends of mine, that 'Tuck' Waldron in Wagin, Max Trenorden in Northam, Grant Woodhams in Moore, Phil Gardiner in the midwest and Terry Redman down in Denmark all said, 'We couldn't walk down the main street of our towns.' They said to the leader, Brendon, 'If you decide to join forces with Mr Carpenter, we will cross over and we will form government with Liberal Party.' So do not be too concerned about all these things.

We then go forward to 2010, when the National Party stood a candidate against a sitting member, Mr Tuckey. That led to Mr Tony Crook not coming to Canberra to represent the National Party at all; he sat as an Independent for two years. He never ever sat in the coalition party room. He did sit with the National Party for a while. He never sat with the coalition. So we are talking about that excellent relationship that you have up and down the east coast of Australia. We have not been a party in coalition. If time permits, I will get back to the nonsense of the grubby production deal, the slug, that Mr Grylls is trying to do to rump out our two major iron ore producers—again, not consistent with the policy of the government.

In 2013, when, indeed, in a landslide the people of Western Australia quite rightly returned the Barnett government, Mr Barnett could have governed in his own right, but, being the statesman that is, he said, 'No, we have had this alliance with the National Party—I will continue to include the National Party in the ministry.' So that is the standard of excellence of this man.

Let us then turn to what the actual arrangements are in Western Australia. Let me make these points very, very clearly. The first point is that the Liberal Party will preference the Nationals first in every lower house seat in which the National Party is running but have promised that the One Nation party will not be placed last. So with all of this outrage and nonsense that has been going on, we have the simple fact of the matter that, in those non-metropolitan seats in which the National Party is putting up candidates, the Liberal Party will preference them first.

The second point that must be borne in mind is that of history. For those who choose to ignore it, they are bound to repeat it. Let me tell you what did happen in 2008. In the 2008 election, when I was a candidate myself in the state election for Western Australia for the seat of Alfred Cove, the National Party in all rural upper house regions had preferenced the Christian democrats, Family First and One Nation ahead of the Liberal Party. Where was all this confected outrage then? In 2013 both of our parties—the Nationals and the Liberals—preferenced the Christian democrats, Family First and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party ahead of each other.

There is nothing unusual about all of this, but what have we done so that of course we can contest this election and hopefully keep out an underperforming what is now opposition led by Mr McGowan and the recycled Ms Alannah MacTiernan if she gets another go? It is critically important that— (Time expired)

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an extraordinary display this morning. I want to thank Senator Back, actually. It is good to follow-up after a set of comments like that where he has reminded us of the seething hypocrisy of the Labor Party coming in here and lecturing the coalition.

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

Wow!

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, fair is fair. Absolutely, fair is fair.

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

That's the first time you've ever said that!

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it is not. He has reminded us of the seething hypocrisy of the Labor Party coming in here and lecturing the Liberal Party about having done a deal with One Nation when actually they were playing footsie with One Nation until somebody, whether on the west coast or the east coast, told them to cease and desist. But, the fact is, who was in the frame today? The Liberal Party of Western Australia—the desperate Premier Colin Barnett, who has thrown his Nationals colleagues under the bus not for the first time, as Senator Back has said, but probably the most consequential time because this could deliver balance of power in the Western Australian Legislative Council—the upper house—to One Nation.

What did we hear from Senator Sinodinos when he was asked about this yesterday? He said, 'One Nation has evolved since Prime Minister Howard took a principled stand and said that they should be preferenced last.' And Senator Sinodinos said, 'Today, it is a very different beast.' No, Senator Sinodinos, you are. It is not the One Nation party that has evolved—the Liberal Party has devolved. The standing and morals it had have evaporated.

Mr Barnett has, for eight years, led a completely pointless government. The only achievement that they have to point to after eight years is coming out of the greatest commodity boom in the state's history $40 billion in debt. They have nothing to show for it. They are an empty government with no plan for the next four years for Western Australia and so they have cut this slimy deal with One Nation, a splinter party that has generated support across Australia by promoting race hate and white supremacy—the kind of white nationalism that has now reached such dangerous threshold levels in the United States and elsewhere. Premier Barnett is playing with fire in doing this deal. If it was a government worth saving maybe you would sort of understand the fact that they would cut some slimy preference deals, but this is a government not worth saving.

Polling was conducted, and we released this information over the weekend, by Essential asking, 'If the party you were going to vote for in the upper house was swapping preferences with Pauline Hanson's One Nation, would that make you more or less likely to vote for them?' Thirty per cent of Liberal voters said they would be less likely. They will regret this deal. (Time expired)

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There has been some discussion today about the return of One Nation as a force in Australian politics. I think at the start of this debate we ought to be very clear where responsibility for this return lies, because it is true that One Nation is receiving some level of support in some parts of Australia. The real responsibility for the return of One Nation as a political force lies with the Liberal-National coalition and with the Greens. It lies in the events at the end of the last session when a deal was put into this chamber to ram through legislation to achieve Senate voting reform, as was referred to by Senator Reynolds in her speech, that ultimately delivered One Nation back to this chamber with three at the moment but ultimately four senators. So we now have four One Nation senators eligible to sit in this chamber from a pre-election position of absolutely none.

Now to respond to that, do we see the Liberal-Nationals pushing back on this? No, we do not. What we see is an attempt to actually consolidate their position and assist One Nation in holding this foothold within Australian politics. I will say this to Senator Reynolds, who urged us to respect the voting system, the process of democracy and the outcome of the election: I do respect the political process. I absolutely respect what voters have said, and I respect the things that they say are important to them, but that does not mean that I or anyone else in this chamber ought to assist One Nation by delivering them political preferences in state elections. Respect is just not the same thing as this. Respect, incidentally, does not mean adopting the world view that One Nation advocates and advocating for this in this chamber. Respect is not the same as sitting passively by while One Nation reviles whole sections of the Australian community. And respect is certainly not the same as sitting by passively while we see a state branch of the Liberal Party delivering preferences to One Nation.

What I will say, because it has been brought up already in the debate, is that there has been a false report about the behaviour of the Queensland Labor Party. Evan Moorehead, who is the secretary of Queensland Labor, has gone on the record this afternoon saying that those reports are absolute nonsense. He said to the Guardian:

Ashby rang me looking for preference discussions and I said no. I said the issue is that in a lot of the places that they’re talking about, the two-candidate preferred battle will be between One Nation and the Libs. And we’ve always had a position on putting One Nation last.

So, let's hear no more of that story. That is the position that the Queensland secretary has put on the record this afternoon.

It is the position, of course, that should have been taken by the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull. Last year, Mr Turnbull said that Pauline Hanson was 'not a welcome presence' on the Australian political scene, but we do not hear any more of this now, do we? In January this year he ducked it, saying that preference deals with One Nation are a matter for the state branch and for the premier. Well, it is a shame he does not have the courage to express now the position he held such a short time ago. Even Barnaby Joyce is willing to put a more principled position on the table, saying:

It seems a bit desperate I've got to say and when you go and make friends with people who don't share the same values of you, it makes it very hard to form a government.

The defence, of course, put by Senator Sinodinos is that these guys are 'more sophisticated' now than they were before.

Well, is it sophisticated to express admiration for Vladimir Putin, saying, 'I like him as a person; he's a strong leader'? I do not think that is sophisticated; I think that is appalling, when six New South Wales residents in the state I represent were among the 298 people who died when a surface-to-air missile hit MH17 in 2014. Is it sophisticated to say that multiculturalism has failed? Is it sophisticated to run candidates who describe single mothers as 'too lazy to attract and hold a mate'? None of this is sophisticated. None of this represents the best traditions of Australian politics.

Labor has never preferenced One Nation. We will never make deals with people who espouse xenophobic and sexist views. Australia's major political parties once shared a broad compact, and that was respect and empathy for all people, regardless of their cultural background, regardless of their religion. And this Liberal deal undermines those values and the very principles of equality that build the best of Australia. (Time expired)

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

On 25 January this year Evan Moorehead, the state secretary of the Labor Party in Queensland, speaks with a One Nation official: 'Hey, mate, here's the deal: One Nation's to run dead in Queensland Labor seats and in return Labor'—that very principled party—'will run dead in One Nation strongholds or seats where the ALP has no chance of winning'. Now, this is the team who has the hide to come into this parliament and blame the coalition for doing deals with One Nation. When it comes to the question of whether you believe Mr Moorehead—who I confess I do not know—or Senator Hanson, I will go with Senator Hanson all the time. You may not agree with what she says, but you always know that she speaks her mind and she speaks it truthfully.

We have just heard from Senator McAllister a third-hand assurance by the Queensland Labor Party—that principled group up there in Queensland—that they are going to put One Nation last. Okay, I do not believe it, but the proof is always in the pudding. But as anyone in this chamber knows, the Labor Party in Queensland and elsewhere does not run the campaign. The campaign is run by the CFMEU, the CPSU and all of the other unions who run around Queensland saying, 'Put the LNP last.' I will repeat that. This is the Labor Party's main campaign arm—the unions—running around Queensland saying, 'Put the LNP last.' Now, how does that coincide, how does that gel, with what we have just heard—that the Labor Party is going to put One Nation last?

It just shows the abject inability of the Labor Party to tell the truth, to have any semblance of honesty and forthrightness. If there are Labor Party Queensland speakers to speak in this debate today, I challenge them to say here and now that not only will the Labor Party put One Nation last but that our minders—the people who run us, the people who provide all of our money, the people who provide all of the thugs on the polling booths—will also put One Nation last. And I will bet that there is not a Labor person here who is prepared to say that, because Labor is controlled by the unions. They run the campaign. They know that they will run around at the next Queensland election with a slogan of putting the LNP last. And you can judge from that the absolute hypocrisy of the Labor Party in Queensland. (Time expired)

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am actually going to agree with Senator Hanson on one thing here today, and that is that I do not find that this is actually a compelling matter of public importance—but I shall grab my two minutes and 30 seconds as I can. I also do not blame her for cracking the best deal she could do in WA, and I think she will definitely get three seats in the upper house. She may even get six, or even more. And Hinch's hunch—I am often wrong—is that this deal will put the Labor Party into government in the lower house in WA.

My fight is with Senator Sinodinos and his pathetic attempt on the ABC to try to justify all of this by saying, of One Nation:

The One Nation of today is a very different beast to what it was 20 years ago — they are a lot more sophisticated, they have clearly resonated with a lot of people …

Now, 'more sophisticated': as I said on Sunrise this morning, with Senator Hanson, I do not think it is sophisticated when 20 years ago your main kick was that you had been swamped with Asians and now your main platform is that you are being swamped with Muslims. But my fight is not with One Nation here. My fight is with the Liberal Party, who have thrown the Nationals under the bus. We heard Senator Back saying how wonderful it is, the agreement with the Nationals, and how they would support them elsewhere et cetera. On this occasion, they have thrown them under the bus, and I think it will come back to bite them. Senator Ludlam's time ran out before he quoted all of that poll that said that if people were asked, 'If your party were to vote for One Nation, would that make you less inclined or more inclined to vote?' On the Liberal poll—I saw the same poll—it was, as he said, 30 per cent of Liberals who said they would consider changing their vote, and I think it was actually 50 per cent of Nationals. That is why I say here on this occasion it is so cynical that you had the Prime Minister there virtually saying, 'It is a state matter, and it shouldn't be for us to justify it.' But you had Arthur Sinodinos at the weekend offering a great apologia about how wonderful One Nation is now and how they can lie in bed with them. As old Joh Bjelke-Petersen said: 'You lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas.' I think they will find out that is the situation in WA. I do not even need the whole 2½ minutes.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is of no surprise to me that the Barnett government has done this dirty preference deal with One Nation in Western Australia. It is exactly what it appears to be—a sneaky and desperate act from the state Liberal Party. It shows very clearly that the Liberal Barnett government is tired and out of touch and it will do absolutely anything it can to stay in power. It is a deal hammered out behind closed doors in secret. It seems that Premier Barnett is so worried about losing government and so worried about his own failings as premier that he knows the only chance he has of staying in power is doing this deal with One Nation. It is not a deal that is in the best interests of Western Australia. It is simply about getting Premier Colin Barnett re-elected at any cost.

Make no mistake: if this deal goes ahead, a vote for One Nation in Western Australia would be a vote for the Liberal Party, if people follow their how-to-vote cards. A vote for One Nation is a vote for the same old tired policies of this very tired government. A vote for One Nation in Western Australia would be a vote to privatise Western Power. Prime Minister Howard made a promise to the Australian people that One Nation should be placed last on every Liberal Party how-to-vote card around the country, and the Liberal Party should continue to uphold his promise to the Australian people.

Prime Minister Turnbull should be condemned if he fails to uphold the same promise. Prime Minister Turnbull should stand up against Colin Barnett and this dirty deal. Is it perhaps something that Prime Minister Turnbull will do too? The Prime Minister's failure to rule out a deal with One Nation demonstrates what he is prepared to do to cling to power amidst the chaos of his own government. As we know, Prime Minister Howard would not preference One Nation and Labor will not preference One Nation, but Colin Barnett will. So today I ask: will Prime Minister Turnbull rule it out? Will Prime Minister Turnbull do a preference deal with One Nation? I ask him where his integrity is on that matter.

Our colleague Senator Sinodinos has said that One Nation has changed in the last 20 years, but how has it changed? Has it changed from discriminating against Asians to discriminating against Muslims? Is that the kind of change Senator Sinodinos is referring to? As we all know, Senator Hanson used her maiden speech in this place last year to call for a ban on Muslim immigration. It is a party that supports divisive policy, and there are many examples—Senator Wong referred to some in question time today. Is this something that the Liberal Party supports? It certainly seems that way in Western Australia. What is really true here is that the Liberal Party has changed, and Senator Hanson has not changed. Her policies have remained entirely consistent. What is really true is that the Liberal Party has changed and this is not the party of John Howard anymore. And so we have this insidious deal before us. It is time for Barnaby Joyce to come out and say whether he agrees with the WA Liberals to put One Nation above the nationals in WA.

Let's be clear about this: supporters of all parties should be able to make up their own minds about who they vote for and who they preference. Voters should make their own decisions when they are at the ballot box, and any government must work with whoever is elected. So it is disappointing to me that the Liberal government in WA would do this sneaky deal behind closed doors. With the double dissolution election last year, One Nation now holds seats in this place just, as it held the balance of power in the upper house when Labor was last in power in WA. In 2001 One Nation surged in the state poll, and both Labor and Liberal put One Nation last. What we saw was the election of a number of One Nation MPs—MPs whose time in One Nation did not last very long because they defected and left the party. All this illustrates is the ongoing dysfunction and chaos—(Time expired)

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just cannot get over the sheer arrogance of senators in this place. It is like: 'You can't come in here. You're not allowed to. This is our territory. This belongs to the Liberals, Labor and the National Parties.' It has been a two-party system in this country for so long, and the public has had a gutful of it.

Earlier I raised the issue of Evan Moorhead; he rang and spoke to us about preferences. Labor was trying to get other preference deals with One Nation. It was Labor's slippery suggestion to meet and discuss Western Australian preferences to us through the Mineral Council. They wanted to have an underhanded meeting with us through the Mineral Council because they did not want to approach us directly. He actually said to my staffer: 'This is going to be off the record. If ever it is raised and I am asked the question "Are we going to do preference deals?", I am going to say, " No".' My staffer said in return, 'Well, we don't play those sorts of games. We are up-front and honest.'

Senator Dastyari interjecting—

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

Order!

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what they were wanting to do. The Labor Party through the Mineral Council approached us to do a preference deal with them when we were over in WA. That is the case.

You are trying to make out that you are all so goody-two-shoes in this chamber but the fact is that what both sides of the parliament have done to me over the years—and I will tell you what Peter Beattie did too. After I was chased and hounded and criminal charges were laid against me, Peter Beattie changed the laws in Queensland just prior to my trial to make the jail term seven years retrospectively instead of six months. You have bent over backwards to try and get rid of me all these years because you never wanted to see One Nation in here. You knew the support that we were getting then and you know the support that we are still getting in this country right across the board—the polls are showing it—and you are terrified of it. Yes, we are a threat to you and it is about time because people want a change. They are sick and tired of it. You have a go at me and my policies about multiculturalism. We are multiracial, but, at the end of the day, we should all be treated the same equally under the one law. We are Australians. I have never ever said any different. (Time expired)

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now let's be absolutely clear. The key issue that has gone on in this debate is the lack of speakers from the Nationals. Not one of the Nationals has come in and talked about this issue. Imagine if this was 20 years ago. Ronnie Boswell would have come bustling through those doors and he would have been the first one to speak about this, condemning One Nation and leading the charge for the Nationals in Australia to put One Nation last. Instead, we see a poor imitation representing the Nationals in the Senate chamber today. In Queensland, Senator Hanson had another go there. Let's be absolutely crystal clear. The current state secretary, Evan Moorhead, has put out a statement saying it was absolute nonsense. That was the statement from the former secretary. As his predecessor, I am sure he has got big shoes to fill but he has now put out a statement denying that any discussion like that took place.

What we have seen in this chamber on this Matter of Public Importance is a good effort by the Liberals to avoid speaking about the key point—that is, the federal Liberals, led by John Howard, took the principled position to put One Nation last and they advocated that across all their state and federal branches. That was what the leader John Howard did when he was Prime Minister. What we now see is a decision by the Western Australian Liberals to do a deal with One Nation. We have seen nothing similar from the federal Liberals in the House of Reps or in the Senate. That is how far this discussion has come. The Nationals are just a poor imitation of what we saw all those years ago.

Let's compare the debate inside the coalition compared to where they were 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, they debated whether to put One Nation last with the eventual decision that they would. Whereas now we have the current day Liberal Party arguing not about whether they would be placed last but whether they would be placed ahead of the Nationals. The emerging issue from this decision by the Western Australian Liberals is the leadership tension that is on display within the Liberals and the Nationals.

One of the first people to come out and talk about this was the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott. He said that the Nationals should always be above One Nation in Liberal preferences—just to ingratiate himself with the Nationals in any forthcoming leadership dramas. But what we have seen from the federal Liberals has been a really disappointing effort today.

Queensland in particular should know better. We are really proud within the Queensland Labor Party of the stance that we took on One Nation. Senator Hanson mentioned Peter Beattie. He was the first one to say as a matter of principle that One Nation would be last on our how-to-vote cards. That led to him becoming Premier in 1998 and it was a stance that he maintained while he was there. Queensland Labor has always maintained that view. Indeed, at the recent state conference held on the Gold Coast last year, I moved a motion that One Nation be placed last on all how-to-vote cards at the upcoming state election. That was some months ago. That is something we stick to now and that is something that is an article of faith for the Labor Party in Queensland. We are proud of our role in defeating One Nation in Queensland and we will double our efforts at the state and federal elections in the coming months.

But when you do a deal like the One Nation Party and the Liberals have, you have to own it. That is the problem for Senator Hanson; she has not owned it. What that means is that they are helping to re-elect the Barnett government. What are the consequences of that? The consequences will be more debt—I am sure Senator Roberts would be greatly concerned about that—and the privatisation of the electricity assets in Western Australia. The deal that One Nation has done will make it more likely that those things will occur. That is actually what that means. And we will see similar result as this relationship develops at the federal election. We are already seeing harsher industrial relations laws. We are already seeing support for more cuts to welfare and we are seeing attacks on the social safety net including Medicare. This is what we are seeing when One Nation and the LNP vote together.

The reality is that when it comes to the Liberal Party, this is a poor imitation compared to 20 years ago led by a Prime Minister who is just a shell with no policy beliefs. He is a leader who is willing to trash his own brand to cling to power. (Time expired)

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

The time for this debate has now expired.