Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, two senators each submitted letters in accordance with standing order 75. Senator Moore proposed a matter of urgency, and Senator Day proposed a matter of public importance for discussion. 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 contradictions between the Liberal, National, Greens Party and Nick Xenophon's policies, and their voting records and the co-operation on radical electoral changes.

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 to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly.

Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw the Senate's attention today to the deal between the Liberals, Greens and Nick Xenophon on Senate voting legislation. The Liberals support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the nuclear fuel cycle, bringing back the ABCC and reviewing gay promotion programs in schools. They repealed the carbon tax, sought to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and agreed to create a wind farm commissioner. They also changed border protection laws and stopped the boats. The Greens voted against every one of these. The crossbench supported them. The latest data on divisions in this parliament show that the Greens vote with the government just six per cent of the time. Every other crossbencher has a superior record of supporting legislation. What policy compromises will the Liberals and the Greens make once the Greens are locked into the balance of power? Not only was this voting deal the mother of all backroom deals but, given the Greens senators he will lose in a double dissolution election, was it also the mother of all captain's calls by Senator Di Natale? How can the Nationals, of all people, be party to locking the Greens into the balance of power, given how the Greens oppose trade deals, live exports and mining? None of this makes sense and will inevitably end in tears.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise today to speak on Senator Day's matter of public importance. Oh, what irony it is to hear crossbench senators criticising others in this place for working together on important national legislation which includes bipartisan reforms that have been in the public arena now for nearly two full years. There is no-one in this place more aware of the imperfections of our Senate voting system and the AEC's processes that underpin it than myself. I have had to contest two Senate elections within seven months because of these imperfections. They must be fixed so not only other candidates and other parties but Australian voters do not have to go through those processes again.

Just what are the reforms that those opposite are so vehemently against now? When you strip away all of the overblown, misleading and, quite frankly, insulting rhetoric, these reforms are simply about returning control of voting back to voters and away from backroom operators. It is simply about democracy. Having participated in today's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into this bill, I am even more convinced of the merits of it and also the necessity for it. I remind Senators in this place that these reforms have been outlined in the public arena for two years. This is enough time, as the AEC confirmed today, for them to have undertaken preparations, or in their language, 'contingency planning', for these exact reforms to be implemented. In fact, the AEC confirmed today that they have been fully engaged and have participated in the drafting of the bill by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Nearly two years ago, a bipartisan report found that our current system is profoundly undemocratic and requires urgent reform. The report made several recommendations that were suggested and endorsed by Labor at the time. This was not even two years ago.

Let's take the temperature down a few degrees on the debate, strip away the rhetoric and just simply look at the facts. Let's first take a look at Labor's position on this issue. Two years ago the ALP's submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2013 election was unambiguous. George Wright, the ALP's National Secretary then and now, was very, very clear on both the problems and the recommended solutions. So what did Labor say then about the problems and the solutions? I will quote them. Mr Wright, the National Secretary of the Labor Party, said that:

The election of senators who attract only a very low primary vote and rely principally on preference arrangements to get elected do not reflect genuine voter intention and need to be addressed …

He also said that the current system enables candidates whose objective is to game the system to achieve results that do not reflect the intention of voters. That is absolutely unambiguous and that was the Labor Party's position two years ago—that we have a profoundly undemocratic Senate voting system.

What was the ALP's solution two years ago to fix the serious problems that the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Greens on a bipartisan basis agreed existed? They recommended optional preferential voting above the line as a means to improving the integrity of the Senate voting system. Guess what? Labor also recommended that that be done in conjunction with the abolition of group-voting tickets. That is exactly the recommendation in the report that was issued two years ago by the committee and which is now reflected in the bill before us today. On an issue that Labor felt so strongly about two years ago, what alternatives have the Labor Party put forward in the past two years as they so clearly do not agree with their past position anymore? Astoundingly, if you get rid of all of the rhetoric, hyperbole and vitriol that they have directed mostly towards the Greens and us, they have absolutely not a single alternative.

In fact, as late as last month Gary Gray, a highly respected ALP MP and former national secretary, said:

It would be a travesty for Australian democracy if these careful and thought-through reforms were not in place in time for the next federal election.

Mr Gary Gray is echoing the exact words of George Wright, the current and at the time of the review two years ago ALP National Secretary. Astonishingly, despite some in the ALP having clearly had a complete change of position on this critically important issue, they have failed to oppose any alternatives or amendments in two years—not a single one. Instead, they are now relying on this overblown vitriol and, as I said, hyperbole. I see the Labor Party on this issue at the moment as akin to ostriches, with their heads in the sand for the past two years, hoping no-one would see they had their heads in the sand and would raise the issue with them and make them make a decision to stick with their position two years ago. Guess what? They have been called out.

Today, at the hearing on these reforms, the Labor Party that is so against these reforms declined to appear. The national secretary had absolutely nothing to say in writing and declined to appear to talk to the committee in person. Even more incredibly, Senator Conroy, the chief prosecutor of the ALP's new case, ran out of questions and ceded his time to other senators. The only conclusion I could come to after attending the hearing today was that the party's position on this problem is as it stood in the Labor Party's submission two years ago

Also at today's inquiry Mr Glenn Druery, the so-called preference whisperer, demonstrated to us all just how undemocratic the process is today and how the process is being shamefully abused. Mr Druery opined that, 'Minor parties should work together, in my opinion, before they deal with major parties.' He said nothing about working together on principle, philosophy or the best interests of Australians. So what other conclusion can one come to but that Mr Druery's focus is all on power and the manipulation of voters' preferences to enable microparties to game the system without regard for what voters actually want? He confirmed that opinion for me in response to one of my questions. He also confirmed that, while he has advised over 100 microparties—he cannot even remember how many he has advised—he did not see it as his role in giving that advice to ensure that parties' names matched their policies or, indeed, that they had any policies at all. He confirmed that it was not his role to take into account the will of the voter. It is absolutely shameful. If that does not demonstrate to all in this chamber why we need to urgently reform our Senate voting system I do not think anything well.

Ultimately support of this bill comes down to a simple choice: do we place trust in Australians to direct their own preferences and trust that they are capable of exercising this right? On this side of the chamber, we believe they do. These reforms will ensure voters have the choice to direct where their preferences go and who gets elected with their preferences regardless of whether they choose to vote for parties above the line or individual candidates below the line. They will have a choice to exercise their preference—by voting either for parties or for individual candidates.

I would like to conclude with a quote from the well-respected electoral commentator and psephologist Adjunct Professor Antony Green, who said in his submission to the joint standing committee that:

My overall view is the legislation is on the right path in transferring the power over preferences from parties to voters.

It is quite simple. The measures in this bill had bipartisan support but they now do not. We have no explanation from those opposite and no alternatives to fixing this system. And time, as we heard from the AEC, is running out to actually implement reforms before the next election.

In conclusion, I say to those who now argue against voters taking back control of their own vote—that is, the most basic democratic principle in our country—it is time for you to by a new pair of shoes with some great rubber soles on them. Get out of the backroom where you have been making deals. Get out into the fresh air. Talk to voters. Have policies. Do it the old-fashioned way. Get out and convince people to vote for your party instead of relying on these grubby, dirty backroom deals. Get out and engage with voters and stand for something, instead of being one of these 100 parties— (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to 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.

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

Are you going to stop taking money from the unions?

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, what about the unions?

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

Come in spinner—I mean, really! Talk about some transparency in donations: no, they are not interested in that. Already they have got their hackles up. They do not like it. They do not like people talking about it. It will be interesting to see whether the Greens and Senator Xenophon support these reforms. But, from what I have seen so far when we have been talking about the Senate voting bill, I cannot say I have much faith in this actually happening. It has become blatantly obvious that what the Greens say they stand for—what they espouse with great theatrics in this place—and what they actually do are not always the same thing.

A perfect example of this is the complete disregard for the committee processes that we have seen in the conduct of the inquiry into the Senate voting reform bill. The Greens and the coalition joined together to ensure that there was no real transparency and that there was no real scrutiny of the bill. As I said earlier in my contribution on the bill, we have heard each of the Greens speak at length about Senate committees and their importance to Senate processes. However, we have now seen that the Greens are more than happy to completely do away with real legislative scrutiny and review in order to ram these changes through this place. I highlighted earlier what an absolute farce this inquiry process has been. The laws that determine how representatives are elected to the national parliament should not be cooked up behind closed doors and rammed through the parliament in just a matter of days. (Time expired)

Robert Simms (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter. I start by recognising the work of my colleague Senator Lee Rhiannon, who has been pushing this issue for many years. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to finally reform our voting system in this country and ensure that the will of the Australian community is reflected in election outcomes. Of course, the Greens have been leading this debate over many, many years. It was Senator Bob Brown who first put this on the agenda 12 years ago, and now we are finally at the point where we may see action on this issue—and that is a good thing for democracy in this country.

The thing that I find absolutely bizarre about the arguments we have heard in this place is the complete and utter inconsistency in the kind of scare campaigns that are being run by the Labor Party on this issue. Let's face it: these are the kinds of pathetic scare campaigns that would make Tony Abbott blush. They are completely and utterly inconsistent. Senator Conroy last week said that this is all about putting Greens bums on seats. We had Senator Brown say that this is about self-interest and power for the Greens. Senator Penny Wong, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, was quoted in the Adelaide Advertiser as saying that the Greens will in fact suffer as a result of these changes and may well lose seats. So apparently it is some kind of self-interested ploy that will also end up dudding us at the ballot box.

Let me make one thing very clear—and this will be a shock to the Labor Party, because I know that is not the model of politics they work with—this is not about self-interest or trying to achieve a particular election outcome. It is not about that. This is about doing the right thing and it is about ensuring that we have an election system that reflects the will of the people. It is a fundamental tenet of any democracy that the election outcome should reflect the will of the people. Let us be honest: the reason the Australian Labor Party keep fanning this ridiculous scare campaign about this issue is that they do not want to smash the business model of the faceless men they rely on for their seats in this place. They have talked a lot about backroom deals. Well, the only backroom deals they are really concerned about protecting are the backroom deals that get them into the Senate. They are scared of the Australian people and they realise they do not have the policies in place or the rigor in their ideological position to prosecute an effective case to the Australian people, so they want to protect these pathetic backroom deals.

There is a suggestion that the discussion around these issues is under some kind of veil of secrecy, when we have had debates in the lower house, debates here in the Senate, the JSCEM report and a long discussion in our community over many years—as I say, Senator Brown put this on the agenda 12 years ago. The suggestion that somehow this is being done under a cloak of secrecy is really absolutely ridiculous. Give us a break!

I talked about the inconsistent nature of the scare campaigns the Labor Party have been running: we win some seats, we lose some seats; on the one hand it is about self-interest and on the other hand it is electoral suicide. They cannot make up their minds about the implications of this reform. Also, up until very recently, the Labor Party were supportive of this change. I saw Gary Gray quoted in the media as saying that it would be very sad to see these reforms scuttled. Well, he must be pretty disappointed about the party that he is leaving behind and the ridiculous and embarrassing scare campaigns they are running against a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform our Senate voting system and finally ensure that the will of the Australian people is reflected at the ballot box. It is an important principle. It is a principle that we have been advocating for many years in this place and it is a principle that I, as a member of the Greens, am very proud to support.

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

At the outset I want to say that it is not often that you will find me assisting the Australian Labor Party with their debate on an issue. It is interesting to see that Senator Brown was sent into the chamber to lead the charge. Our quartet of the Cs of the party—the Conroys, the Collins, the Carrs and the Camerons—are too embarrassed to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the elevation and the evolution of these reforms. It is good to see Senator Wong in the chamber, but she has been sent in because of their embarrassment. I am here to help them.

Firstly, let's debunk a few things about the undue haste involved with the journey that has led us to this very important bill to introduce transparency.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not a journey—it's a dirty deal.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to 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)

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. What we hear from the LNP government and their new coalition partner, the Greens, is all about putting lipstick on the pig. The reality is they did a grubby deal. Some, but only some, of what Senator O'Sullivan has said—I love the way they have to quote Labor; they have no idea—is true. Most of what he said was absolutely inaccurate, and he put his own little National Party spin on things. The reality is that Labor worked very hard on the committee, because we want to see good electoral reform.

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

A unanimous report.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes it was a unanimous report but that is not reflected in the bill that the Liberals, the Nationals, the Greens and Senator Xenophon want to bring into this place. It does not reflect that deal. How dare Senator O'Sullivan try to speak for Labor, how dare he try to put words into our mouths. The Greens and the LNP will not tell you about the grubby little deal that has been done behind closed doors, and that deal does not reflect the hard work that Labor put in, yes, to get a consensus report because we do believe in electoral reform. So let us get the truth out there.

Earlier today I heard Senator Reynolds say that this will get rid of grubby little deals. I do not know where she has been but what was done between the Greens and Senator Xenophon and the LNP was a grubby little deal—it was a grubby little deal and there is no getting away from that. Obviously the Greens have just rolled over—we have seen their inept negotiation before in this place when they have done other grubby little deals with the LNP. They come in here with a matter of public importance about electoral reform when presumably they had the government there, the government needed their agreement to get this grubby electoral reform through, and they did not even raise the issue—or, if they did raise it, they were such poor negotiators that they were not able to get electoral reform through in relation to political donations. Yet they come in here and try to imagine they are pure.

What about the Clean Energy Finance Corporation that they say they stand for? The LNP have told us over and over again—maybe the Greens were not listening but the LNP have made it crystal clear to Labor—that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is something they want to get rid of. In fact, they confirmed that not so long ago in answer to questions we asked them. It is still their intention to get rid of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. What about the workers that the Greens pretend to be representing? The government has made it clear it wants the registered organisations bill through and the government has also made it very clear—they made it clear this morning in the media—that the re-establishment of the ABCC is absolutely on their agenda. That is the grubby deal the Greens have done. If they go to a double dissolution, which Mr Green confirmed this morning would give the LNP an advantage—you should read the transcript—then we will see antiworker legislation introduced in this place courtesy of the Greens. We will see antiunion legislation introduced into this place courtesy of the Greens. We already have the LNP's appalling record on our environmental future, and we will see the clean energy corporation, which has done such an amazing job, dissolved. Who will bear the responsibility for that? The Greens will.

Really, the Greens are no longer even a party of policy—they are a party of grubby deals. That is what they have done here today. I have heard some of the Greens in here today and some LNP senators standing here and saying that this is not a grubby deal. That is nonsense. We had experts this morning in the committee hearing who said that if there were a double dissolution it would advantage the government—plain and simple; it is there in the transcript for anyone to see. That is the truth of it. And that is what the government want to do—they want to pull the trigger. They have had years to undertake electoral reform. They are the government, no matter how much they want to point the finger at Labor—we did this, we did that, George Williams said this, Gary Gray, the member for Brand, said something else. Actually, they are the government, they are in charge and they could have at any time put forward an electoral reform bill to be considered in line with the majority report that Labor worked hard to get to. But, no, they did not because that would not have given them the outcome they want. That would not give them the opportunity in a double dissolution election, as Mr Green said this morning, to actually get control.

As Senator Conroy has pointed out, so inept are the Greens at negotiation that it disadvantages them. They seem to have missed that point entirely, but to stand in here and try to make this somehow Labor's responsibility is nonsense. The responsibility for this grubby deal rests very clearly with the Greens, the LNP government and Senator Xenophon.

No wonder the crossbench senators are very angry about this. Yes, we need a fair system which represents everybody, but this system that is being put forward by the government—whenever they get it through this place with the support of the Greens—is not a fair system. Certainly the experts confirmed that today. In fact, one of them says he believes it will be the subject of a High Court challenge. That is where the government and the Greens are leading us. They are leading us down this clumsy road where there is no certainty. So badly and so quickly has the bill been drafted that they left out some pretty important provisions that had to be slipped into the House through amendments concerning counting votes. How could you forget that? Again, it shows the ineptness of the Greens when it comes to negotiation and the double ineptness of the LNP government. That is a little amendment that was slipped in. If it gets through this place, this bill, seemingly, is headed for the High Court. What a mess. It is not enough that the LNP are the worst government we have ever seen—they cannot manage anything and they are well and truly after workers and ordinary working Australians—they are also going to mess up an electoral system that has been there for 30 years. Yes, of course Labor would welcome the opportunity to look at change, but not change that is rushed through in a dirty deal. That is not what Labor is about.

It was a very rushed committee hearing this morning. I watched it. People were given only a few minutes to ask questions. I am sure that it was stacked with people who were there just to waste time. If you were dinkum about it, there would be a proper inquiry and a proper opportunity, and you would explain to the Australian people what the change represents. Most Australians have trouble understanding the Senate, and you are going to make that worse by rushing this bill through. It is a tricky system. There should have been open hearings so that Australians could come, look, ask questions and listen. It is already a difficult system that needs time and explanation. What you are doing now is just rushing it through with a hearing that went for a couple of hours where you brought experts to Canberra, asked them a few questions and sent them on their way. Now you, the Greens and Senator Xenophon will stand in here and say, 'Well, we had a hearing. There was an opportunity for the public to be involved.' What nonsense.

You do not stand for proper electoral reform. You do not stand for Australian voters. You do not stand for democracy. You just stand for grubby deals done behind closed doors. Worse than that—the Greens cannot even protect things that they purport to hold near and dear. They finally have been exposed. They are about power. They want to be the only minority party in this place. They want their minority view to be the only view that gets aired. That is the deal they have done. They will stand judged on that. In fact, polls are already showing that their membership are not happy with them—and why would they be when the Greens have done a grubby deal with the LNP government?

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There has been an awful lot said in this place about Senate voting reform recently. Much of it is political rubbish and that contribution fits squarely into that category. What I want to do is very clearly lay out the policy issue that is facing us here. I might add before I do that that, when I want a first-principles reference for how I should behave and how I should vote in this place, I go back to the founding principles of the party that I have the massive honour of representing in this place, the Australian Greens. For the edification of senators, the four founding principles of our party are: ecological sustainability, social justice or a fair go for everyone, peace and nonviolence, and a participatory grassroots democracy—I will say the last one again: a participatory grassroots democracy.

For us—and certainly for me—part of a participatory democracy is the will of the voters being reflected to the greatest degree possible in who is elected into this chamber and, in fact, to both chambers of the Australian parliament. The problem with the current system is that it ends up in a make-up of the parliament which does not accurately reflect the will of the voters because, of course, the power over preferences currently rests in the hands of the backroom wheelers and dealers. It does not rest in the hands of the voters. In a democracy with full participation from voters, the power must rest in the hands of the voters to flow through and choose their elected representatives in this place. I would have thought that did not need to be said, but clearly it does need to be said given some of the rubbish we have heard from Labor on this issue over the last couple of days.

The current system is broken. It led, in 2013, to a candidate in Western Australia being elected on 0.2 of one per cent of the vote. That is fewer than 3,000 votes out of over a million votes cast in Western Australia for senators in that election. Fewer than 3,000 votes—out of a million votes—were enough to get someone elected to this place. That is a broken system, particularly when there were numerous candidates in that election who polled far, far more than 3,000 votes who did not get elected to this place.

I want to rebut, in the short time available to me, a number of Labor's arguments. Firstly, they say this legislation is being rushed. We had a joint parliamentary committee inquiry that ran for nearly a year and a half, held 21 public hearings right around this country and ended in a set of unanimous recommendations that were at that time supported by the Labor Party. Unfortunately, as they so often do for their own political purposes, they backflipped on their position and are now opposed to the Senate voting reform that they previously supported.

We believe that this is an opportunity and that the planets have finally aligned for us on an issue that we have been working hard on and campaigning hard on since 2004, when we had just two senators in this place and when Bob Brown, who was then Leader of the Australian Greens, tabled a first effort from us to deliver Senate voting reform. I add that, if Labor had honoured the written agreement they made with the Greens after the 2010 election that they would actually progress and deliver Senate voting reform to the best of their capacity, we would not even be having this argument now. We would not even be having this discussion now, because this would be done sometime between 2010 and sometime in 2013. But Labor squibbed on that written agreement, just as they did on political donations, that they are now going to use in this legislation that is coming before the Senate to try and wedge us out of supporting it. If they had not squibbed on the written agreement they signed with the Greens in 2010, we would have political donations reform already up and running in Australia. But, no, Labor walked away from their written agreement with the Greens in 2010.

Lastly, if Labor really were serious about avoiding coalition control of this Senate, they would not be obsessing about this; they would be getting out there and selling their policies to the Australian people— (Time expired)

John Madigan (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Much is made of Senator Muir's low vote, but let us be clear: there are 11 senators sitting in this place who have not faced a vote—11 senators from the coalition, the ALP and the Greens. There does need to be some critical analysis of who sits here and how they got here. For the benefit of the Senate, as I said, we have quite a few senators who have never faced a vote, and 11 of those senators, which equates to 14.47 per cent of the Senate, never stood for election.

Senator McKim referred to backroom deals. Well, Senator McKim, there were 11 people parachuted into this place who never faced the voters, and two of them belong to the Greens. That is a fact. These are people who find themselves here by backroom deals, as I said, not directly elected by the voters. How does the crossbench compare to some of the government senators and the government's rhetoric in this space about who sits here and how they got here? Fifteen point thirty-eight per cent—that is, two senators on the government's front bench, ministers—got here with fewer than 500 votes; 23.07 per cent, three of them, got there with fewer than 1,000 votes; and five of them got fewer than 1,500 votes, which equates to 38.46 per cent. They never faced the voters. Yet the argument put forward on Q&A by the former minister for small business was that people could not get elected in a local council election— (Time expired)

Dio Wang (WA, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Liberals, Nationals, Greens and Xenophon coalition wants to wipe independent voices from the Senate. Might I suggest that there is actually a legitimate way to do that: if the established parties represented the people of Australia better, we would not see one-quarter of Australian voters choosing anyone but them. If members of those parties did their jobs better, I would not be standing here as a senator after receiving four times as many first-preference votes as one of my Liberal colleagues from WA, who is now a government minister. The reason I am here today is that the major parties have not been meeting people's expectations. Let us not forget that fact.

But, instead of performing better, the Liberals, Nationals, Greens and Nick Xenophon coalition has chosen to wipe independent voices from the parliament by doing a dodgy deal. What makes it even worse is that they have cherry-picked from the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry to suit themselves and left out key recommendations that would truly give back voting power to the people.

I thank the Labor Party for standing up for a truly representative and diverse Senate. As esteemed Professor of Law George Williams noted, about the bill:

Disturbingly, … it is designed to harm the electoral chances of minor parties while retaining the capacity of major parties to manipulate the preferences of voters through the ordering of candidates.

As a senator, I am more than happy to go back into the workforce as a result of the major parties doing a better job. As an Australian citizen I am really worried about where democracy is headed in this country.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee hearing this morning into the Senate voting system was a bombshell. Recognised experts provided a valuable opportunity to learn more about our complicated Senate voting system and the Liberals' and Greens' radical electoral changes. I was very impressed by the testimony of Mr Malcolm Mackerras. He took a principled stand and said the Senate voting system has been and will be unconstitutional. Mr Mackerras referred to our Constitution as an authority, saying our voting system must be candidate based, not party based. He kindly drew our attention to section 7 of the Constitution to support his claim. It states:

The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate.

The system should be changed, but something this important should not be rushed.

The current system has evolved into one which Antony Green describes as 'a herding process to force voters to vote above the line'. But the new system proposed by the Liberals and Greens is, as Mr Mackerras said, 'breathtaking in its contempt for the Australian Constitution'. He called it a party-list system, because it can be gamed in favour of the big parties by running a just-vote-1 campaign. The Liberals want to change our voting system and then game our voting system by running a just-vote-1 campaign—they are quiet over there, aren't they?—and the Greens are the Liberals' enablers.

The Liberals are deliberately picking industrial fights in the construction and maritime sectors. In the short term they will bring our economy to its knees so that there will be a background of economic chaos and industrial unrest in the lead-up to the federal election in order to justify the inconvenience and expense of a double-D election on the Australian voter—every single one of them. Do you know what? You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

People of Australia have had enough of career politicians who have never lived in the real world making decisions for those who do. As a result, we now have a crossbench in the Senate which reflects the diverse views and expectations of the Australian people. Based on community sentiment, the crossbench will only increase in size.

Major parties, the Greens and politicians like Nick Xenophon can collude to change the voting system to ignore the will of the people and game the system to benefit themselves, but I believe the will of the people will prevail. The need for real people, who generally understand the challenges faced by true-blue Aussies, to lead our country is only going to grow. While the coalition and the Greens may try to fight this through corrupt voting reforms, this will only prove to be a slight bump in the road for the momentum that is building across the country.

The people of Australia have had enough. They are sick of the Greens telling us to care about the planet while they all fly around the countryside on jets and dine out in the parliamentary dining room. They are sick of the silver-spoon Liberals allowing their mates significant tax breaks while hardworking Aussies are being forced to dig deeper. They are sick of the Nationals who claim to care about rural and regional Australia while farmers are being left to go broke and die through drought and the scourge of CSG mining.

My message to the coalition and the Greens is this: you can try to retain your filthy, corrupt, self-interested powerbase through a flawed, rushed, undemocratic voting system, but the people of Australia have already seen through you—and I believe that your parties are on the outer.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the discussion has expired.