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

Senator Ludwig is dead right there—he has known me for a long time. To be serious for a moment—and I find that difficult to do too—the point is that these questions have been under consideration now for almost three years. It is coming up for its birthday in May. I know this because I have participated in the process; I have represented the interests of the National Party on the committee as it considered these very difficult questions, some of which arose as a result of occurrences in the last federal election. I listened to Senator Muir for whom I have very high regard—I was one of the first people in this place to go out and speak positively about Senator Muir. I thought in the weeks and months leading up to his arrival here that he was treated very unfairly. I am qualified to speak to Senator Muir, because he has been criticised for working in a sawmill and now is in the Senate. I too have worked in a sawmill and a dozen other jobs of that nature, and that does not disqualify anybody. One's background does not disqualify anyone from being in this place.

As I have listened to the contributions, particularly from the Australian Labor Party, I have not heard the word 'voter' used once. Not once have they mentioned it; not once have they talked about the issue of transparency or fairness in the electoral process—it has not come into their conversation. I should not mislead the Senate and so I withdraw that and will qualify what I have said. I have heard those terms used by Senator Faulkner before he left this place, by Mr Gray and Mr Griffin and I heard them used while sitting through dozens and dozens of hours of inquiries that we conducted all over this great nation on this very vexed question. They talk about urgency. In almost three years and after dozens and dozens of hours of sitting and listening to contributions by anybody who wanted to make a contribution—if that is urgency, then we are in a lot of trouble.

The fact is that the committee took the time to invite and then to consider 216 submissions. I like quite a number of the crossbenchers and opposition senators, but I have to admit that I do not like some of them at all. None of them attended any of the meetings I was at, and I suspect that I was at them all. They never attended a meeting—not once did they joined us on the journey as we looked at this vexed question of introducing fairness and transparency into the electoral process. I am full of admissions tonight—but, being a retired detective, there was a whole phase of my life to be very careful about making any sort of admission—and I must admit to this: rather than listen to those whose contribution might have suited my year, I focused on those whose contributions might not suit my ear. I found myself drawn into the argument being made by the Australian Labor Party, because it made sense.

Some of the ALP's submission made sense to me. I read it—I will not revisit my contribution from last night—but I will bet you London to a brick that many of those on the other side have not read their own party's submission. That submission is proving to be completely inconvenient to them today—in fact it is embarrassing to them. Sometimes I hang my head because I feel the deep embarrassment which visits upon you with this particular subject matter. You made a submission through your party, and I imagine that was approved, then you put some of your luminaries onto the committee to make their contribution—Mr Gray, Mr Griffin and Senator Faulkner, all wise men. As I listen to them, my ear became attuned to what they had to say; I was drawn to their arguments that it was clear that this process needed to be revamped. Clear—C-L-E-A-R. There was no ambiguity or confusion or qualification about what they had to say. They said it was clear. I must admit I do not spend a lot of time poring over contributions from the Labor Party, but I did on this occasion. I was drawn to their argument. I thought it met the tests of fairness and equity with changes that needed to happen in the electoral system, particularly in Senate voting.

Here we are now, three birthdays on, 1,000 days down, and what does the Labor Party do at the eleventh hour? They knock the noggin off all the reasonable contributors and replace them with the four Cs from the Labor Party. When you see the four Cs come in the room, you know there is a fix on. (Time expired)