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

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The fairness and transparency of our elections underpins every other issue addressed in this House.

We can't trust our politicians to make decisions about gambling harm if they are secretly beholden to gambling providers.

We can't trust them to make decisions about climate if they are financed by fossil fuel companies.

And if we don't know where their money is coming from, we don't have all the information we need before we decide who to trust with our vote.

In commerce we need competition to drive innovation and prevent big companies from using their market power to dominate.

In politics we also need competition so if communities don't feel that their values or priorities are shared by their representatives, they can find a different representative.

This bill lays out 13 reforms to improve transparency, reduce financial influence and level the playing field. These changes have the broad support of the crossbench, democracy think tanks, civil society organisations and academics, some of whom are here in the chamber today.

These reforms build on the work of many other crossbenchers, including the members for Mayo, Clark, Warringah, Indi and the Greens.

These reforms are also likely to be supported by the one-third of Australians who didn't cast their primary vote for a major party last year and anyone who thinks transparency and a level playing field are good for democracy.

The first five changes relate to the current lack of transparency. Over the last 20 years, only 21 per cent of major parties' private funding has been disclosed donations. We need to fix disclosure requirements and ban lies so voters can make an informed choice about their representatives.

The bill proposes to lower the disclosure threshold from more than $16,000 to $1,000 and require disclosure within five business days. I ran a completely transparent real-time campaign. Ninety per cent of donors chose to reveal their names on my website. We didn't find out anything about where my opponent's funds came from until 10 months after the election and then we were only told about the source of 21 per cent of the Liberal Party's private revenue, for the whole party. We will never know who donated how much to my opponent's campaign or where it came from.

The bill also proposes changes to broaden the gift definition and improve the so-called Transparency Register. This would mean that $14,000 dinners and $35,000 business roundtable subscriptions could not be hidden. It would also mean we could see exactly how much revenue the Labor Party earns from pokies. Over the last 20 years, 21 per cent of all private funding to the major parties came from undisclosed sources.

The bill bans lies in political ads, using the approach proposed by the member for Warringah. The 2016 'Mediscare' incident and the 2019 death tax incident showed that both major parties are guilty of this and Australians deserve better.

The next three changes are aimed at reducing financial influence. Australians worry that politicians make decisions for vested interests, not for all of us. We need to reduce financial influence so we trust governments to make decisions in the best interests of the country.

The bill proposes banning donations from companies inflicting social harm. Last year gambling and alcohol companies contributed $2 million to major parties, including $19,000 from Sportsbet to Minister Rowland, who is in charge of regulating gambling, in the week of the election.

It also proposes banning donations from current or potential substantial government contractors. The big four accounting firms contributed $4.3 million in donations to major parties in the last 10 years. During this time, the value of their government contracts has increased by at least four times. Three-quarters of OECD countries don't allow these types of donations, and it's time Australia joined them.

The bill requires member approval for corporate and union donations. Australians are concerned about unions and companies having disproportionate influence in politics. The unions contributed $16 million to the Labor Party last year.

Corporate donations are banned completely in half the OECD countries. While this may face constitutional challenges in Australia, requiring member approval is a modest governance requirement that enhances transparency.

The remaining five changes are about levelling the playing field. Last year, voters decided they wanted more political choice, with one-third casting their primary vote outside the major parties.

It's an uphill battle for community candidates, who face at least 13 party advantages and five incumbency advantages. Equalising some of these advantages would enable healthy political competition.

For example, the bill proposes to limit government advertising before elections. The coalition spent $31 million on its positive energy campaign before the last election, trying to convince us we weren't the worst OECD country on climate change. This was paid for by taxpayers. This was consistent with at least a doubling in government advertising before every election. Governments should not be able to use taxpayer funds to promote their party's achievements.

The bill cleans up the postal voting process. Postal voting is an important part of our election process. But political candidates have been using this to harvest personal data and in many instances cause confusion.

The bill removes the political party exemptions from the privacy and spam acts so that political parties have to protect personal data and can't send election day spam text messages.

It also proposes setting up an independent campaign entity for independent candidates, to equalise access to voters and reporting dates between independents and parties.

It also requires all new candidates to provide 100 signatures from the electorate, whether they're an independent or in a party. This will stop parties from parachuting in candidates with little support from the community they are meant to be representing.

In the coming months, the government will respond to the JSCEM report on the inquiry into the 2022 election.

It's up to all of us to make it clear to government that we expect its response to incorporate these changes and not just entrench the two-party system.

We must be able to see where the money comes from before elections.

We must reduce financial influence that could skew the decisions of government.

And we must have a level playing field so new representatives can emerge if that's what their communities want.

I commend this bill to the House and look forward to discussing these reforms with the government.

I cede the remainder of my time to the member for Warringah.

See this speech in context