Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (16:12): 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)