What an extraordinary diatribe! Although, perhaps, we should not be so surprised that government members prefer to go back to the past and seek to refight the last election rather than concentrate on the challenges before their government and, indeed, the challenges before Australia today. The contribution we just witnessed from the member for Fairfax was extraordinary in many respects, but perhaps two deserve particular comment. His remarks did not address the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, which is before the House. In fact, he spoke about a presently imaginary bill. I look forward to having the opportunity to debating it.
—Mr Ted O'Brien interjecting: You don't want to talk about 'Mediscare'. That's the problem.—
I am very keen, along with the member for Rankin, the member for Oxley, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Ballarat and all of our colleagues—we will continue to stand up for universal health care. The thing that the member for Fairfax should reflect upon is the distinction between process and substance—a matter that I will turn to when I discuss the bill that is, in fact, before the House. Members of this government, although it won't be the government for very much longer the way it is travelling, should reflect on the issue and not continue their crazed obsession and their pathetic homage to the Prime Minister's election night tantrum when it comes to this. We had 15 minutes of contribution from the member for Fairfax—15 wasted minutes when we consider this significant bill before us and what it represents.
I'll make one last remark on the contribution from the member for Fairfax, and I hope that we will not see similar contributions from other government members. If they want to trawl over the authorisation details—which have been examined in forensic detail already—we welcome that debate. Let's have it again. We welcome the concessions you've made in the course of your contribution—concessions that you are bound to make—but you must not confuse these issues of process with the issue of substance that are of such great concern to so many Australians. They were at the last election; they will continue to be at the next election.
—Mr Ted O'Brien interjecting—
We welcome any opportunity, Member for Fairfax, to carry on this debate. I will turn myself now to the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, which is before the House. I, like the member for Rankin, am pleased to rise in support of this bill, subject to the caveat set out by the member for Rankin, which reflect a constructive process between the parties and the House—a process entirely at odds with the previous contribution. I have been very pleased to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and be part of its important program of work.
I acknowledge my friend the member for Oxley, whose past experience and insight have been invaluable to the work of the committee. I acknowledge also my Labor colleagues on the committee, Senators Brown and Ketter, and the work of the chair, Senator Reynolds—I'll touch upon her contribution in a moment—as well as the contribution of the representative of the Greens, Senator Rhiannon. The hallmark of this committee, in this parliament and in previous parliaments, has been its critical role in setting the ground rules for elections. It ensures that the Australian public see a contest of ideas—a contest of competing visions between the parties and others seeking to take their place in this place and in the other place—and makes sure that those rules are fit for purpose and that we can have that contest of ideas.
I think we must touch upon the wider context here. There is a declining sense of trust in this institution and, indeed, of the political process more broadly amongst Australians—in particular, amongst young Australians. If any of the ideas we come in this place to espouse are to matter, we must do more to ensure that the ground rules under which the political contest is played out are fit for purpose and are seen to be fit for purpose. This bill takes some significant steps in that regard. I welcome those steps in modernising, appropriately, the authorisation regime.
I do note, as the member for Rankin did on behalf of the opposition, that the bill as introduced did not reflect the process of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and did not reflect the evidence that was adduced before this significant committee. This point is worth making and remaking because how we deal with these pieces of legislation is particularly important. They don't go to policy debates upon which we will have legitimate differences; they go to setting up appropriate regimes that all of us should be able to agree with and operate within so that we can have fair and free elections and robust debate, and continue to debate the future of Medicare and other matters of importance to all Australians. I believe this bill reflects the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It reflects the input of experts. I acknowledge the secretariat and our AEC secondees for the input they have had to the process which led to the preparation of the bill that is before us.
I also join the member for Rankin in acknowledging the Special Minister of State and extend my sympathies and best wishes to Senator Ryan. I hope that he is back soon to continue on with his important work—and can continue to play a role, along with the Shadow Special Minister of State, Senator Farrell—in progressing these matters in a bipartisan fashion, in good time, over the life of this parliament so that we can contest the next election under a regime that is fit for purpose.
In terms of authorisations and more broadly, this is a critical task, and it is critical that we are able to rely on the processes of this parliament—in particular, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. So I was a little troubled by the contribution of the previous speaker, because it goes so far from the ongoing attempts to maintain and achieve consensus, to accept that regaining trust in the political process is a challenge that we must all share in overcoming. It's a challenge that will not be reached, that will not be attained, through contributions the like of which we have just been a party to.
I had intended to make some very brief remarks and I will conclude them here by saying that this bill is a small but significant step in the process of modernising our electoral regimes and achieving a greater degree of consistency when it comes to authorisation. It is my hope that we can continue, through the work of all of us in this parliament, to ensure that a similar process of updating goes to other critical aspects of our electoral law, including fundraising and donations. I note that of course there is a bill before this parliament, introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, that would go quite some way towards advancing these objectives. I hope that we can either progress that bill or something similar, or, at the very least, hear some objections from government members as to the substantive matters that are contained within it.
Again, subject to the caveats set out by my friend the member for Rankin, I am pleased to support this bill.