Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to address the government's proposed changes to electoral funding which, if this legislation is enacted, will profoundly alter the fairness and accessibility of our democracy. Since I was elected, my Independent colleagues and I have been calling for meaningful electoral reform. We want more transparency; we want more fairness in government. For almost three years, we have called for legislation ensuring both real-time declaration of significant donations and truth in political advertising to be in place at the next federal election, but the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 will not provide that.

Five days ago, the government announced this electoral donation reform bill. It says that this is the biggest electoral reform in 40 years. It is a 200-page document that the Liberal-National coalition and the Labor government have been working on together for six months. My Independent colleagues and I first saw it five days ago. I was elected member for Kooyong by a community which demanded politics done differently—more transparently, more equitably and with a stronger focus on integrity. These reforms fall short of those values. They fall short of the contract that I made with my constituents to try and improve our governance. Instead of addressing systemic inequalities in our electoral system, this bill will consolidate the advantages of the major parties and the incumbents. It will silence independent, emerging voices.

The government's proposal to impose restrictive donation caps, while ostensibly aimed at reducing undue influence, will have significant consequences on the ability of challengers to fund competitive campaigns. The caps would disproportionately benefit incumbents and established parties who already have the advantage of name recognition, entrenched donor networks and of associated entities, which are sometimes worth millions of dollars.

There is an alternative approach. My colleague the member for Curtin has proposed a more fair donation cap of $1.5 million, which would secure sufficient resources for challengers if they're able to fundraise to that extent, whilst still safeguarding against undue influence. This was a thoughtful proposal which deserves due consideration. In presenting this bill to the House yesterday, with the stated intention of ramming it through both houses in this fortnight, the government has ensured that due consideration has gone out the window, along with due process, evidence based analysis and community consultation.

It's worth remembering, too, that donation caps do not prevent cash for access payments to ministers and shadow ministers. They don't prevent the $10,000-a-head dinners held by coteries. They don't prevent the hidden in-kind donations. They're unlikely to limit the effect of those entities which account for a third of the cash which flows into the coffers of the Liberal and Labor parties.

The proposed spending caps pose a similar challenge. Caps on spending benefit MPs who are already in parliament over candidates who choose to run against them at elections. Incumbents have access to a funded car, an office and a comms budget. New candidates have none of these things. These caps will allow parties to concentrate their spending on target seats, enabling them to outspend Independent candidates in those seats. Similar legislation in New South Wales and Victoria has already been shown to decimate Independent representation. It has been shown to shore up the significant advantages of the flagging, bloated and tired major parties. The most superficial reading of this legislation reveals loopholes which will no doubt be exploited by the parties—for example, the ability to have other entities advertise on one's behalf, or to fund unlimited, non-individually branded party advertising in marginal electorates, siphoning money away from safe seats. There is, theoretically, a limit on spending in each electorate, but ads that promote parties don't count.

Taxpayer funding for political parties will increase significantly under this legislation, from $2.91 per vote to $5 per vote at the next federal election. You will pay more for less choice. Australia does love a duopoly. We see it in our supermarkets, and we see it in our aviation industry. These parties would like to see it in our politics as well. It feels like this legislation should be going to the ACCC, not the Senate. The parties will be able to spend up to $91 million at every election—just remember that!—even though this piece of legislation purports to put a cap on spending.

The legislation gives incumbents funding to cover their paperwork and their reporting requirements, but it offers nothing to new candidates, although the requirements for donation reporting and compliance will be much more strict in future elections for new candidates, including Independents.

The bill includes three pages of exempted gifts. You don't have to declare bequests, loans or subscriptions and you don't have to declare the parties' levies on their members' wages. I'm sure this is all entirely legitimate. The problem is that all of these big, expensive changes will primarily benefit established parties, not people who operate outside the major political parties. They're not great for Independents like me, but for people with incumbency there are already entrenched advantages. The problem is that this legislation will make it much harder for new Independents to be elected. This is not the democracy that Australians want or expect.

As we consider these sorts of reforms to our own system, it's worth reflecting on international examples. In the United States the influence of political action committees and super PACs offers a cautionary tale. These entities allow for virtually unlimited donations, often from anonymous sources, resulting in a system in which financial power too often equates to political influence. This approach has fostered an electoral environment in which a small number of wealthy donors and organisations wield disproportionate influence. It can overshadow grassroots participation, and it distorts the democratic process. In Australia we have long prided ourselves on avoiding these pitfalls, but the reforms proposed in this legislation risk introducing their own version of imbalance. They will restrict challenges while entrenching the power of the major parties. In contrast, countries like Canada have succeeded in imposing donation caps and requiring full transparency of contributions. In doing so they have helped preserve trust in the electoral process. Similarly, New Zealand's MMP system encourages diversity in representation. It ensures that smaller parties and Independents do have a voice in shaping government policy. These examples remind us of the importance of designing electoral systems that balance fairness, transparency and inclusivity.

The government claims that increased public funding will compensate for the limits on private donations, but greater reliance on public funds risks a system in which parties can become overly dependent on government subsidies, potentially discouraging grassroots engagement and local fundraising efforts. In a cost-of-living crisis, many Australians are, very understandably, going to resile from increasing the funding that they are providing to political parties. The administrative support allotted in the bill equates to $30,000 per year per incumbent. For the parties, that is more than $2 million a year each—from taxpayers to political parties—to help them with their administrative costs, with no consideration of the economies of scale afforded by the centralised party structure. It's just a question of more taxpayers' money flowing to the major parties. The reforms also fail to address the influence of union funding. As significant donors to the Labor Party, the unions wield considerable sway in our political system. Recent reports linking certain unions to questionable practices only highlight the need for greater transparency and accountability in the area. Ignoring this issue undermines the credibility of the government's reforms. If we are serious about addressing undue influence, we cannot selectively apply this principle. Transparency has to apply across the board.

Electoral reform should strengthen our democracy, not weaken it. Australians want a system that fosters participation, encourages diverse viewpoints and ensures that all voices have a fair chance to be heard. This legislation will benefit the major parties, leaving Independent candidates—especially new candidates—out. It is a stitch-up. Best practice systems are subject to independent external scrutiny and review. The government has told us that this is the most comprehensive electoral reform in 40 years. We're told that the government has been working on this legislation with the Liberal-National coalition for six months. It was first shared with the crossbench five days ago. We have been denied the opportunity for appropriate scrutiny and evaluation of its complexities. Complex pieces of legislation are customarily subjected to detailed committee review.

Yesterday the crossbench tried to have this legislation referred for committee review. This was blocked by the Labor Party and the Liberal Party and the National Party. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party and the National Party do not want this legislation to undergo detailed scrutiny. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party and the National Party do not want this legislation to be analysed and evaluated in detail and at length by academics, the media and the experts. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party and the National Party do not want this legislation to undergo community evaluation. It's not that the Labor Party and the Liberal Party and the National Party are not interested in what Australians think about this legislation. It's just that they don't want Australians to know about it.

This legislation will not affect the 2025 election. There is absolutely no reason to push it through with this unseemly haste, unless the government doesn't want the public to recognise exactly how poorly the major parties are behaving with this bill. The thing is that the public is not stupid. In 2022, one-third of Australian voters voted for Independents and for small parties. In 2025, when the Australian public are deciding who they trust to represent them, we will encourage them to remember this cynical political manoeuvring, this sneaky collusion, and the disrespect that it shows them.

See this speech in context