Senate debates

Tuesday, 1 March 2016

Bills

Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016; First Reading

12:38 pm

Photo of Jacinta CollinsJacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

Eighty-five per cent, he claims, are represented—and once again he is trying to hide behind Gary Gray. Now, you might try this sort of glib language, Senator Cormann, but it does not deny the facts. The facts are what we have had before us on this committee. The facts are that you will not even let the Department of Finance appear. It makes your arguments look ludicrous. The facts are that the most basic thing with a bill, which is its explanatory memorandum, does not explain why you have chosen not to fully implement those recommendations. Add to that that you also have commentators watching this debate and saying: 'We predict ultimately they will. We suspect that this was part of their original ambit, that the Greens naively just accepted it and that eventually the crossbenchers will force them to make those further concessions.' But on top of that the other witnesses today were saying, 'Oh, we just don't think they really know what they're doing here.'

Let me spend a few minutes highlighting some of the points that were made in today's hearing. I am sure we will get an opportunity to go back to them in the further debates on this matter. Let us have a look at what was highlighted in today's hearing in the very, very limited time available and, as I said, with the inability to even talk to the Department of Finance.

The AEC in their appearance confirmed that they require a minimum of three months to implement the changes. They need three months—and let me confirm this for every senator—after the bill passes, so a further three months. This is why the government were criticised, not by the AEC here but by other witnesses before the inquiry, for doing nothing for two years. They failed to act for two years. They were criticised for pushing through reform now in the way that they are currently proceeding. They were criticised for cherry picking recommendations which undermine their argument for urgently passing the legislation. They were criticised for not implementing the model that was recommended by JSCEM. Antony Green, for instance, confirmed that under this model the Greens would have lost a seat in South Australia at the last election and that the coalition winning a majority of seats would be more likely in a double dissolution.

Again, we are back to: why are we having this rush, and why is the Prime Minister being so reckless in proceeding this way? I know I have this debate from time to time with other senators about how reckless Mr Turnbull is, and I often like to remind senators of the experience we had with the Prime Minister when he was previously the Leader of the Opposition and his behaviour with Mr Godwin Grech. I had a fair mind at the start of his prime ministership to accept that he might have learnt through that process, but the way he is recklessly proceeding here highlights that he has not learnt. He has not learnt to allow appropriate scrutiny and to run his case for his policies. Instead, we see the government hiding.

We hear concerns that the legislation the government wants to put through this chamber will maximise the number of senators elected by the major parties, such as the Liberal Party, and established minor parties such as the Greens and the Nick Xenophon team. We hear that it will exhaust preferences early so Independents and so-called microparties are deprived of votes. Its object is to prevent new players from entering the Senate, thereby entrenching the electoral dominance of the existing players. The principal beneficiary of this new voting system will be the Liberal Party, which traditionally receives the highest primary vote, bolstered by its coalition partners, the Nationals.

The Greens need to think very carefully about what this means for the composition of the Senate, particularly over a couple of electoral cycles. The only reason the Liberal Party are pushing this bill is that they see it as the best chance of translating their high primary vote into lasting political dominance in the Senate and, over time, a Senate majority in their own right. Let me say that again to the Greens: think very carefully about what that will mean. We often hear from the Greens that they are concerned about gagging debate. I am pleased to see that the government has not been able to proceed this week in the way it originally highlighted, because it does give me an opportunity, again through the amendment I will move, to ensure that there is more time to carefully consider these matters.

As I indicated earlier, the last time the government had a Senate majority we ended up with Work Choices. Even back then the deals that were done about proper legislative scrutiny were more generous than what has happened with this electoral matters committee. Even the committee consideration of the Work Choices legislation—and we criticised that at the time—had the relevant department appear. We were critical about the amount of time involved for what was very complex, detailed and lengthy legislation but we at least had an opportunity to question the relevant department.

On this occasion the committee has been nobbled in a way I have never seen before. Indeed, if my amendment today succeeds, we will have an opportunity to recall the committee, call the department before us and have the department explain to us the government's thinking behind the way it has chosen to proceed with this bill and to provide more information than what was put by the government in the explanatory memorandum, which left unexplained the important issues that people who made submissions to our inquiry have already highlighted.

It was impossible to establish an inquiry without the support of the coalition when the government had control of the Senate after the 2004 election. The government could pass draconian legislation and changes through regulation and the Senate had no ability to exercise its powers of disallowance. Do you want that? I say to Greens senators: do you want to go back to the budget before last, because that is what this legislation will deliver? It will deliver an environment where the Senate will have no control in the long term to be a brake on government excess and to ensure that draconian legislation does not simply get a quick tick—in this case, we are not even able to scrutinise the department—and measures, such as the budget before last, are allowed to succeed.

I would be surprised if that were really what the Greens want, but equally I have been surprised at their cooperation with the government on how this committee would proceed. I am glad Senator Rhiannon is here because I want to run through the detail of this. Mr President, perhaps the detail will assist your understanding here as well. When we made recommendations about having an inquiry the Labor Party, through the scrutiny of bills process, indicated that we should call the department. We were overruled. We then in the committee sought to ensure that we could call the department. The committee voted us down.

The Greens were originally going to appear on today's program but then that changed, so I attended the next meeting when we were talking about the program. At that next meeting the chair was not even going to deal with the program. When I highlighted the point that the program was changing since now the Greens were not appearing and there would be more time so we could ask the department to appear, again I was simply ignored. Mr President, I know that you have worked in the role of Deputy President and Chairman of Committees and I know that you understand that this is not the way that committees should proceed, but this is how my rights as an individual senator and indeed as the opposition spokesperson on this matter have been dealt with on this occasion. I believe it is appalling. That is why I will be moving the amendment that has been circulated in my name to add at the end of the motion:

… "but, may not be further proceeded with until 12 May 2016."

In that motion I make the points I have already highlighted. There has not been proper consideration of this bill. We have the farcical example of the AEC saying to us, 'Senators, you would need to ask the department.' They came to us today unable to provide during this morning's hearing any detail about the government's rationale for proceeding the way they have with this bill. They were not able to apprise us as to why the explanatory memorandum did not explain the approach the government has taken in relation to below-the-line voting. They were not able to assist us to assess the submissions made to us by witnesses or people who provided submissions, highlighting that no-one can find that rationale. All they can find is glib statements by Senator Cormann—'This is what Gary Gray agreed to.' I am sorry, Senator Cormann, but the Labor Party have processes that determine what our party position is, and I represent that party position here. No glib references such as that can be used to apologise for your failure to make the policy case in relation to this legislation. This is, as was suggested before us today by one of the witnesses, a dirty deal. What we have before us is simply a dirty deal.

Let me see what else was said today. George Williams suggested that this is simply 'incoherent'. It is incoherent because the government are providing little information and no proper scrutiny. They should be ashamed of themselves. I move:

At the end of the motion, add, "but, may not be further proceeded with until 12 May 2016."

Comments

No comments