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

The duplicity of the Labor Party knows no bounds. It was the Labor Party that introduced into Queensland legislation that took away from people the right to vote. No matter what posturing some of the opposition speakers might do they cannot escape from the fact that it was the Australian Labor Party that introduced legislation that threatened councillors and councils with fines, and councillors with jail, should they have the temerity to even request a poll on the future of their particular local authority.

The duplicity of the Labor Party continues. The Queensland Labor Party is one group of people. It is a group of people that elect the members to the state parliament, and it is the Premier of the day who chooses his advisers. I well remember when a Mr Kevin Rudd was the principal adviser to the Queensland Premier and got us into all sorts of messes with health, water and betting and gambling, but the duplicity now is that they are all moving to the other side. You only have to have a look at the minority report of the Australian Labor Party senators on the inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Administration into this bill before us, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007, to see again the duplicity of the Labor Party. In one of the paragraphs in the Labor Party’s report, they claim that they support this bill, but, if you read their report, you understand that they are obviously only doing that—they hate the thought of doing it; they hate the thought of denying their Queensland colleagues—because the focus groups that so much direct the federal Labor Party these days gave an indication of the outrage of Queenslanders over the undemocratic legislation of Mr Beattie.

The report, in an abject insult to everyone that came to give evidence at the inquiry, said:

Many witnesses appeared to be under the misapprehension that the committee could adjudicate on local government amalgamations ...

That is simply an insult to all of the witnesses that came along. All of the witnesses understood what this was about. They understood without equivocation that the federal government could not do anything about amalgamations. In fact, the federal government does not have a view about amalgamations. I do, but the federal government does not, and to suggest that the people who came to give evidence did not understand what they were giving evidence about is an outrage to them and an insult of the highest degree.

The minority report on this bill suggests that government senators were trying to foster in witnesses’ minds uncertainty about Labor support for this bill. Hang on—it was the Queensland Labor Party that actually introduced, enforced and rammed through the Queensland parliament the bill denying Queenslanders the right to have a vote. The minority report says:

Labor Senators commend witnesses who rejected repeated attempts by government Senators to elicit responses to contrived lines of questioning.

That is simply fanciful. The Labor members must have been asleep. It says that Labor:

... regret the belligerent questioning by government Senators of expert witnesses who questioned the constitutional validity ...

I certainly questioned one of the so-called expert witnesses, a so-called professor of law—heaven forbid—and some of his propositions simply would not make elements of ‘Law 101’. I was surprised at his approach. I do not think I was belligerent. I did as any lawyer or former lawyer, as is my case, might do: I tried to elucidate the strange argument that he had.

The minority report then goes on to criticise the Department of Finance and Administration for not giving more evidence and not being available. As I recall—and I was at the meeting on the last day when the AEC and the department appeared—the questions to them were pretty limited. I am sure we finished early. So for the Labor Party to suggest in this duplicitous minority report that there was not time simply belies the facts. Labor senators were there—or were they? I know a few of them had flitted off and did not seem to have much interest in it. But those that were there had the opportunity to question people.