Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

This journey started in 2013; the journey started before I arrived in this place and I am about to have my second birthday. The journey involved tens of hours of hearings all over the country, open to anybody who wanted to make a contribution. In fact, 216 Australian individuals and organisations made detailed contributions to this question about the effects of the last federal election. It goes all the way back to May 2013. Were the Labor Party excluded from this? No, they were not. In fact, three of their biggest guns—the Hon. Senator Faulkner, Gary Gray and Alan Griffin from that other place—had been intrinsically involved in this due process for over two years. I was on this committee as a voting member; I sat through all the hearings up until all the recommendations went to government. I might say that these three gentlemen made a fine and thoughtful contribution, but let's not worry about them. There have been mass executions in this place in the last 72 hours—there have been heads rolling in the hallways and people have been expunged from the committee after 2½ years. They have been completely annihilated. It would not surprise me to see their names rubbed off the parliamentary website if Labor gets the chance.

Let's have a look at what the Labor Party's own contribution, which led to the unanimous report that was brought down in this place and that underpins the legislation we are about to debate. This contribution was made by none other than George Wright, who was at the time of the contribution the National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party. Over the last couple of days we have heard Senator Conroy suggest that Gary Gray was toddling around not reflecting the position of the Australian Labor Party and we have heard reflections on Senator Faulkner today. For goodness sake, the Labor Party is turning on Senator Faulkner—devouring a senator who has left this place and is not in a position to defend his contribution to these evolutionary changes. I am certain if he were here he would not be shut down by this current ALP machinery in the Senate.

Let's go to the contribution from the ALP national secretariat—this is not a piece of paper which fell off a truck; this is a public document which can be found in the ALP's submission to the inquiry. It was this opposition's contribution to the evolution of what we now know as the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016. They make the point:

The ALP has consistently supported the maximisation of the franchise and the election of representatives that reflect the true intention of the voters.

That goes to the heart of the contribution that they have made over the last 2 ½ years or almost 3 years. It continues:

Following the 2013 federal election ALP is supportive of the JSCEM investigating the system of Senate elections.

So they are supportive of it. This document is dated 24 April 2014—we are well into the inquiry by this time, where a lot of evidence has been taken and many submissions considered. They had the whole body of evidence, but here is my favourite bit:

While not wishing to discourage genuine and new participants in the democratic process, it is clear that the current requirements around party registration and nomination are not proving a sufficient filter to discourage or eliminate those candidates whose objective is to game the current system—

To game the current system!—

and achieve Senate results which do not reflect the true intentions of the voters.

There are two clear words in there—the word 'game', to remain faithful to the document, and the word 'clear'.

They did not use the word 'ambiguous' or 'vague' or 'unclear' or 'abstruse' or 'equivocal' or 'uncertain', 'indefinite', 'confusing', 'indistinct', 'hazy', 'woolly', 'perplexing', 'baffling', 'mystifying', 'bewildering', 'bemusing', 'befuddling' or 'complicated'—they used the word 'clear', C-L-E-A-R. 'Clear' is normally associated with the word transparency, which is what this document is all about. This bill is all about introducing complete transparency, to the best of our ability, for those folk voting to choose who might represent them in this place, particularly in the Senate. Why would anyone not want complete transparency? I will invent some parties so that I do not offend any party—it is not directed at anyone. No, let me offend someone. If someone was voting for the anti marijuana party, what would they think if their vote went through four or five or six or seven sets of grubby hands only to settle on the pro marijuana party, leaving the power of their vote in a place that they would find abhorrent, in a place that was the exact opposite of their intention when they put pen to paper? That is exactly what happens.

The argument has been put forward that these minor parties need to do these deals so that they can get together and bring some, I suppose, Independents, some points of difference, to this chamber. But to do that ought they not take the time to consider the matter properly? All of the evidence we have heard suggests that this did not happen—they have taken this chattel, the property of the voter, but did they consult the voter? Did they even make some attempt to determine where the voter might be comfortable with their preference going? No, they did not. This is just a simple game of political monopoly—nothing more, nothing less. The value of the vote—this most important chattel, this constitutional right—has been traded off through six or seven hands. It looks like the wrong end of a school lunch, with all the paper crumpled up and greasy and no-one knows who has had their hands on it. It eventually puts someone in this place who was not in the mind of the voter, but they arrive here with the fuel of that vote in their tank.

There are so many parts of the latest submission that I would like to read, but of course I do not have the time. I want to leave everyone with the same thought: clear and transparent. That is what they wanted when they accepted the unanimous bipartisan report and now for some reason, almost overnight, we now find them taking the opposite position. It is hypocrisy on steroids. (Time expired)