COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL 2001 : Second Reading (2024)

Mr EMERSON (12:13 PM)— This legislation, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2001, is an abuse of the Australian parliament. It is an attempt to use the Australian parliament to settle a grubby squabble between the federal and state divisions of the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister has no ticker. When he gets on the phone to a state Liberal director and says, `We've got to sort out our finances,' they say to him, `No, we're not going to do that.' As a result, he comes into this parliament with this grubby bill and says, `We can't sort out our own problems. We're asking the Australian parliament to sort them out for us.' On our side of the parliament we will not be assisting the Prime Minister to sort out those grubby internal squabbles. They are squabbles over finance and they are squabbles over power. You do not have to rely on me for that, because it is quite clear that that is the Prime Minister's view. He has recently said that, following the 1996 federal election, the Queensland division of the Liberal Party `had reneged on handing over its share of funding'. On this basis, he was reported to have `made it clear' that the bill was going ahead.

Let us understand that it is an attempt to use the Australian parliament to abuse the Australian parliamentary processes to settle financial squabbles with the federal and state sections of the Liberal Party, and most particularly in my home state of Queensland. For reasons that are not fully known to me, Liberal Party members seem to come around to my house from time to time. I take the rubbish out on Wednesdays and I look in the letterbox. Usually I find the minutes of a particular Liberal Party annual general meeting or some other Liberal Party meeting. I have a number of them here. I take the garbage out and I bring the garbage in. I have here the minutes of the annual conference Liberal Party of Australia Longman FEC. It is a very good example of the financial squabbles that are going on in the Queensland Liberal Party. The reports of the chairman say:

A letter from Jeff Taylor to Senator Herron regarding—

Mr Slipper—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This may well be a wide ranging debate but, as far as the member for Rankin is concerned, he is way off the planet. I would ask you to sit him down, shut him up and ask him to come back to the substance of this legislation.

Mr O'Connor—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member, in raising this point of order, is absolutely out of order. This bill relates to legislation which is aimed fairly and squarely at dealing with the financial problems in the Liberal Party, and the member from Queensland is highlighting that point of view.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! I will rule on the original point of order.

Mr Slipper—Can I make a comment first, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, this is getting out of hand. Deputy Speaker Nehl ruled earlier, in relation to remarks made by other speakers, that this was a wide ranging debate. So I will not uphold the point of order but I once again draw the speaker's attention to the fact that he should stay as close to the legislation as possible and not create difficulties for the chair.

Mr EMERSON—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point is that this bill seeks to resolve through the parliamentary processes a financial squabble between the federal and state divisions of the Liberal Party. This is a very clear example of exactly that. In these leaked minutes, it says:

A letter from Jeff Taylor to Senator Herron regarding lack of support from the Party for a local Council candidate who was a liberal party member of the Caboolture branch was also read to the meeting ... The Chair also commented that Gary Parsons campaign for the state seat of Pumicestone—

Mr Slipper—Mr Deputy Speaker, I again raise a point of order. I just want to point out that, while there has been a wide ranging debate, the comments of the member for Moreton related to matters concerning Commonwealth elections. The member for Rankin is talking about internal party minutes from an alleged meeting of the Longman FEC. He is also talking about matters which are absolutely nothing to do with Commonwealth elections. To allow him to proceed in this way is an abuse of the processes of the House. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask you, notwithstanding the wide ranging debate in relation to Commonwealth electoral matters, to rule that this speaker— who ought not to be on his feet, because I have the call—ought to deal with the specific provisions of the bill before the chamber.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I did not hear what the member for Moreton said so I am unable to comment. I can only act on the guidance of Deputy Speaker Nehl, who has indicated that this is a wide ranging debate. I will not uphold the point of order. I call the member for Rankin to continue his remarks but once again ask him to stick to the bill.

Mr EMERSON—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point I am making is that it is a squabble with the federal secretariat of the Liberal Party, Lynton Crosby's dash for cash bill. He is trying to get all of the public money sent to the federal secretariat and not to be in the hands of the state divisions of the Liberal Party. What I am about to point out is that this is an attempt to resolve a financial squabble, an example of which I am about to give. The minutes say:

The Chair also commented that Gary Parsons campaign for the State seat of Pumicestone had been strictly managed, and only monies available had been spent. This was in contrast to the Debbie Taylor campaign for the State seat of Glasshouse, which still had total debts of more than $9500 outstanding. Concern was expressed that a number of local businesses had not received payment and that this would have a detrimental affect on the re election prospects of our Federal member for Longman Mal Brough.

Mr Brough, after the chairman gave this report, gave his report. He said that they must not rely on the Queensland Liberal Party for his re-election. Never a truer word! How could you rely on the Liberal Party for his re-election? The member for Fisher here knows you cannot rely on the Queensland Liberal Party, because it is broke and it is completely dysfunctional. They are brawling all over the place. Again you do not have to take my word for that, Mr Deputy Speaker. You can take the word of the Fairfax Federal Electorate Council. I quote:

For far too long, the Liberal Party has been the news rather than its elected representatives making the news. Groups within, continue to fight for control of an organisation that is increasingly seen as irrelevant in today's professional political world.

Mr Slipper—Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to take a further point of order. While the debate has indeed covered a range of matters, the member for Rankin is circ*mscribing the forms of the House and abusing the standing orders. I ask you—I plead with you, Mr Deputy Speaker—to enforce the standing orders of the House of Representatives.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! There is no point of order.

Mr EMERSON—The Fairfax Federal Electorate Council minutes go on to say:

The Queensland Division does not belong to those few who continue to divide us.

That is what this bill is about—trying to legislatively heal a division between the federal secretariat of the Liberal Party and the Queensland division. That is exactly what this bill is about, that is why it is an abuse of the parliamentary processes, that is why we are so angry about it and that is why we are going to oppose it. Now let us go to the minutes of the division of the member for Moreton. Here we see further internal divisions in the Liberal Party, because a motion was brought forward, saying:

This branch calls upon the State Executive to hold a postal referendum of all party members as soon as possible asking their permission to suspend the party's constitution in order to allow the Federal Secretariat to take over the party and restore the party's finances ...

That is completely relevant to the bill. We have people here in the division of the member for Moreton—the people running his own division, his own electorate council— saying, `We want Lynton Crosby to take over the finances of the party.' That is exactly what the bill does. These people would get their way if they had the numbers. The motion goes on to say:

remove debilitating cronyism, improve the party's standing in the community, and restore the party to its proper place in Queensland politics ...

Then, when the member for Moreton had his chance, he talked about the budget—last year's budget—and he is quoted in the minutes as saying that the budget was `not honest'. Well, there is not much honesty in the Queensland Liberal Party. By the way, that resolution was moved by Mr Mark Scott and seconded by Steven Huang, and it was lost. So we have people in a division in the member for Moreton's electorate calling for federal intervention to restore the party's finances—as this legislation now grubbily attempts to do—but that resolution was lost. The idea of cleaning up cronyism in the Queensland Liberal Party was lost.

Now we move on to the federal division of Ryan, where there is another unedifying mess going on, an enormous squabble, where we have candidates in a three-horse race. I have never seen the odds change so dramatically; you would think that they would be fairly stable. But in the preselection for the Ryan by-election there were three candidates: Michael Johnson at 10 to 9 on, Matthew Boland at 6 to 4 and Bob Tucker at 33 to 1. Johnson and Boland were from the same stable; they were running mates. But the Boland forces nobbled the Johnson campaign—made sure that he could not actually run—so he was a late scratching in that particular race. So what happened was that the backers of the Johnson stable—

Mr Slipper—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, in relation to relevance yet again. I have raised a number of these points of order and I regret the rulings that you have made. The member opposite is just so far beyond the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2001 that it is an abuse of the processes of the House to allow him to continue along the line that he is taking. I understand that you are usually fair. You did not listen to what the member for Moreton had to say. At least what the member for Moreton had to say had something to do with Commonwealth elections. Quite frankly, it is quite appalling, and outside the standing orders, to allow this member to stray as though he is on a world trip. He does not even know what the bill is about. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask you to bring him back to the provisions of the bill before the chamber. Not to do so would be to condone the appalling, out of order conduct by the member for Rankin.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! There is no point of order.

Mr EMERSON—It is not a world trip; it is a trip around the Queensland Liberal Party. So the market was framed then in the current preselection: Tucker 10 to 9 on, Johnson 6 to 4, Boland 33 to 1—he was an outsider because of his bust-up with his running mate. Then there was another attempt at nobbling, by the Boland backers at Tucker. They contrived a process for judging the winner. It was designed by that genius in the Senate, the lawyer Senator George Brandis, who said, `We will contrive a new system to work out who wins. We will not give everyone a vote, you see.' So Mr Tucker took it to court and he won. Now they are going to have a full preselection. So there is a new market now with a full preselection. Johnson has a whole lot of votes that otherwise would not have got a go and Tucker has got a bunch of votes that would not have got a go. But the new market is Johnson; I think that he is going to get up at 10 to 9 on. Tucker is a 6 to 4 chance and Boland is 33 to 1.

But there are going to be more market fluctuations before this race even starts, because today's Australian says there is another candidate, Dr Vallati—he must have been a 100 to 1 outsider; I do not actually know him. He is very upset because 1,100 statutory declarations have been sent out by the Liberal Party to potential preselectors in the seat of Ryan, saying, `You must declare whether you are an Australian citizen or not.' This particular 100 to 1 outsider was very upset about that. The Australian reports that he sent a letter to the Liberal Party—in fact to John Howard—which said:

The Liberal Party in Queensland reeks of defeat and it is just a matter of time when and who will dispose of the carcass ...

The Australian further reports:

The new party rules provide that only Australian citizens and those with residency, work or educational links to a seat can vote in preselections. That is wide open and that is why the Liberal Party is sending out the statutory declarations. The problem is that the Liberal Party in Queensland is disintegrating. Imagine calling on the Australian parliament to settle that. John Howard is saying, `I've got ticker,' and then the state directors of the Liberal Party tell him where to go and he says, `Oh, well, I can't prevail over them, so I will see if I can slip something through the federal parliament. Maybe people won't notice. Maybe the Democrats will support us. Maybe the Labor Party won't even know that we are doing it.'

In fact it is pretty amusing, I think. As our deputy leader and shadow Treasurer pointed out, Kevin Andrews was doing the briefing out of their party room meeting and he read out the details of one bill that was not on the list. He said, `Well, there were two lists, and I had the wrong list.' So he went on to explain, `There is no conspiracy theory or anything else. I just read out from the list that I was not supposed to read from, because we hope that we can slide the bill through the parliament and maybe no-one will notice.' But people do notice. And you know who else will notice? The small business community of this country. The other reason for this legislation is that the Liberal Party are struggling under the weight of the GST and the `simplified new tax system for a new century'. But they have now said, `The administrative burden is pretty heavy for us and we would like a special little deal legislated by the parliament just for us—

Mr O'Connor—Just for the Liberal Party.

Mr EMERSON—just for the Liberal Party. Don't worry about the hundreds of thousands of small businesses around this country. Don't worry about any deals or any special arrangements for them. Don't worry about any simplification for them. This is as simple as it gets.' That is what they say to the small business community, but they in the Liberal Party want a special deal. That is pretty clear because, as the party's state director in Western Australia, Peter Wells, said, `Look, it creates cash flow problems,' which it does. This is that we have been saying. We invite the Liberal Party to make a submission to Labor's BAS inquiry if they are truly concerned, as we are, about the cash flow problems and the administrative problems created by the GST. The member for Wills is the chair of that inquiry and I, as secretary, would welcome a submission from the Liberal Party at least owning up to the fact that the GST does impose a heavy burden on small business. They are trying to get this deal through here just for them. Mr Wells said, `Why mess around with the GST if you do not have to? If we can slide the bill through the parliament, all the small business people around Australia will still have to mess around with the GST, but we won't have to.'And that is what it is all about. It is about trying to solve this squabble that a weak-tickered Prime Minister and his federal director cannot settle, and that squabble is, in the clearest possible terms, in my state of Queensland.

It is pretty clear, too, that there is a lot of cynicism in Longman. The member for Longman said in his report that he hoped to announce university funding in July. Now here we are in late August and university funding has not been announced. Why? Because the government are going to hold it off until the election campaign. How cynical can you get? People are waiting and hoping for extra funding for the university in the seat of Longman, but in a completely cynical exercise the Liberals have now decided, `We will wait and hold that announcement until the election.' I hope that announcement is forthcoming, that is for sure, because they are stringing the voters up there along with this on-again off-again promise that `we might do something for the university'.

Here we are debating the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2001. What are we not debating and why not? I will give you are a few examples. The Wool International Amendment Bill 2001 is not being debated. Where is the member for Gwydir, the member for Eden-Monaro, the member for Gippsland, the member for Indi, the member for Groom and the member for Maranoa? What did they do in their party room when this was listed? They should have said, `The Wool International Amendment Bill 2001 should be debated ahead of some sort of sleazy deal.' What about the regional forest agreements bill? The Minister for Forestry and Conservation comes in here all the time, thumping his chest and saying, `We have to get this regional forest legislation through,' but where was he in the party room when the Prime Minister said, `The priority must not be the regional forest agreements legislation, which would give some certainty to industry; we have to concentrate on settling this squabble and getting square with Queensland'? He said so himself in the media that it was all about getting square with Queensland. Where was the member for Eden-Monaro, the member for Gippsland, or from Queensland the member for Blair and the member for Forde? Why didn't they object to this being listed ahead of the regional forest agreements legislation?

Why aren't we debating the Family Law Amendment Bill 2000? All Liberals say, `We are pro-family; we are in favour of families.' The only family they are in favour of, as the shadow treasurer said, is Mr John Howard's family. The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001 is not being debated because we are having to debate this. Where is the government's commitment to the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 and to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2001, which would allow the granting of more than one community licence in an area? The Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] is dispensable too. What has happened to the child support legislation, the health and other services compensation amendment bill and several migration amendment bills? All of these are being put on the backburner because this Prime Minister lacks the ticker to settle this dispute. He thinks that he can come into the parliament and call on the Labor Party and the Democrats to settle it for him. How pathetic and how grubby is that? Of course we will be opposing this legislation. It is a total abuse of the parliamentary process. (Time expired)