Consideration of Legislation: 25 Aug 2021: Senate debates (OpenAustralia.org)

Senate debates

Wednesday, 25 August 2021

Business

Consideration of Legislation

9:32 am

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Bill 2021

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021.

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

[by video link] I rise to speak on what is once again an abuse of democratic process. The government—sadly, with the full support of the opposition—is proposing to ram through three electoral bills in the shadow of an election, in a feeble attempt to shore up its own grip on power. There's a reason the votes for the big parties are the lowest in history. It's because the community are sick of being put last after the interests of the big corporate donors that seem to run the show in both the Liberal and National parties and the Labor Party.

What we have here is a proposal to ram through electoral legislation that hasn't even passed the House yet and to exempt it from the cut-off order, meaning the Senate would have to consider and deliberate on these bills in almost record time, with very little chance of scrutiny and debate. It's not surprising that the two big parties have ganged up to ram through this antidemocratic legislation, because the effect of one of these bills would be to make it harder for smaller political parties, particularly new political parties, to even nominate to make themselves available to be voted for at an election. Rather than having a contest of ideas and having the two big parties put themselves at the mercy of the public with some decent policies—which mightn't be a bad idea—the two big parties are ganging up to lock out new entrants to the political system.

As I said, it's no wonder that the votes for the two big parties are so low these days—they are at historic lows. Frankly, it's hard to tell them apart most of the time. Everybody knows that they don't put the interests of the public first. They put the interests of their donors and their future employers in various vested interest sectors first. It's not surprising, but it is still an absolute abomination that the two big parties are ganging up once again—like they so often do—to try to stitch up our electoral laws to shore up their own power. The bills they want to ram through without proper scrutiny, without a proper inquiry and without a proper debate—with a minuscule speakers list in the lower house, I understand—would restrict the ability of new parties to put themselves forward to be voted for. One of the reasons the government say they want to do this is that they want to make sure that small parties have the support of Australians. The way to check for support from Australians is at the ballot box. The fact that you want to eliminate other people even putting themselves forward just shows how feeble your grip on power is. Frankly, you should take a look at your own policy platform and the priorities that you put to the voting public if you're worried about your diminishing vote.

We will be opposing this exemption from the cut-off order. It is bad process, and it is bad process that is in aid of entrenching the two-party system—which I think, sadly, everybody's used to these days, but that still doesn't make it acceptable. You can't just treat the Senate and the parliament as a plaything. This is meant to be a house of review. We are meant to be doing a job to scrutinise legislation. The Greens and the crossbench want to do that job, but the Liberal and Labor parties are ganging up to ram through this legislation—legislation that conveniently will make it harder for competitors at the ballot box. I think this is rigging the rules in favour of the two big parties, who are clinging to diminishing power rather than actually revisiting their own priorities and putting the community, climate science and public interest first. Instead they want to lock out new parties and increase the number of members that have to belong to a political party. They don't want anyone using any name that even vaguely resembles anybody else's name. They just can't handle competition, because they know that their policy platforms are so mediocre that that's why their vote is diminishing. So the Greens will be opposing this exemption from the cut-off order. We don't believe that legislation should ever be rammed through—certainly not legislation that would benefit and entrench the two parties and diminish democracy right in the shadow of an upcoming election.

Honestly, just when you think it couldn't be any less safe to go in the water, this government and the flaccid opposition that seems to forget that it is an opposition once again deliver the goods.

9:37 am

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source