Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

Given some of what we've heard—and I know we'll hear from a range of members who want to make contributions on suggestions of where this bill should now go—I want to restate, while we've moved on to a different topic, some of the background as to how we've ended up at this point, all of the consultation that has occurred up until this point and also the intention of these reforms. As I said before, they are the largest reforms and improvements to Australian democracy in some 40 years.

This latest round goes back to 5 August 2022, when the Special Minister of State wrote to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters requesting that they initiate a review into the last election as a standard practice but with a specific focus on donation reforms, funding of elections, limits on spending, truth in advertising and how we enhance electoral participation. I commend the Special Minister of State for doing that because, rather than just providing the normal reference, he looked to what it was that we needed to preserve Australian democracy for the future.

We saw incredibly diligent work from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, releasing an interim report on 19 June 2022 and their final report on 27 November 2023, recommending, amongst the things that we now see in front of us, lower disclosure thresholds, real-time reporting, donation caps, spending caps, the introduction of administrative funding and a number of other electoral participation reforms.

Having gone through all that process—all of that work done by members on the crossbench, the opposition, government, the Greens party and elsewhere—you would expect that the government would then follow through on our commitment, and we did. The minister released a statement welcoming and accepting the findings of that review and committing that we would find ourselves in the place we find ourselves today: in this term looking at what we can do to further enhance our electoral system but with a specific focus on the influence of big money in politics.

I think that is something that many in the Australian community are concerned about. They see those who have access to millions, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. When people have access to that amount of capital, does it mean that we have a less-than-level playing field? Indeed, I've come to the conclusion it does and that we need to do something about it. That's the conclusion the government has come to. Just to remind those following along with this debate: what is actually being proposed? These are very sensible amendments. Australia's electoral system is one of the strongest in the world. We have people time and time again look to our system for what can be learnt for other stable or emerging democracies. I think Australia proudly does that work, whether we be sending parliamentarians on parliamentary exchanges to share insight, sharing across the public service or, indeed, having the Electoral Commission itself engage with other election regulatory bodies.

Let's go through these broad policy proposals again. There would be caps on receiving donations, with a capped amount of $20,000 to a recipient for each individual donor per calendar year. That's reasonable. That's not just about making sure that we don't have big money; it's also about making sure that you don't have people who might have those $2 million campaigns disproportionately funded by one source or another. There would be an anti-avoidance measure to ensure that individual donors can donate only a capped amount per calendar year and only a capped amount to any individual state or territory per calendar year. There would be a cap on campaign spending, ensuring that entities are able to spend only a capped amount on electoral expenditure per calendar year, tied into the federal caps—again, making sure it is the quality of the ideas, not just the quality of your fundraising, that determines who ends up in parliament. This would clarify the definition of a gift so that we capture more of the funds that are coming into the federal campaign accounts. It would lower the disclosure threshold. At the moment, even with those who claim to be disclosing every donation, we see time and time again declarations of anonymous donations, going from that $16,900 index figure down to $1,000. Again, this would make sure that we have a much better idea of who is putting money where and who is funding what campaigns and make sure that Australian voters know where that money is going in real time. I just said before that under the current system voters have to wait up to 24 weeks to find out who funded a campaign. That's just not acceptable, and we should take action to change that. That's why this bill requires that entities will be required to disclose monthly in arrears during the term, weekly once the writ is issued and then daily within the seven days leading up to an election and the seven days after the election, because it's really important that we have that transparency and that people don't time or game the system.

We've got mandated federal campaign accounts to make sure that it is possible and easy for the Australian Electoral Commission to audit donations and election funding and to make sure that electoral expenditure is paid out of it. Again, this would enhance compliance for those who are standing for election—and I note that everyone who will speak in this debate is someone who has been successful at an election. Indeed, by having the mandated federal campaign accounts, we're also making sure that those who are unsuccessful are held to a higher standard of scrutiny and accountability and also that there are sensible ways that encourage people to participate in Australia's great democracy. We should encourage people to nominate. We should encourage people to have the contest of ideas at the ballot box. This bill does that.

We do have increases to public funding and provisions for advances of public funding. Again, unashamedly, this is all about reducing the influence of big money on elections and recognising that we have a higher level of transparency and accountability work that needs to be done. I don't want to stand here in three years time with someone saying that, because they didn't have the resources, they couldn't comply. Every member, including Independents, will be provided with additional support to make sure that we have compliance and to make sure that the Australian people get the information they want. Also, there are sensible transitional provisions to make sure that the Australian Electoral Commission, admired around the world, can implement this in an effective way.

As we stand here today, we know that billionaires—people with hundreds of millions of dollars—are increasingly using their wealth to influence Australian elections. If we don't act now, our democracy is on track to become an arms race of the biggest spending, with endless fundraising and vested interests. We should act to restrict big donors and we should act to strengthen Australia's independent Electoral Commission.

To those who might say this comes as a surprise: I point out the minister gave the referral more than two years ago, indicating the policy directions he was interested in exploring. The Special Minister of State has talked about this. There are transcripts available on his website of interviews going back to 26 March 2023 and 19 June 2023, and a media release of 28 November 2023 welcoming the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters' final report. He gave an interview this year on ABC Afternoon Briefing in April. He gave a speech to the McKell Institute on 24 September 2024. He held a press conference announcing this legislation at the end of last week. We've had multiple inquiries and looked at this over multiple terms. We've got members speaking on the crossbench—including the member for Curtin, who sits on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The minister has been public about his intentions on donation and spending caps.

When it comes to how we've put this legislation together: we have put that report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters as the impact analysis, to meet the impact analysis requirements. That report itself is the impact analysis because it looked at these things so thoroughly. We had 1,496 submissions. We had hearings here in Parliament House. We had a range of community organisations here. We had four days of hearings in Parliament House, and we came back for another round, another three days, of hearings. People got to have their say. It is important to note in this debate that if the position of the crossbench is that there should be no spending cap they should just say so. That position is an unsustainable position to hold. There should be a spending cap.

I also note a number of members, either collectively or individually, have met with the Special Minister of State. I put on the record that the member for Curtin has met with the Special Minister of State multiple times. If you disagree with the capping of expenditure, just say so. It is an unsustainable position. It is time to set things right. It is time to act on the recommendations of a committee report that's been on the table for a year. It is time to get this done.

See this speech in context