Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

It is a great practical example of the day after International Women’s Day.

I understand that the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010 is the first part of a two-part reform process. This is part of structural change and I will focus on that in my comments tonight. It is also my understanding that we are expecting a financial bill with regard to electoral law reform. As I think any member in this place would attest, it is where the money flows that we have a great deal of interest in; therefore, I flag to everyone to keep a good, strong eye on the financials. I will make a couple of references tonight to this legislation being the first in a package of electoral law reform, both structural and financial. Whilst there is a level of comfort with elements of this piece of legislation, I think there are some deep concerns, not only personally but also within the community, about the financials and the way in which our democracy is being bought by too many people with an interest that is not the national interest but that may be a self-interest or a business interest. No-one in this debate speaks with clean hands with regard to the financial elements of what it takes to play in our democracy today.

I hope that we see this as genuine reform that upholds parliamentary democracy for the long term and that it is not about some short-term deal between the two major parties, in particular, in trying to wrestle for power and influence in Australia today. I start with the broad principle approach that all of this is a lot more important than quite often it is given credit for because it is the essential elements, the recipe, for what our parliamentary democracy is today. You only have to watch what is happening in a very interesting House of Commons debate at the moment, where we are seeing some push-back on behalf of backbenchers, both government and opposition, who are taking on the executive and taking on the philosophical questions around who really does run a parliament, who really is responsible and who really are the gatekeepers for democracy. I am pleased to see that debate in the House of Commons and I await the day when we have a similar debate here in Australia.

Having been here for only 16 months, I can say that there seem to be a great many norms that are accepted as part of, for example, House of Representatives practice, the way electoral business is conducted, the way rolls are kept and the way election funding is done. There seem to be an awful lot of norms accepted by the process and by Australia which are not necessarily contrary to but are certainly a long extension of some definitions of parliamentary democracy and certainly a long way from the original definitions around the very essence of the role of a parliamentary democracy. I know I am starting wide with some broad principles, but I think it is important when we are considering just how we structure a voting system and just how we allow MPs to raise and spend money. We do need to start wide with who we are and what we are and what we want to be.

I also say—it is probably unusual for an unaligned MP to say it after 16 months in this place—that I have yet to meet an MP who wants our democratic process to be the plaything of the rich. Certainly as individuals, there is a general belief that our democracy can be and should be better than that. Whether they be my unaligned colleagues or members of political parties, nobody wants the logical extension of that to be that the democratic process, the parliamentary process, is the play toy of political parties. I would hope there is a general belief and a general principle that it is inclusive of all-comers—members of political parties or not. I am not one to whack political parties around. There is a right and a role for association of members in this chamber to get things done but, vice versa, there is also a right and a role for those who choose to align based on issues. I would hope the process recognises that and the concerns I will express tonight that we are potentially just reaffirming some norms from previous systems that provide a substantial advantage to those who stand as candidates as members of political parties as compared to those who do not.

It is extremely concerning to hear conversations in this building about the next round of electoral reform that seems to be placing a greater ability for a member or a candidate standing for a political party to spend up to $300,000 per division, per electorate, compared to someone who is not a member of a political party, who looks like having their spending capped at $100,000. If that is the dirty deal that is being done behind the chair, I think that is a disgrace. I would hope anyone in this place, regardless of whether they are a member of a party or not, particularly the backbenchers from both sides, would give some push-back on this. As hard and as uncomfortable as it is to give up the advantage that money provides, I would hope that push-back comes from across the party lines and says, ‘No, in the long-term interests of our system of government, of our democracy, of our parliamentary democracy, it is in all our long-term interests that the amount raised and the amount spent and the way that is accounted for is fair and equitable to all.’ I do not think it is asking too much for unaligned or aligned members to have the same rules.

The example that I currently use is the September 2008 Lyne by-election. There was a period of, I think, 30 to 60 days during which all the candidates had to declare how much they raised and how much they spent in that Lyne by-election. Please do not take this as me having a crack at one political party. There was really only one major party that stood. I would suspect all would have been guilty if they had stood. However, the party in question and the individual involved as a candidate were able to declare ‘zero’ on their Lyne by-election return under the guise of some global annual return that came out early in February. None of us know the evidence trail—exactly what was raised for the Lyne electorate and what was spent in the Lyne electorate. It gets lost in the wash of this global figure. This is obviously to the advantage of the major parties involved who can argue a case that, ‘We are national parties; we therefore have national budgets, blah-de, blah-de, blah.’

There is, if not a legal imperative currently, certainly a moral imperative to allow a voter to know what was spent and to draw some conclusions or ask some questions as to why it was spent. To the credit of the Greens candidate in the Lyne by-election, she did exactly that—she declared locally. To the credit of Malcolm Turnbull, he did that in the Wentworth by-election—he declared what was raised locally and what was spent. There is an accountability and transparency trail wrapped up in that. I think that is the best we can do under a ‘buyer beware’ principle. I know, however, that there is still a great deal of frustration on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales because, 16 months after the event, an individual voter from that by-election can ask how much the major political party raised and spent but will still not get an answer.

See this speech in context