Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Hansard source

For a moment there, when Senator Reynolds talked about 'putting our shoes on', I thought she was going to announce a double-D date, but, unfortunately, that did not happen. Before I start my contribution on this matter of public importance, submitted by Senator Day, about the contradictions between the Liberals, the Nationals, the Greens and Senator Xenophon's policies and voting records and their cooperation on radical electoral changes, I want to talk a little more about the contribution by Senator Reynolds. First of all, she talked about the fact that there was a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report with recommendations about changes to the electoral system. She is quite right. That was a number of years ago and nothing happened at all. She talked about the fact that preference dealing is done by backroom operators. That is quite laughable when you come to realise that the very bill we will be dealing with in this place in the days to come has been created in a backroom deal by Senator Xenophon, the Greens and the coalition. It is just laughable to come in here and talk about backroom deals when Senator Reynolds has been a part of one done on this bill.

At the inquiry that was held today into this bill, the Australian Electoral Commission said they had been in discussions about the bill. I stand to be corrected, but my memory of the evidence that was given today in the inquiry was that the AEC said they had been in discussions about the proposed legislation from 11 February 2016—not years ago. This bill does not include the recommendations from JSCEM. The government have picked out bits and pieces, cherry-picking what they want, and the rest is left out. They have chosen bits that will help them with their Senate representation in this place and they have left other bits out—including some very important parts of the JSCEM report.

It is also important to realise that the Turnbull-Greens deal, as I have been saying, is not in line with the JSCEM recommendations. To come in here and suggest that somehow it is, and to suggest that the inquiry we had this morning was about transparency and scrutiny, really beggars belief, because that is not the case—and the coalition do not think that it is. They will stand up in here and say, 'Yes, there was a JSCEM report.' They will not say it is not the actual JSCEM report that is reflected in the bill. They will talk about transparency and scrutiny. They know there has been no transparency or scrutiny and they know it is all about a backroom deal done with the Australian Greens—I assume through their representative, Senator Rhiannon—and with Senator Xenophon. The fact is that the AEC were unable to answer a number of questions that were put to them at this morning's inquiry, and the coalition has refused to put the Department of Finance forward to answer some of these questions.

The matter of public importance that we are discussing states:

The contradictions between Liberal, National, Greens Party and Nick Xenophon's policies and voting records, and their co-operation on radical electoral changes.

When we look at the matter before us, it is no understatement to say that this is a strange group of bedfellows. Surely, those who are listening to this discussion or are present today and support the Greens must be left wondering. If Senator Di Natale's Greens are willing to support the government on this, what else will they do a deal with the Liberals on? Surely, the Nationals voters are equally concerned about what the Liberals might be willing to trade away to secure the Greens' support going forward. We know that these strange bedfellows have had very divergent policies and agendas on a number of issues, but, surely, now we must wonder what any of them stand for. Their actions in this matter suggest that they stand for little but their own political interest—because, in this case, it is not what distinguishes these strange bedfellows but what unites them that defines them. What unites them on the issue of Senate voting reforms is political convenience. The deal that the government has struck with the Greens and Senator Xenophon has nothing to do with principles and policies and everything to do with power and political expediency.

The real test of what the Greens and Senator Xenophon stand for will not be their voting records but rather how they vote on amendments that Labor proposes to make to the voting reform bill to enhance transparency around political donations. A few minutes ago, the following motion was moved in this chamber at the request of my colleague Senator Collins:

That the Senate supports the following reforms to the regulation of political donations:

(a)   a donation disclosure threshold of $1,000;

(b)   a ban on overseas donations;

(c)   a $50 cap on anonymous donations; and

(d)   action to prevent donation splitting that avoids disclosure obligations.

Regardless of what Senator Ryan said in his short statement to the chamber, disclosure amendments put forward have always been opposed by the coalition. It will be interesting to see what the Greens and Senator Xenophon will be doing on these amendments, because, as I understand it—and I can stand corrected—supposedly it is the policy of the Greens and Senator Xenophon to lower thresholds, ban overseas donations, cap anonymous donations and deal with donation splitting. Of course, that would result in a more transparent electoral donations system—something that is actually good for our democracy. It is real reform, not the product of a backroom deal. Labor will move to reduce the donations disclosure threshold, as I have said. We will also move amendments to cover those tasks that arise from the motion moved by Senator Collins.