Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent a bill for an act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and for related purposes being presented immediately and a motion being moved for the second reading of the bill.

The reason the government is moving this motion today is that we are determined to give the Electoral Commission the necessary time to be able to implement changes to the Senate voting system, well in advance of when an election is due in the second half of 2016. As members would be well aware, there was a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report in April 2014, which was a unanimous report. In fact, Gary Gray, the retiring member for Brand, said that if the recommendations of the report were not implemented that the parliament would be letting down its responsibility to future generations. Since that time, the government has gone through an exhaustive consultative process with a large number of people, in both Houses, to ensure that what is put forward to the parliament has a general consensus. But, of course, as is often the requirement of this parliament, we intend to have a full examination of that bill by the Joint Standing Committee on Election Matters between now and mid-next week, in order to give the parliament an opportunity to examine the aspects of the bill.

This should be non-controversial reform because the bill that will soon be introduced by the Treasurer, on behalf of the Special Minister of State, Senator Cormann, effectively implements the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Election Matters and has, at its core, that the preferences of an individual voter should be determined by the individual voter rather than by registered groups or individual voting tickets. As we have seen over the years, there has been a tendency for some political parties and individuals to game the political system. What this government wants to do, and we hope the Senate will agree, is to put the power over people's preferences back in the hands of the individual voter.

The reason why the standing order should be suspended at this particular time is that in order for the bill both to be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to be considered by that standing committee and then to be passed through this House and then Senate it needs to be introduced today. That will allow the chamber the opportunity to debate the bill this week. It is certainly not the government's intention to rush this bill through the parliament, but after a debate this week we would expect to pass the bill this week and have it go into the Senate so that the Senate can consider it in due course, according to its own schedule.

This has been the subject of exhaustive discussion since before April 2014. Nobody could suggest that somehow the government has sprung this on the Australian public or the parliament, because it has been discussed since before April 2014. It has been the subject of a unanimous Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report. In fact, I think the distinguished current Speaker was the chairman of that particular inquiry. Now, the time has come to introduce the bill, to act on the committee's recommendations and to give the public the opportunity to express its own preferences through our very democratic preference system, that is the envy of many democracies around the world—in fact, the envy of many countries around the world—rather than being decided by group or individual registered-voting tickets.

I am very pleased to see the member for Brand in the House today—and I note his recent announcement that he intends to retire from this parliament—because he was a key driver of these reforms in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I know the member for Brand has been a strong advocate and supporter of reform of the Senate voting system. I am pleased to see that the Treasurer is here in the House, because once the suspension of standing orders is carried the Treasurer will introduce the bill and then introduce the motion to refer the matter to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Given the arrival of all relevant parties, I will curtail my remarks.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By the concession of the Leader of the House, that was a speech with no purpose at all other than to wait for others to arrive and we thank him for it. He performed it valiantly!

I think it was significant when he said that the Treasurer is going to be the one introducing this legislation, because what we see with the legislation that will be presented shortly—and we are not going to oppose this suspension of standing orders; they will be able to introduce their bill and we will go through the normal processes—is that a Treasurer who has no plans for policy can stand up and move a bill about politics. A government that has no plans for the economy has plans for one issue only, and that is the voting system. That says everything about those opposite, that we have a government where the Treasurer could spend 46 minutes at the National Press Club and at the end of it nobody knew what he said. But he comes in here, and if it is about votes and how votes are counted, then he understands that and he will have a bill for that. But if it is about jobs—nothing. If it is about the economy—nothing. So long as it is about the voting system it raises the interest of the Treasurer. He will rush in here and introduce a bill.

Mr Nikolic interjecting—

He will announce more policy in introducing a bill in someone else's portfolio than he did for three-quarters of an hour before the National Press Club in what was meant to be a prepared speech. It is an extraordinary situation, that the state of economic leadership in this country is such that the Treasurer of Australia has nothing to say about his own job. The only thing that will get him to rise to his feet in this parliament is to talk about how votes are counted.

Well, those on the backbench know how much he was doing on how votes would be counted in their own party room. Those on the backbench know all too well the obsession of this Treasurer on the internal machinations of the Liberal Party. I do appreciate it that the moment I talk about the Treasurer's role on the internal machinations and have a go at him on that, the member for Bass stops interjecting against me! I appreciate that. You could not shut him up a minute ago when he was wanting to defend where they were on the economy, but the moment it is the internals of this government, at the moment it is the fact that those opposite spend every waking hour arguing about each other's jobs and not a moment on the jobs of the rest of Australia—spend every chance they can fighting each other for the spoils of government—well. That is what they want to do.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tell that to Rudd and Gillard!

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do not forget for one minute—as the member for Bass would love us to—the charade we have seen going through: every time this parliament meets there is a new line-up on their frontbench. Every time they come up, we think there is an eject seat down on the corner there! I want to see the new seating plan, as to who is there, because sitting a few seats behind is the former Prime Minister, who at any point can leak to the media and press the ejector button on whoever is down there in the corner! Those who get put down there today for the first time for question time would want to know that they are in the spots where the clock is always ticking.

The job that is there for the Treasurer of Australia is an important one. He actually took the job on the basis that we were told his predecessor was not providing economic leadership. That is his whole reason for being. The point of the Turnbull government was meant to be to provide economic leadership. And what do we find all this time later? Nearly six months later? It is waffle! It is waffle, and the gap between what this government says and what it ends up doing could not be wider.

The previous Prime Minister had a bad plan, but at least he had a plan. Those opposite now have no idea what they are doing: watch their own members struggling to keep interested in the Treasurer at the National Press Club as he went after platitude after platitude in a speech that would not even stand up at a branch meeting in Cronulla! It would not even stand up before the party faithful as anything of substance, and yet when he gets his platform to speak before the National Press Club waffle is all he has.

I want to see the situation later today, where we give the Treasurer another go at a 46-minute speech. Let's give him a go a bit later and see if over the weekend he has developed a policy. See if over the weekend the Treasurer has decided that he has a single idea for the future of the economy. A single idea! He used to have an idea—the idea that they used to have was called the GST. The argument that they used to want to have: they used to come into this chamber and say, 'Oh, if you oppose the GST it means you're not at the debate! You're not part of the whole debate! You're just not in there—you've just got no courage!'

What happens at the first moment of some murmurings from their own backbench that they are worried about their own jobs and their own seats? The Treasurer backs off. The Treasurer runs a mile from it. Why? Because what is the one thing that will get this mob to change their minds on any policy? Is it whether it has an impact on the jobs of Australians? Is it whether it has an impact on jobs in manufacturing, jobs in Whyalla, defence contracts in South Australia? That is not what will get this mob moving. They are interested in the jobs that are determined by ballot in their own party room or in their own preselections, and that is as far as their policy goes. That is as far as their interest goes.

I feel for the Treasurer. He got up to the National Press Club—

Opposition members interjecting—

No, I do—because they had him speaking on the wrong topic. He turned up to the National Press Club, and they said he was going to talk about the economy. The poor guy—he has never worked on the economy. It's not something that the Treasurer does! If they had done the decent thing and introduced the Treasurer and said he was going to talk about machinations within the Liberal Party, he would have had a speech to give. If they had said to him he was going to talk about reshuffles, he would have had a speech to give. He could have told us what happens in the next fortnight, because, when you lose 12 in six months, it means you are averaging one a fortnight. We get a new minister sworn in. That is where they are at the moment.

Mr Nikolic interjecting—

But this Treasurer has shown the total level of offence after his week from hell—last week—that he had. I would prefer we were suspending standing orders now to allow the Treasurer of Australia to say something about his portfolio. I would prefer we were suspending standing orders now to allow the Treasurer to say something about his job, which is managing the Australian economy. I would like, if he is going to criticise Labor's plans on reforming negative gearing and doing something about housing supply and housing affordability, to hear what his ideas are. I would like him, for a moment, to do his own job. I would like him, for a moment, to do the job that as Treasurer of Australia he is sworn to do.

Mr Nikolic interjecting—

Don't forget: he is not just part of a government that has been fighting with the opposition to get the Treasury benches. He fought with Joe Hockey to get to that job. He fought with the first two years of legacy of this government—the member for Bass is quiet again straightaway. You can turn him on and off like a clock, this guy! And the Treasurer is the symbol of just how bad the internal division is for those opposite. You will not get a bigger symbol of the division from those opposite than the fact that the first action a member of the executive takes when they come back to parliament is to suspend standing orders so they can talk about the voting rules. And the person who comes in to move the change—the person who they say is the most appropriate person to introduce a law about voting rules—is the Treasurer of Australia.

This is a government that has completely lost the way and a Treasurer who does not have a clue. We are happy to support the suspension of standing orders.

Question agreed to.