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

I think it is fair to say this is a debate that has brought out some pretty high passions in this chamber and some very, very strong views that are held by different people. I know people have said things they may later regret. I note that Senator Rhiannon earlier today made the observation that there are two Senator Stephen Conroys: there is a decent, reasonable, likeable Senator Conroy and there is an angry one. I think we in this chamber all know which one of those claims was defamatory and which one of those claims none of us believe to be true.

On a serious note, the real issue here needs to be the debate around the rushed process. Let us be honest and let us be fairly frank here: there are going to be different views in this chamber and there are going to be passionately held different views on what is the best way of reforming Senate voting structures. There are people, like myself, who have spent a lot of time thinking about this and who have strong views on this. I note that people like Senator Rhiannon and others also have very strong views on this. I will even acknowledge that they come from a very genuine place.

Part of my issue with this is that the rushed process that is now being implemented means that we do not have the opportunity to have the public debate that will allow the difference in these views to be explored. I believe that there are better ways of reforming the Senate. I believe in setting a threshold. The journalist Ross Gittins outlined some ideas quite eloquently this morning in an opinion piece about setting minimum thresholds and about party registration being something else that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has looked at. I think they are good points and they should be part of this debate. I do not believe that having a half-day sham inquiry is the best process for allowing us to air what are some very different views and for allowing the best policy outcome.

You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see that an agreement appears to have been reached between the government and the Greens political party on this issue. That clearly seems to be the case. I am not sure I can understand why that would necessarily relate to the urgency of the bill being passed in this way and the implementation being as it is. If this is a good piece of legislation and if this is the right thing to do by the nation—as those who favour it will argue—then surely they would be open to some scrutiny and surely they would be open to public debate. I note that Senator Cormann said earlier today that there wasn't an intention by the government to rush this bill and there wasn't an intention by the government to gag or put it on for a vote this week—and so the Senate would have some time to look at it. If that is the case, then I do not understand the urgency of having the committee report in the next two days. It does not allow a proper, detailed and longer implementation process.

We all know that once you are a senator in this place and you have had a chance to interact with different departments people from departments tend to talk to you. They tend to tell you bits and piece. You may call them whistleblowers—you may call them what you will—but they give you some information. It is a bit interesting that it appears, from what I have been told, that this was legislation was not drafted by PM&C but was drafted out of the Department of Finance. We will have a committee process that will give us an opportunity to work out whether that is true or not. If it has been drafted by the Department of Finance, and the sources and the people who have spoken to me have spoken correctly, then that, perhaps, explains why there are already eight amendments that need to be passed through the House because the bill was so poorly written and because it was so rushed. It was not done the way it should have been done or done through the proper processes.

In an attempt to fix what is a legitimate concern—that we have a better, more democratic and more representative Senate—that without proper scrutiny we are going to allow the changes that are being made and the rules that we are setting to simply be given a political fix to what is a legitimate concern. The legitimate concern is this: we want to have a Senate that is representative. We want to have a Senate that is fair. We want a Senate voting system that is fair. I do not believe that these changes achieve this. I hear Senator Simms sitting there and having a laugh. Senator Simms, I am sure it may be all a joke for some senators and it may be a bit of a laugh—