Senate debates
Tuesday, 23 February 2016
Matters of Public Importance
Election of Senators
4:04 pm
Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, Senators Day, Leyonhjelm and Moore each submitted letters in accordance with standing order 75, proposing a matter of public importance. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Day:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The rushed changes to voting laws that will extinguish senate diversity.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I understand that informal arrangements have been made for today’s debate in relation to speaking times. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
4:05 pm
Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Almost a year ago this Senate passed a motion welcoming the diversity of voices represented by minor parties and Independents in the Senate. The motion passed unanimously. Yesterday the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Greens and Nick Xenophon issued that same crossbench with a death warrant. Our days are now numbered. When we arrived here, what on earth were we thinking? Was it that we crossbenchers, with policies, loyal supporters and vision for the future, had the audacity to get elected and present a different point of view? No, you now need a big party machine and the nerve to shut the gate after you have got yourself in.
I came into this place with a policy priority of 'every family, a job and a house'. But it seems that none of this matters to a good number of people in this place as much as having the numbers and stitching up deals. There are no relationships, just transactions. I get it—this is what will happen from here on. We and the many allies we have outside this unholy Liberal-National-Greens-Xenophon alliance will tell the Australian public the truth. It is the truth about the cartel that now exists to disenfranchise millions of voters in the Senate. The Australian public will see this for what it is and will not be impressed. Mark my words, this will not end well for the Liberal Party or the nation.
4:07 pm
Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I want to make a few points in relation to why Senate voting reform is important and why the tenor of this MPI is wrong. I have the greatest respect for Senator Day and for many of my crossbench colleagues and indeed for some in the opposition, but I want to make a few points.
What is fundamentally wrong with the system at the moment is not who was elected at the last election, nor fundamentally even how many primary votes they got—though I will comment on that. What is fundamentally wrong with our system at the moment is that the people do not deliberately choose who represents them. The people do not choose where their preferences go, because the vast, vast bulk of Australians do not know where their preferences go.
Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Well, they do not know where their preferences go, and this is the fundamental problem. What the Labor Party and some on the crossbench are saying to us today is that the Australian people cannot be trusted to choose where their preferences go. I take a different view. I think the Australian people should have the choice to vote for whomever they choose, and it should not be a system that makes it virtually impossible for them to choose that, and it certainly should not be a system that leads to a virtual lottery as to who is actually elected.
I will give an example. A lot has been made of Senator Muir and the low primary vote. Well, I do not care about the low primary vote. I think Senator Muir is a decent bloke. But I say that the voting system that got Senator Muir elected is a lot like a lottery. Senator Muir happens to be a decent fellow, who I think does his best to represent his state, but it could just as easily have been, when you look at the list of votes at that election, the Australian Sex Party; it could have been The WikiLeaks Party, the Shooters and Fishers Party, the Animal Justice Party or the Help End Marijuana Prohibition party, all of whom got more primary votes. Going down the list, it could have been Katter's Australia's Party, the Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party, the Australian Independents, the Senator On-Line, the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics, Bullet Train For Australia or Drug Law Reform Australia, all of whom were getting half a per cent or less. If they were to get half a per cent and get preferences from people deliberately, in a preferential system there would be nothing fundamentally wrong with that. But what happens at the moment in our system is that people who voted for the Australian Stable Population Party do not know whether their preferences are going to elect the Sex Party or the Family First Party or the Pirate Party. They should have that choice. It should not be a lottery. It should not be the luck of the draw on the ballot paper and where you end up when the preferences start being distributed.
There was stuff put out, I think, before the last election saying: 'If you vote for the WikiLeaks party there is a good chance that you can end up voting for the Nationals,' and 'Vote for the Palmer United Party and there is a good chance that your vote can end up electing the Greens,' and that is true. Many people who voted for Palmer would not have known that he was preferencing the Greens. Many people who voted for Bob Katter would not have known that he was preferencing the Greens and vice versa. People who were voting for the Greens would not have known that their votes were helping to elect someone who, on the face of it, would have been significantly ideologically different. What I say to the Senate and to the Australian people is that I want to see a system where Australian people choose who represents them in a genuine way, and at the moment that is not what is happening.
The Labor Party are particularly hypocritical and conflicted on this. We heard from Senator Dastyari, arguing against this and saying that it will disenfranchise people. This is a backroom dealer who is arguing for backroom deals. Let us be clear about that. These are backroom deals where no voter would know—even the most diligent voter who spends hours trying to get across it probably would not really know—where their preferences might end up. And, when we are talking about 20, 30, 50 or 100 preferences, they have absolutely no chance. Under the current system, if you are given the opportunity to vote below the line and you have to fill out 100, the fear, of course, is that there is a good chance that you will get it wrong—you will not order them all properly—and then your vote will not count. So most people—I think it is about 97 per cent—choose to vote above the line, and Senator Day says, 'That means you are delegating your preferences.' Well, yes: you are handing over control because you do not have much choice—you are not really given much choice—and then the deals get done, and you do not know where your preference goes.
Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Then change below the line!
Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Well, Senator Day, this is the issue here. We had a parliamentary committee that looked at this in detail.
Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It looked at it in detail—and this goes again to the Labor Party. The Labor Party are coming in here and saying—
Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
This is not the joint parliamentary report.
Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I think the Labor Party actually made a submission to that which is very, very similar to the legislation that is coming before the parliament. It is very, very similar. You know, optional preferential voting above the line is taking place in New South Wales and the sky has not fallen in. We have still seen people have their choices. What the Labor Party and some of the crossbenchers are saying is one of two things: either they think the Australian people cannot be trusted to choose their own preferences, or the Australian people simply are not smart enough and we should leave it to the political players to choose their preferences for them. I say: let us leave it to the wisdom of the Australian people.
People say this is about favouring one party or another. That is absolute rubbish because if it was about favouring one party then why was the Labor Party, and why were people like Gary Gray, so in favour of it, if it was about favouring one side of politics over another? In three years, or six years, or in future elections, who knows what the dynamics will be in relation to the party structure in this country? Who knows what parties of the left will arise? Who knows what parties of the rights will arise? From time to time it will benefit one party; it will diminish another. That is democracy. But fundamentally when you are looking at these kinds of reforms you should always err on the side of giving voters the choice rather than the backroom players. Fundamentally that is what Labor are going to be arguing against today and no doubt when the legislation comes to the parliament. They are going to be saying to the Australian people, 'No, you can't be trusted to choose where your second, third, fourth, 10th or 15th preference goes.'
I think people should be able to choose. I do not think they should have to preference every party. I think if there are 100 parties you should not have to. There are a lot of parties I have a fundamental opposition to, and I do not want to give them my preferences. I do not want my preferences to go anywhere near them. I could name some parties here, but I am not going to do that today. The reality is that Australians should be given that choice. If there is a party that you have an absolute objection to, they should not be getting any of your preferences.
That is the other great thing about a Senate voting reform which allows people not to preference certain parties whose views they might find obnoxious and objectionable. Under our current system, eventually they get some of those preferences at some point. You will be preferencing them. The best you can do is put them last, but you have to put another obnoxious one second last and another one third last. What I find particularly appealing about this reform is that you would not have to give any of those parties that you have a fundamental objection to a preference. You can preference just the one party. You can preference 10 parties, and it will be the parties that match your philosophy and that you believe are doing a good job.
The Labor Party and some of the crossbenchers are going to say to us that the lottery that we have at the moment where Australians do not know where their preferences go is better. They are going to say that the current system is better and that the Australian people cannot be trusted to do the right thing. We have heard that it will lead to all sorts of informal voting. The reality with the way that this has been structured is that it will not lead to informal voting because, if people vote the same way they always have, it will still count.
But Australians can also follow the instructions that they will be given by the Electoral Commission which will encourage them to number from one to six. In that case, at least the top six choices of that individual will be preferenced. Surely that is fair. The Labor Party and some of the crossbenchers seem to have no confidence in the Australian people's judgement. I have confidence that sometimes they will favour the coalition and sometimes they will reject our policies when they believe we have gotten it wrong. That is democracy, and this reform would actually improve our democracy.
4:17 pm
Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I have fundamental issues with the legislation as it has been proposed. My issues with it stem from the fact that, frankly, from what I can see, what we have here is an electoral gerrymander masquerading as transparency and reform. It is a predetermined outcome with a model built and retrofitted to achieve that. Let's be clear: the coalition and the Greens got into bed together and asked, 'How do we wipe out the minor parties?' Then they built a model to achieve that. Then they created a set of arguments to justify that. If this was real, serious reform, if this was actually about what it purports to be about, we would not be having a one-week inquiry to look at the biggest changes in Senate voting structures since 1984. These would be the biggest changes in 31 years.
I believe the Senate is a better place because of its diversity of views. I believe the Senate is a better place because there are so many different views being expressed here. A lot of them are views that I do not agree with. Someone like Senate Day and I have little to nothing in common when it comes to policy positions, but the fact that there is someone advocating positions that are different to my own I do not think weakens this institution. I believe it strengthens it.
Fundamentally when you have this type of system, these kinds of changes mean—and let's not pussyfoot around this; let's be honest about what this is going to result in—there will be only three parties in this chamber and perhaps occasionally a Senator Xenophon. This is the behaviour of a bunch of schoolyard bullies getting to turn around and say what kids do and do not get to participate and who does and does not get to play.
The hypocrisy of this coming from the Greens party is that it is a party that grew from being a very, very small minor party with a very, very small vote that over a period of time used this system to build its support. To turn around and try to shut the trapdoor behind them is, I think, deplorable. I think it is disgusting. I think it is a terrible development. If the Greens political party decides that it is going to spend the rest of its time being the lap-dog of the coalition parties that is a matter for it—
Senator McKim interjecting—
Senator Waters interjecting—
Senator Rhiannon interjecting—
No, on all the big legislation I have been involved with in the past year all I have seen, time after time, is this new coalition between the Greens, the Libs and the National Party. That is a matter for other political parties—
Senator McKim interjecting—
Senator Waters interjecting—
Senator Rhiannon interjecting—
Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Senator Dastyari, just take your seat for a moment, please. I will remind the chamber that interjections are disorderly and that other senators will have their turn to talk shortly. Senator Dastyari, please continue.
Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
At the end of the day, what is it that we want to achieve in the Senate? I believe a more diverse and more open Senate with a range of different views is a better outcome. I believe that these proposals that have been put forward are going to result in a narrowing of the divergent views. The government wants this because it wants a more compliant Senate. That is what this is about achieving. It is not about transparency. If there were a more compliant Senate then what worries me is what would happen with a situation like the 2014 budget. A more compliant Senate would not be prepared to stand up to the government. A more compliant Senate would have fewer and fewer different voices. We as an institution are better and stronger because of the different views held here.
This proposal will result in a giant exhaustion of up to one-quarter of the vote. Let us talk about what this proposal would actually do. This is the introduction of optional preferential voting.
Senator Rhiannon interjecting—
No, this is the introduction—
Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Senator Dastyari, please address the chair when you are speaking.
Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
This is the introduction of an optional preferential system, which will result in a massive exhaustion of votes. This is about making sure that the votes of those people who choose to vote for a minor party will go nowhere. That is what this proposal will result in—that is what the modelling itself says it will do. This is an electoral fix. This is a rort. This is a set of rules, a structure and a system that have been created with the sole purpose of wiping out a handful of crossbench senators and locking in a handful of Greens senators. This is bad policy, this is bad law and it is being done for the wrong reasons.
If we are serious about electoral reform, why aren't we looking at how we can reform below-the-line voting? Why aren't we using a lengthier process? This has been rushed in for a double dissolution election and the Greens should be appalled. You should be appalled.
4:23 pm
Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
When it comes to Senate voting reform, we have a choice: do we back voters deciding on their preferences or do we allow group voting tickets to continue and the backroom deals to flourish, with the likes of Senator Sam Dastyari out there doing these backroom deals and trying to wield and retain power? Do you back democracy or do you back manipulation? That is what is before us now.
Let us remember that we are actually talking about democracy here. Senate voting reform is in the context of how we enhance our democracy, who represents us and how we are governed. We need to ensure our electoral system cannot be manipulated. These reforms are coming before parliament because, in recent years, we have seen levels of manipulation increase. People have become aware of how they can 'rort' or 'game' the system—whatever word you want to use. Voting has become a lottery. I agree with the idea of diversity. All my colleagues in the Greens are very proud that we sit on a rich crossbench. That is part of how this Senate operates, and I hope there always is a strong crossbench, but, as we have seen attacks from the Labor Party suggesting that this will hand power to the Liberal Party, the Labor Party need to look into the mirror at themselves. If they think it will end up handing power to the Liberal Party, it means that they are not doing their job. Why aren't they out there winning more votes and standing up for what matters to people? Why are they doing the wrong thing by refugee rights? Why do they have a weak foreign affairs policy? Why are they failing to clean up political donations? There are issues around national security—so much of this has to do with Labor's failings here.
Coming back to the issue before us, it is worth remembering that Senator Dastyari spoke about the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report. The JSCEM report was important. It was where the parties came together. The submission from Labor set out their position very clearly. Labor's submission said:
Senators who … rely principally on preference arrangements to get elected do not reflect genuine voter intention and need to be addressed.
There we had the Labor Party submission supporting reform. We had Labor, the Liberals, the Nationals, the Greens and Senator Xenophon signing off on very clear recommendations. At the time, Bill Shorten was the Leader of the Opposition. He is still the Leader of the Opposition, but now Labor are not on board. We should have unity on electoral reform, but we do not. The Leader of the Opposition is failing to give that incredibly vital leadership that is needed on these sorts of issues. We are seeing weak leadership. It is resulting in people like Senator Conroy and Senator Dastyari leading Labor into oblivion on this issue. They are locking themselves into a position of supporting backroom deals.
There is no question about it: there is a problem with the Senate voting system at the moment. The voter goes in to vote on election day and can only cast one vote, in one box, above the line. By far the majority of people have no idea where their preferences end up because backroom deals have already worked that out. Labor have said they will vote against the bill. They are still back in the last century, when that was how they operated. They urgently need to change their own image, their own principles and their own way of working, but here they are illustrating to the public how bankrupt they are, even when it comes to such an important thing as voting reform.
They are also going against the advice of their former Special Minister of State, Gary Gray, who worked on JSCEM, worked on this issue and gave very solid advice. The committee was consistent, where all parties, having worked through many issues, came to the same conclusion. Mr Gray commented that Senate voting reform:
… is as important to Labor as one-vote-one-value and it is as important as the franchise.
That says it so clearly, but here we have Senator Conroy and Senator Dastyari leading Labor down a path of embarrassment and oblivion instead of standing up for what is right. Mr Gray also spoke about how these measures uphold the integrity of section 7 of the Constitution.
With regard to the actual plan as it will be set out in the legislation, it has gone another stage from JSCEM, but the essence is still the same. What JSCEM recommended is that it should be the voters who determine their preferences. Under the proposed legislation, voters will be able to do that. They can determine their own preferences if they vote above or below the line. If they vote above the line, they will be required to number at least six squares. This is where, again, Labor and, unfortunately, some of the minor parties are being highly inaccurate in how they are representing this. By requiring at least six boxes to be allocated, preferences will be distributed. Many of the parties are already negotiating preferences. The difference will be that this will not be done in backroom deals; it will be a recommendation to the voter. It will be on the how-to-vote cards given out on election day and on our websites et cetera. But, again, the decision rests with voters.
I feel very strongly about this issue because I saw how damaging these rorters were in the 1999 New South Wales election, when there were 264 candidates for 81 parties. At that time, the Outdoor Recreation Party, with only one-fifth of one per cent of primary votes, won a seat. They won the same number of seats as the Democrats. But the Democrats at the time had about 20 times as many votes as they did. So, again, when you look into the detail here, how can anybody say that this is democratic? That experience in New South Wales has very much informed how the Greens have taken this forward at a federal level. I spoke many times to former Greens senator and leader Bob Brown about this very issue. He realised that the reforms we achieved in New South Wales could bring benefits to Senate voting reform federally. He introduced a bill in 2004 and again in 2008. He and former senator Christine Milne spoke on this issue many times. These reforms are urgently needed, and the merits of Senate voting reform are really very clear. This issue has been muddied by misinformation, but it is something that we need to address, and address urgently.
I want to return to the idea—which many on the Labor side are sprouting and thereby misinforming many in the social movement—that the Liberals will control the Senate forever and a day. Ben Raue, a psephologist who runs a website called The Tally Room, said, 'It’s a brave call to assume the coalition could pull its entire two-party-preferred vote in a Senate race.' Seats can be taken from the conservatives. Again I remind Labor: look at yourselves. Look at what you stand for. When you are saying that the conservatives are going to control this Senate for the rest of time, what you are saying is that you are giving up. You are satisfied with the weak policies that you are taking out on the environment, on climate change, on people's rights. Every election we have a different result. When we become candidates, it is up to us as public representatives to work with our members and our supporters to represent what we stand for. If the Labor people have the courage of their convictions to stand up for what matters, there is no reason the conservatives should ever control this place. I have found the scare tactics on this issue deeply appalling.
I think we need to remind ourselves what is going on here with the way in which a few factional operators have gained their power. Let us be very frank about this. Senator Dastyari and Senator Conroy have driven this issue within Labor. As I have indicated, the Labor Party submission to the JSCEM was supportive of these reforms, and the committee's recommendations had total backing from Labor, including from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, who was also leader at the time. There was solid support. Then it started to be derailed. Senator Dastyari and Senator Conroy, through their political careers, have gained so much of their power by doing backroom deals.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Coming from you now—that's good!
Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I acknowledge the laughter. I acknowledge the interjection from Senator Wong. Labor needs to look into what is going on here. (Time expired)
4:34 pm
Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I rise today to speak on this matter of public importance because I believe the issue of Senate voting reform is truly a matter of public importance—not for the reasons outlined in this motion but for the integrity of our democracy itself. There is absolutely no-one in this place more aware of the imperfections of our Senate voting system and the AEC processes than me, having had to contest two Senate elections within seven months because of these very imperfections.
The current system is clearly broken and needs urgent reform before the next federal election. As so clearly articulated by Senator Rhiannon—in fact, I almost thought she had done the job for me and that I would have to sit down—one of her previous colleagues, former Greens senator Christine Milne, in an op-ed yesterday, very adroitly described the urgency of the need for reform. She said:
Leaving things the way they are now, without the proposed reforms, means voting 1 above the line on your Senate ballot paper is like putting a ping pong ball in the mouth of a fibreglass clown at the Easter Show.
How right she is.
It is a fundamental tenet of democracy that Australians have the right to know exactly where their vote is going when they fill out their ballot paper. It is very clear from the bipartisan reports on the last federal election that up to 97 per cent of Australian voters who voted above the line on the Senate ballot paper had little or no control over where their vote ended up and who it assisted to get elected. That is not democracy.
The proposed changes to our very broken Senate voting system are neither new nor something that has been hurried, as suggested in this MPI. In fact, the situation is quite the opposite. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters did an extensive inquiry into the 2013 election and, in May 2014, almost two years ago, issued the Interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 federal election. That report on Senate voting practices has been in the public arena for nearly two years. The bipartisan committee, which included highly respected members of the ALP—Senator Faulkner, Alan Griffin MP and Gary Gray MP—unanimously concluded that the current system of Senate voting let voters down at the 2013 election and that the status quo is simply not an option.
The report also found that voters in the 2013 election felt their votes had been devalued by preference deals and that voters had been disenfranchised by being forced to prefer un-preferred candidates. That is not the coalition speaking; that is a bipartisan committee which found our system is fundamentally undemocratic. In the same report, which, again, was delivered almost two years ago—and not out of the blue, as is now being suggested—the committee made six key recommendations which they believed were urgent to improve the Senate voting system for the 2016 election.
It is also important in this current debate to put Senate reform into historical context. Since Federation, the Australian Parliament has never shied away from reform to progressively improve our electoral system, in particular the vexatious Senate voting system. Our current electoral systems have evolved over the past century and, while the House of Representatives method of voting system was largely settled by 1918 with several small changes since then, voting for the Senate has continued to be the subject of debate and progressive reforms over the last century. This demonstrates that we do not have to be wedded to the system, which we inherited and which clearly has problems, simply for history's sake.
The introduction of the committee's bipartisan report delivered a very compelling rationale for these changes. It said these changes were necessary—to provide simplicity, integrity, transparency and clarity in the Senate voting system. The changes would also provide the people with the power to express and to have their voting intent upheld; they would also restore confidence that the system of Senate voting actually reflects the will of the Australian people. The report very clearly said that the system that has evolved is inherently undemocratic and that urgent change was required.
The report also provided a number of tangible examples of just how broken the current system is. The first example was the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party of Victoria, which received only 0.51 per cent, or just over 17,000 formal first preference votes in Victoria, equalling just 0.0354 of a quota. The party was elected to the final seat with a transfer of 143,118 votes from the Sex Party—many of whom would probably have been very surprised to find that their vote got the Motoring Enthusiast Party elected—but whose transferred votes had been transferred from over 20 other parties, arguably coming from voters who had no idea that their vote would elect a candidate from an unrelated party that had 0.0354 of a quota. The second example is from Western Australia, which, as I said, I recall all too well. There was a 14-vote difference between two candidates at one exclusion point and a 12-vote difference at the same exclusion point during the recount. It again demonstrates that there are very serious problems.
Based on these recommendations and the extensive public debate that has occurred now for nearly two years, the government is proposing reforms to empower voters to take back control of their votes in a Senate election. As Senator Rhiannon said, that is exactly what the Labor Party put in its submission two years ago, but, as we have just heard from Senator Dastyari and no doubt we will hear from Senator Cameron, the Labor Party is now starting to unleash confusing misinformation about these reforms. The latest we heard from Senator Dastyari was that these changes would lead to 800,000 additional informal votes. That is clearly false, clearly without substance and clearly insulting to Australian voters who absolutely can mark a ballot paper one to six above the line with their own preferences. It is outrageous to suggest that Australian people cannot number one to six.
In contrast to this approach, however, the Hon. Gary Gray, who was a member of the committee, is on the record both then and now as strongly supporting the changes. So what did Mr Gray have to say this month in an opinion piece in the Weekend West? He said that the measures 'significantly strengthen our democratic process and restore transparency'. He had the courage to stand up for what the Labor Party actually said two years ago to say: 'This system sucks. It is not democratic and I will stand on principle to support what I believe is right.' Mr Gray went on to urge 'the government should act now without delay and before the next election'.
Why now? We have been discussing these proposals for nearly two years and we need to do it soon. The Australian Electoral Commission needs at least three months to implement the changes ahead of the next general election, which, as we know is scheduled for the second half of this year. What are these so-called rushed reforms that have been discussed publicly for nearly two years? One is the abolition of group-voting tickets and the provision of above-the-line voting for up to six boxes so that people can clearly choose the parties of their preference. They can vote for any of the independents or minor parties, but, instead of their votes being subject to backroom deals for group-voting tickets, they will get to choose—independents, minor parties, the Greens, Labor or Liberal. I think that is a fabulous outcome.
Another important change is the reduced opportunity for people to game and become registrars of multiple parties. Another change, which will be important for new Australians and for Australians who cannot read, is printing party logos on the ballot paper. That is a huge step forward in enfranchising such people in a more meaningful way.
In conclusion, Labor senators are under-estimating the ability of Australians to vote for the people of their choice. (Time expired)'
4:44 pm
Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I want to raise some issues different from those we have heard in this debate so far. Senator Day has raised a matter of public importance about extinguishing Senate diversity. I find it interesting that Senator Day would be talking about diversity when Senator Day trots around like a faithful puppy every time the Liberals call a vote. If you want to know where Senator Day is voting, you just have to look at where the Liberals are sitting. There is no diversity. Senator Day has been turned on by his so-called mates in the Liberal Party, and he is going to get kicked out after being such a sycophantic follower of the Liberal Party for the last couple of years. His sycophancy is being repaid with his getting kicked out early because of these changes arrived at behind the scenes by the Greens, by Senator Xenophon and by the Liberal Party. There is quite a strong case of hypocrisy with Senator Day. How must he be feeling when he wakes up every day knowing that his constant voting, following the Libs around every time, has meant absolutely nothing?
Senator Rhiannon speaks about embarrassment and oblivion. I am not embarrassed to say that I do not mind a bit of diversity. I appreciate having people in here who understand the working class of this country, who have come from working class backgrounds—not like the coalition, who have never worked a hard day in their lives; they do not know what it is like to have to battle to put food on the table, do not know what it is like to have to battle to live day by day. The problem we have here goes even deeper than the stupidity of the Greens in doing this deal. If they were going to do a deal, at least the Greens could have tried to get something out of it. But they are the real mugs of this parliament—they never get anything for the deals that they do. They just roll over. They are even worse than the National Party. The Libs call them in, give them a cup of tea or a chardonnay, and they roll over—they say 'tickle my neck' and away they go. They get a tickle on the neck and that is it. They do a deal but they get nothing out of the deal. Surely if they were a progressive party they would be going after the rorts that have taken place under the donation laws in this country. They would be doing something about it. The Greens had an opportunity to do something now, and what did they do? They rolled over—they absolutely rolled over. They are the biggest mugs this parliament has ever seen in terms of carrying out negotiations. They rolled over on multinationals tax and they have now rolled over on this. A progressive party would at least have enough guts to stand up and get something out of the backroom deals they do.
This is what we really need to be dealing with: we need to be dealing with the Liberal Party in New South Wales, who are getting handed brown paper bags with $10,000 in them in the front seat of a Bentley. What does that do for democracy in this country? We hear a lot about democracy but you will not hear the Liberals or the Greens in this debate talking about the rorts that are the real problem for democracy—the big business donations. The Greens had an opportunity this time round to stand up and say to the Liberals, if you want us to make changes then we want changes to the electoral laws in this country so that you cannot hide donations, so that you cannot get donations made nationally sent to New South Wales; you cannot get donations laundered federally to come back into New South Wales. We know what happened in ICAC with the Liberal Party; we know that four of their MPs in New South Wales had to resign because of the electoral deals they were doing. Senator Sinodinos was the chairman of Australian Water Holdings at the time they gave $180,000 to a company called Eight by Five.
Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I think Senator Cameron might be at the bottom of the barrel of his arguments.
Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That is a debating point, Senator Smith.
Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What a pathetic input that was. As soon as you mention the rorts that the Libs are involved in, they are out there defending the white shoe brigade that are funding them. That was absolutely pathetic, Senator Smith. You tell me why a company that could not pay their workers superannuation, with Senator Sinodinos in a senior position in the company, was giving $180,000 to Eight by Five—
Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Madam Acting Deputy President, on a further point of order: I think the standing orders make it very clear that relevance is an important element and Senator Cameron should get back to the topic of the motion.
Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I do believe Senator Cameron is being relevant.
Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Smith, you are an absolutely pathetic joke.
Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Madam Acting Deputy President, even from Senator Cameron that was a very unnecessary contribution.
Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
If you have such a glass chin you should not be in here. Eight by Five got about $400,000, and even Bill Heffernan did not know about it—and he was up there on the Central Coast of New South Wales looking at all these rorts going on. The Liberal Party is continuing the rorts. The Greens made a deal with them, and they say they stand up against rorts but what did they do? Absolutely nothing. They did nothing. Again they rolled over.
Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: for consistency, could Senator Cameron tell us about the rorts—
Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Rhiannon, that is a debating point.
Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
There were the appearances—
Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Rhiannon, do not dissent from the chair. Resume your seat. That is a debating point.
Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
So the Greens have been arguing about backroom deals, and they did the backroom deal— and they got nothing out of it. They are the worst negotiators that have ever appeared in this Senate. They are pathetic, they are hypocrites, they stand here talking about democracy but when they had a chance to do something about electoral rorts they did not do it. The Libs are off the hook and the Greens have rolled over again. Absolutely pathetic. (Time expired)
4:52 pm
David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Many Australians feel the major parties do not represent them. Their elected representatives often have good intentions at the outset, but the constraints imposed by their parties soon kick in. They end up defending the status quo, talking in generalities and platitudes, and seeking at all turns not to offend a soul. So one-quarter of Australian voters cast their vote in the Senate for minor parties—parties other than the coalition, Labor and the Greens. That is more than three million Australians. Their votes only led to 11 per cent of Senate seats going to minor parties, but at least there are voices in the Senate raising issues of concern to them. They get a conservative senator like Bob Day, a small-government senator like me and an everyday, decent man like John Madigan. The intended change to Senate voting will smother these voices. People who vote for minor parties will see their votes exhaust. They will have no say in the make-up of the Senate and they will be effectively disenfranchised.
The Greens support this because it will remove competitors and deliver them the balance of power. I do not understand why the coalition support it—perhaps because it will wipe out any alternative voices for smaller government, like the Liberal Democrats, and any alternative voices for conservative values, like Family First. We regularly point out how the Liberals and Nationals are addicted to big spending and high taxing. Perhaps they think they are securing their base, and empowering the Greens is a price they are willing to pay. Perhaps they do not really mind if government spending and taxation rise and for Australia to slowly turn into Greece, as long as they are in government while it happens.
What we know is that Malcolm Turnbull dabbled with joining the Labor Party in the past. Perhaps he really is the Manchurian candidate for the Greens. Should we be surprised if a member for Wentworth hands the balance of power to the Greens? But what is surprising is that the small-government and conservative elements in the Liberal and National parties have not woken up to what is going on.
4:54 pm
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I rise to support the resolution because, frankly, I have been shocked that the Greens have done another dirty deal to support the Liberal government. That is exactly what they have done. They have decided that 10 green bums on seats in the Senate is more important than any principle. It is more important than the principle of donation reform; it is more important that the principle of ensuring that we have a fair voting system—because that is what you have all done. You have been led by a senator who is in absolute panic that they will not be able to get a quota in their own rights in the upcoming Senate election in New South Wales. They stared at the last New South Wales election and no green was elected. So we have to change the system to make sure that that person can get elected in New South Wales.
This is a deal, as Senator Leyonhjelm has stated, that is going to effectively exclude 3.2 or 3.3 million Australian voters—25 per cent of Australian voters—who do not want to vote for Labor, the coalition, the Greens or the Xenophon party. Everybody who does not want to vote for them will not count anymore. Let us be very clear about this: the government and the Greens have stated they want to wipe out the crossbenchers. That is the stated purpose of the bill. It has no other purpose. Who will come in and replace them? We know it is not going to be any of the minor parties. It is not going to be a new Nick Xenophon, who started off getting two per cent of the votes when he first ran for parliament, because he is locked out. He has turned the key, slammed the door and pulled up the ladder—no new Nick Xenophons can ever emerge. I do not have to agree with Family First, but they have a right to be part of the process. I have worked with Family First in Victoria through Senator Fielding. He voted against me more than he ever voted for me, but, let me tell you, they built their way up.
Now you want to slam the door and ensure that nobody else can get up but a member of the Labor Party, the coalition or the Greens. That is what you have done. When you wipe out those minor parties, you will be replacing them with the three, and the Xenophon party will be there as well. That is why Senator Xenophon is in it. I watched Senator Xenophon on TV throwing his tantrum—'I got 1.7 quotas; I should've got two.' Here is a hint: you get two when you get two quotas. If every other minor party in South Australia said, 'We don't want to give preferences to Senator Xenophon to elect a second Xenophon candidate,' that is how the ball rolls. If you cannot get the preferences, tough. He says, 'I got 1.7 and I deserve to get two because I got so close'—what a pathetic little tantrum and what revenge he is taking on everybody by supporting this deal.
So the Greens have 10 bums on seats locked in. That is what this deal does—10 green bums on seats are absolutely locked in as a part of this deal, because that is what you will get. Your reward will be to lock your jobs in. Everybody else in the country who is not part of a major party gets locked out, but you get locked in. You have closed the door and you are on the inside. You have given up all principle here.
If you really cared about electoral reform in this country, this deal would include electoral donation reform. The government were desperate for this deal. You had them over a barrel again and you rolled over. You could have said, 'We will only vote for this package if we get meaningful donation reform in this country.' So you had a choice: pursue your principles or pursue bums on seats. And we all know what you have done. You know what you have done. You have taken bums on seats over principles. I do not want to hear any more lectures from any of the Greens saying, 'We're principled and you're unprincipled. We're a political movement; you're just a filthy political party.' Let me be very clear about this: you are now a filthy political party. You have advanced yourselves at the expense of everybody else in this chamber.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
There are your new friends! Get used to them. You will be cuddling up to them more and more often. This was a time for you to fight for your principles or fight for your seats, and you sold out your principles. You sold out your principles on a whole range of things that you have campaigned for and that we have campaigned for.
But what is worse than just selling out your principles is that you are putting in place a system that will probably lead, over time, to the Liberals having 38 senators permanently. Once Nick Xenophon retires—once the Xenophon party disintegrates after the departure of Nick Xenophon—the Liberals will regain their missing votes and become 38, and then not one policy, not one principle, that you believe in will ever again pass this chamber. You will have delivered that to those opposite. You are propping up the Liberal coalition government. You are giving them an opportunity to make their health cuts, education cuts and GST changes. All of that is what you are risking through this filthy deal just to make sure you can all keep your own bums on the seats in that corner. That is what has happened here. (Time expired)
5:01 pm
Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The Senate is the final stop for the consideration and debate of bills which impact on the people of Australia. As a senator for Queensland I consider every bill on the basis of whether it will benefit the people of Queensland, and if it does not I will not support it. If it does but it needs improvement, I will amend it. In my time in this house, I have acted with honesty and diligence, I have done the hard yards for the people of Queensland and, despite the threats of a double dissolution by Malcolm Turnbull, I will not change my approach. The people of Australia come first, not multinational mining companies, not the Chinese government, not the big end of town—the people of Australia. If the Turnbull government wants to get bills through the Senate, my advice to Malcolm and his colleagues is: start writing better bills. Start writing better bills which benefit the people of Australia, not the rest of the world.
Yes, I agree voting needs to be reformed, but the dirty deal done by the coalition and the Greens delivers extreme reform which will wipe out any chance of everyday Australians being able to enter politics through the Senate in the future. That is not what I call a democratic process. This delivers a system whereby only the rich will be able to enter politics, by buying their way in through advertising and publicity. Malcolm Turnbull wants to turn Australia into America.
Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—
I see the bully in the pack there at the back. Wucka wocka wacka! Malcolm Turnbull wants to turn Australia into America. Heaven forbid. He wants to deregulate higher education, he wants to privatise Medicare and now he wants to limit access to politics to the wealthy. Everyday Australians are going to miss out because of this dirty deal.
Once the new voting reforms have been rammed through the Senate, the Turnbull government will go to an early election, through a double dissolution, because they are scared that, if they wait, they may lose too many seats due to their waning popularity.
5:03 pm
Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I rise to contribute to this matter of public importance proposed by Family First senator Bob Day, who suggested the topic of discussion be 'the rushed changes to voting laws that will extinguish Senate diversity.'
This rushed change to our voting laws is a distraction from the important business of this place. This change is not being driven by the people of Australia. In the time I have been a Tasmanian senator, I have not had one person, not one, come into my office and ask for a change to the Senate voting system. They wanted positive changes and improvements to health, education, social services, veterans' conditions and diggers' pay, and they wanted jobs. It is self-interest which is motivating the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens. We should be discussing the government's plan to make $650 million worth of cuts to Medicare bulk-billing and all the women's lives that will be endangered by these cuts. That is the issue that everyone who contacts my office is concerned about today, not Senate voting reform.
Just as this Senate voting change has been done by a dirty backroom deal between the Liberals, Greens and Nationals, it is clear that the Liberals, Greens and Nationals will be doing preference deals at the next federal election. A vote for the Liberals and the Nationals will be a vote for the Greens, and a vote for the Greens will be a vote for the Liberals and the Nationals. Who would ever have thought that the political married bliss of the Liberals and Nationals would be disrupted by the Greens climbing into their electoral bed and sneaking under the sheets! Just when Barnaby Joyce thinks he will be Deputy Prime Minister when the Libs win the next election, he finds out that he has competition from the Greens leader. Poor old Barnaby will not know where to sleep—in the middle, on the top or on the bottom! I guess Barnaby will sleep wherever Richard tells him to sleep from here on in!
One of the reasons that the government gives to justify the rushed decision to change Senate voting is the alleged chaos in this chamber. They whine that we stopped $30 billion of government savings. Let us get a few things clear right now. It is not $30 billion of government savings that I have proudly stopped. It was $30 billion of theft by the Liberal-National Party from poor and struggling Australian workers, pensioners and families.
Parliamentary Library research shown to me proves that the total value of cuts in 63 bills presented by the government to this Senate was $62 billion. Of that $62 billion, $30 billion was blocked, as it took money away from poor Australians and struggling families and pensioners. After consultation with crossbench senators, $32 billion of sensible government savings were passed. Of those 63 government bills presented, 73 per cent passed this Senate and 23 per cent were stopped.
This diverse Senate has protected the Tasmanian people from the horrors of the Liberal-National budgets. The people of Tasmania can be protected from the worst excesses of the major parties and get more by voting for the JLN Senate candidates— (Time expired)
Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! The time for the discussion has expired.