Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024
Senator THORPE (Victoria) (19:55): Well, what hypocrisy we're hearing here today. We have all the government amendments coming in for a bill that we're about to vote on—the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. Good one, Labor!
Shame on you again. What I'm about to say echoes the concerns of other Independents and minor parties—namely, that these so-called electoral reforms are a massive stitch-up by the major parties to cement their power and influence. We've got to keep the two old white guys running against each other every election!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, withdraw. Senator THORPE: Why? Can't I say 'white guys'?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, you are not in a debate with me. Just withdraw the comment. Senator THORPE: What am I withdrawing, though?
Can you explain what I've said wrong? Am I not allowed to say 'two old white guys'? The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, withdraw the comments, please.
Senator THORPE: But can you explain what is wrong with saying 'two old white guys'? The PRESIDENT: It is unparliamentary. Senator THORPE: It's not unparliamentary.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, you are not in a debate with me. If you don't withdraw, I will be left with a choice to withdraw the call from you. I don't want to do that.
You have a right to be heard. But you must— Senator THORPE: I withdraw from the colony. What I'm about to say— The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, I've asked you to withdraw.
Senator THORPE: I withdraw to you, President of the colony. The PRESIDENT: No, Senator Thorpe. Senator THORPE: I withdraw.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you. Senator THORPE: Labor—your Labor Party, President— went to the last election promising electoral reforms, giving voters the impression that the days of corporate influence over our political system would be over—you lied—and that the battlers and everyday people would be better represented. You lied.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, I'm going to ask— Senator THORPE: That was all a lie. The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, I'm asking you to withdraw once again. Senator THORPE: What have I done now?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, the use of the word 'lie' is unparliamentary. It is well tested. I'd like you to withdraw.
Senator THORPE: That was all dishonest—very dishonest of Labor. It was very, very dishonest. It was dishonest to the voters out there, who think that the two major parties are the way to go when they are rorting the system every day here and siding with each other to scrape the bottom of the barrel and try to pass legislation tonight because you stitched it up.
You got in bed together to disallow Independents, people of colour and the battlers out there from being represented in this place. This was done by your masters of the colony—one for the Labor Party and one for the Liberal Party. They're masters of the colony.
You want to maintain the white supremacy of the colony. The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, withdraw. Senator THORPE: Which part now?
The PRESIDENT: I'm not going to repeat what you have said. Senator THORPE: 'White supremacy'? The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, withdraw.
I think you've been a senator long enough now to know what is acceptable in this chamber and what is not. I've asked you to withdraw. Senator THORPE: I wasn't asked to withdraw 'white supremacy' the other day.
Why is it— The PRESIDENT: Well, I'm the President, and I'm asking you to withdraw it. If you don't withdraw it, I will withdraw the call, and I don't want to do that. You are entitled to have a say.
Senator THORPE: Okay. I'll be a good little blackfella like the ones in your party. The bill before us does offer— The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, you've made a further derogatory comment against senators— Senator THORPE: Well, I'm not a good little blackfella.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, I will withdraw the call. I've asked you to withdraw the first comment you've made, and now I'm asking you to withdraw— Senator THORPE: But you're not even explaining. The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, I am not— Senator THORPE: You're not even explaining, President.
Every other person that sits in that chair explains the situation. The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, I will withdraw the call and ask that you no longer be heard. You're not in a debate with me.
I'm the President of this chamber. I've asked you, on two occasions, to withdraw. Simply withdraw.
Senator THORPE: I withdraw. The PRESIDENT: Thank you—for the first offence. And, for the derogatory comment you made towards Labor senators, there's a second withdrawal.
Senator THORPE: Point of clarification, President: what was the first thing that I was asked to withdraw for? The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, I've said to you a number of times I do not intend to repeat your offensive words. I've asked you to withdraw them.
Senator THORPE: I withdraw. The PRESIDENT: Thank you. And before you continue— Senator Thorpe interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator, withdraw that comment.
Senator Thorpe interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, withdraw that comment. Senator Thorpe interjecting— The PRESIDENT: I would hope that that is the role of your staff. Please withdraw the comment.
Senator Thorpe interjecting— The PRESIDENT: I want you to withdraw before you go on. Senator Thorpe interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, just a moment. I don't think broadcasting is on.
So I would ask—is that what you were— Senator Thorpe interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Yes, sure. Thank you. We'll make sure it's broadcast.
Thank you, Senator. Senator THORPE: Where do I begin? I mean, the microphone's been turned off because I said 'white supremacy' and I said 'gammon', and I got shut down— The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe— Senator THORPE: and I've never been told that— The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe!
You are repeating offences I've asked you to withdraw. I draw your attention now to standing order 203, particularly those parts about senators refusing to conform to the standing orders and disregarding my authority. Do not repeat those offences.
I'm, again, asking you to withdraw. Senator THORPE: I withdraw to the President of this place, which is on stolen land. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Thorpe.
Senator THORPE: I'm going to start again. What I'm about to say echoes the concerns of other Independents and minor parties—namely, that these so-called electoral reforms are a massive stitch-up by the major parties to cement their power and influence in the colony. Labor went to the last election promising electoral reforms, giving voters the impression that the days of corporate influence over our political system would be over, that the battlers and everyday people would be better represented. 'That was dishonest!' said the President.
The bill before us does offer some small, positive changes to give these pretend Labor and Liberal politicians some talking points to distract and gaslight the public into thinking this is a good bill. But that is not the truth. The bill goes some way to limit influence from major donors, with donation caps and more transparency around political donations, by lowering the disclosure threshold.
But it also brings in a suite of measures to make the whole system more undemocratic and less representative of the people in this country. Look at this place! When you walk outside, this place does not represent the people out there.
Look how white this place is. The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, I ask you to withdraw once again. Please don't refer to senators in that way.
Senator THORPE: I didn't refer to senators. I just said 'this place'. The PRESIDENT: Yes, and I'm asking you to withdraw.
Senator THORPE: The white part? The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe. Senator THORPE: I withdraw.
The PRESIDENT: And I have asked you, on about four occasions, not to repeat the offence. Senator THORPE: This spits in the face of voters and is not in their best interests. The government is even refusing to put this bill through an inquiry process, which is a standard parliamentary procedure.
This should be an absolute necessity for a bill which will dramatically change electoral and policy outcomes for everyone in this country. This bill gives more public funding to parties and incumbents. We're in a cost-of-living crisis.
You're all paying each other. It makes it much harder for new and independent candidates to run election campaigns—and you know that—particularly those that cannot front up large sums to run election campaigns, and you know that too. We don't have mates like Gina.
Who do you think those people will be? Gina's mates. And the ones who are grassroots, from the community, those people coming from more diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds?
Forget it! Not with Gina's mates here! Not the ones who would actually be more representative of a large share of this country's population.
It locks out candidates who would actually fight for country, people, equality and justice, who understand that, while the politicians play games and hoard more power and wealth, people on the ground are starving—starving! Youse are all in your little money pits with all your donors and your mates. Senator Hanson interjecting— Senator THORPE: President!
President, attention! I'm being heckled here by a well-known, convicted racist. The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, once again, withdraw.
Senator THORPE: She's attacking me, and you weren't watching. The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, once again, withdraw. Senator Thorpe: I withdraw.
Can you please pull up this person. The PRESIDENT: I remind Senator Hanson—I didn't hear the interjections; they are hard to hear up here— Senator Thorpe: Of course they are. Thank you.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, I haven't finished yet, and I haven't yet given you back the call. Senator Thorpe: Okay. Thanks.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson, every senator in here has been heard in silence. I would ask that Senator Thorpe have that same opportunity. Please continue, Senator Thorpe.
Senator THORPE: It locks out candidates who would actually fight for country, people, equality and justice, who understand that, while the politicians play games and hoard more power and wealth, people on the ground are starving. They're having trouble accessing medications, housing, education and many other basics, which you people wouldn't understand. Why is it that after over 200 years of the so-called civilisation of colonisation, this gammon government can't even— The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe: withdraw.
Senator THORPE: This government—I withdraw 'gammon'— The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe— Senator Thorpe: I withdraw. The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, you are persistently and wilfully refusing to conform to the standing orders and disregarding the authority of me as the President. I ask you again to come to order and not to repeat remarks which you know are offensive.
I am a long way down with standing order 203, Senator Thorpe, and I would not want you to miss the opportunity to make a contribution. But I am warning you: this is not a game. Every senator in here is expected to conform to the standing orders.
That includes you. Senator Thorpe: Thank you. Can I move on?
The PRESIDENT: Yes. Senator THORPE: Thanks. Why is it that after over 200 years of the so-called civilisation of colonisation, this 'g' government—bleep, bleep, bleep—can't even figure out how to make sure children are fed?
How is that not the No. 1 priority? That shows you exactly the values of a government that is more interested in its own survival than that of the people. In addition to spending caps, which will disadvantage independent candidates who don't have the broader advertising and campaign infrastructure that political parties have, the expenditure cap would still allow country-wide political parties to spend up to $90 million on broad political advertisements.
How can an Independent keep up with that, especially someone from a non-wealthy background who hasn't stolen any land? For many, running for office means putting their careers and livelihoods on hold, a stark reminder that the opportunity to serve is not a universal right but a privilege afforded only to those with big cash and powerful mates. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out that the measures in the bill may increase the relative monetary power of incumbents and bigger parties and disproportionately impact people with particular protected attributes who are already underrepresented by major political parties, such as women or ethnic minority groups.
The committee pointed out that this might limit the right to equality and nondiscrimination in this country. The Scrutiny of Bills report also pointed out that this bill may impact representative government by negatively affecting the diversity of opinions, arguments and other political matters that can be in electoral communications. This would be a further violation of our basic rights in a country where we already only have limited right to take part in public affairs.
This right is supposed to include a guarantee of the right of citizens to stand for public office, to vote in elections and to have access to positions in public service. However, section 44 of the colonial Constitution prohibits those with dual citizenship to stand for federal political office, thereby possibly excluding up to half of the population unless they renounce ties with the other country.
This is in a country which, apparently, prides itself on multiculturalism. Any further hurdles put in the way of diverse representation, like those proposed by this bill, need to be avoided by all means. This bill basically means that many of us don't fit into the middle-class, white-Australian picture and we will be less likely to have real representation in this place.
Have a look at it! It says it all. So many of us already don't feel represented by the major parties and their assimilation practices.
We want our representatives to be able to speak freely and vote along their conscience. People in the community want parliamentarians to stand up for them, not just a tired old backbencher twiddling their thumbs, taking orders and asking 'How high?' when they are told to jump. The disappointment with the political status quo is exactly why the Independent and minor party vote has grown over the last decade, and that's what the major parties are scared of.
They're scared of the crossbench because we demand transparency and accountability, but these are basic and essential democratic measures and we owe this to the voters. This term alone has shown, so many times, that the crossbench contributes to better policy outcomes through bringing a diverse lens to negotiations, listening to communities and stakeholders—they fall on deaf ears with the major parties—and ensuring that they are being heard.
That is the very heart of representative democracy. This bill is a done deal between the major parties and is being rushed through parliament, explicitly because they know it is so flawed and they're so ashamed of it themselves and it's in breach of basic democratic rights. I want to make clear to everyone here and all voters out there that this bill represents an erosion of democratic principles, participation and representation.
This is why I'm proposing to rename it the 'Sham Democracy Bill', because at least that would tell people the truth about what they're up for. For the record, I would like to see the majority of the politicians in this place recognise how out of touch they really are and give their seats to someone who deserves it and who will actually use it for good. The younger generation know the way.
Give it to them. There are too many people that have been here for way too long, crusty—and all the rest of it. I don't want to get in trouble again.
After all that, I foreshadow my second reading amendment.