Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to support the recommendations in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Conduct of the 2022 federal election and other matters: Interim report and to speak to my additional comments in this report. There is strong appetite for reform around our election process. Australians want to see a level playing field, transparency and truth, not big money affecting the outcomes of elections and policies. Transparency is a great place to start. Australians want to know who's financing candidates before they vote.

I support the recommendation of the majority report, which requires real-time disclosure of all donations above $1,000. This is a no-brainer. In my campaign last year I disclosed every cash donation in real time. It's really not that hard. We built a website in a week that can do this. In my additional comments, I make recommendations that go further on transparency. The AEC publishes a so-called transparency register every year, but, even with a lower disclosure threshold, about a third of major party private income is hidden under other receipts. This includes expensive fundraising dinners, membership fees, investment income and who knows what else. This should all be disclosed under clear categories. The lobbyists register should be expanded so everyone can see who the 1,900 unknown in-house lobbyists are. Ministerial diaries should be published so we can see who our decision-makers are listening to.

Beyond transparency, Australians are worried that big money has too much influence in politics. The majority report recommends caps on donations and spending. This sounds good, but it may backfire. Voters also want to know that they have a choice, and a bit about the candidates, which requires spending to get the word out. Having run against a major party, I know it's a daunting and expensive challenge. The devil will be in the detail on caps. Structuring caps in a way that's effective and fair will be complicated. I look forward to seeing how the government proposes to respond to the recommendations on caps, and I urge the government to ensure that it does not create another barrier to entry.

Some types of donations just shouldn't be allowed, and I make additional recommendations in relation to these. Government contractors, including consultants, shouldn't be able to donate. It creates an unhealthy co-dependency, and most OECD countries ban these donations. Companies that inflict social harm, such as gambling and tobacco companies, should also not be able to make political donations. They clearly donate to get a favourable policy outcome, to the detriment of society. As in the UK, companies and unions should have to get shareholder or member approval before making political donations. They should be required to explain to their shareholders or members what benefit they hope to achieve by spending money. I support the majority recommendation establishing a truth-in-political-advertising framework and acknowledge the work of my fellow crossbencher, the member for Warringah, in this area. Politicians should not be able to tell lies in ads.

The biggest risk in these recommendations is that any donation reform may further embed the two-party system. In my additional comments, I make further recommendations to level the playing field to ensure that we have competition and renewal in our electoral system. With the largest crossbench ever at the last election, Australians have shown that they want to be represented in different ways. Only 0.4 per cent of Australians are a member of a major political party, but major parties have ways of locking in their advantages. The 99.6 per cent of Australians who are not a member of a major political party may want to be represented by someone other than the 0.4 per cent. Our electoral system cannot lock out these new candidates. In my comments I've identified 13 party advantages and five incumbency advantages. These are a bit boring and technical, but they add up to big barriers to entry. My recommendations try to address some of these advantages, such as banning excessive government ads before elections, equal treatment under privacy and spamming laws, protecting the postal vote process, and creating an independent candidate entity to equalise some of the administrative and tax advantages.

In conclusion, the report makes a good start on improving transparency and reducing financial influence, but the devil will be in the detail. I look forward to the government's response. I urge the government, civil society and the public to drive additional reforms to level the playing field to ensure that any donation reforms do not entrench incumbents and reduce competition in our political system.

See this speech in context