Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. Any legislation to deliver electoral reforms must strengthen democracy and not just the political fortunes of the major parties. The Greens have long advocated to get the influence of big money right out of politics to stop democracy being for sale. We've long supported donation caps, transparency, spending caps and limits on lobbying access and pay-for-policy outcomes. But if there remain loopholes in these bills for electoral reforms that only the big two political parties can use, then this is a rort, not a reform.

For years, the Greens have championed reforms to clean up our democracy, including getting big money out of politics and addressing the incumbency advantages that stack outcomes in favour of the two-party system. One in three voters across the country chose to vote for someone other than a major party at the last election. This is critical. Less than a third of the country voted for the government; a bit more than a third voted for the opposition; and about a third voted for someone else—Greens, Independents and others. There is a really strong and growing desire amongst the Australian population for more voices to be represented in parliament. Because, as the cost-of-living crisis gets worse, as the climate crisis gets worse, people get that we can't keep voting for the same two parties and expect a different result. The trends are very clear, and it is the will of the people.

Everyone in this country who votes deserves to see their vote result in representation in parliament, and this will be our measuring stick for what constitutes good reform. Eighty per cent of voters believe the proposed changes to Australian electoral laws should be reviewed before they are introduced to parliament, according to polling published by the Australia Institute yesterday.

Rushed legislation is very often bad legislation. The government said, when introducing the bill, that this is the largest reform in 40 years to the foundation of the way our democracy works. If it's the largest reform in 40 years, then it's worth making sure that we've got it right. It's the usual practice of this place that, when bills are brought here, a committee of one house or the other or both scrutinises that legislation, especially when, as the government says, it's the biggest reform in 40 years. When bills are allowed to go through that process they're very often improved. Not only that, but you often find flaws in the bill that were unintended—or, in this case, perhaps intended to ensure that the two-party system gets some life support. For such extensive reforms, an inquiry is all the more important.

Why the rush? When these changes don't even come into effect for years and will affect not this coming election at all but the one after that, there's absolutely no reason to race this through without an inquiry. And, frankly, it always makes me very suspicious when the two major parties get together and say: 'Just trust us. We've got to rush some legislation through. Don't worry about reading the fine print. We've just got to rush this through before the end of the year.' You've always got to worry when it comes towards Christmas time in this place because that's when Labor and the Liberals want to put a lump of coal in your democracy stocking. That's when they try and rush through legislation that is very often designed to benefit them at the expense of everyone else.

For a very long time, the Greens—together, in recent years, with Independents and other crossbenchers—have been arguing strongly in this place that the rules around who gets to fund and, in many instances, own politicians need to change; that we need greater transparency; and that we need greater disclosure. There are some good measures in what the government is proposing; in many respects that's because they've picked up measures that we've been advocating for a long time. But there's a lot more in the bill as well. There's a new so-called nominated entity rule, which seems to allow the war chests of the major parties to be grandfathered in and then spent nationally under the extremely generous $90 million national spending cap. These are bodies that the old parties have established and had running for years and that have lots and lots of money and lots of assets. They are things that challengers will never have the capacity to access. They're the things that smaller groups will never have the capacity to access. They're the things that Independents may never have the capacity to access if it's just about funding their own campaign.

But as we saw in Victoria, with similar legislation, what the two major parties do is pull up the ladder behind them. They say, 'We're going to get to keep these big organisations that we've set up that aggregate the money and funnel it in, but we don't want anyone else to have it.' In the short time that we've had to look at this bill, it seems to be following the Victorian path, where they're happy to write laws that will allow the big money to stay in politics for them but then say to others: 'If you want to challenge one of us who are in a seat, you've to play by different rules. You won't have the same access that the major parties do.' They're wanting to cut off opportunity for new political entrants, people seeking to be elected, people who think that they could fight on a level playing field.

One of the other ways they do it, as previous members have explained, is that they saying they're putting in spending caps, and people think: 'That sounds alright to me. A lot of money gets spent on the election, and wouldn't it be great if less gets spent.' But what people need to realise is that, for a challenger running in a seat, if they're not part of a party, they're going to be subject to a spending cap that affects them.

But, if they are trying to oust someone who's a member of one of the major parties, while that individual gets the same spending cap, their party can spend within $90 million on top that to put as much advertising in that seat as they want. So they can put up signs saying, 'Vote 1 Labor,' or, 'Vote 1 Liberal,' and it won't count. They've given themselves a loophole. It's a spending cap for people who want to challenge the incumbent, but if you are a major party incumbent, you don't have to play by the same rules. Head office gets to put in as many ads as they want in the electorate and spend as much money as they want, and, as long as it just has the major party's name on it, it's not counted. It's not counted. No wonder they are so keen to rush this through.

We, in the Greens, want big money out of politics. We've been arguing for that for years. But it can't just be that the government says, 'Old big money is allowed to stay in, but we're going to push out new money from people who want to challenge us.' And that's what the government is doing. That's what Labor and the Liberals are doing here. The largess from the major parties is going to be allowed to carry on pretty much unhampered.

One of the other things that's really strange and that tells you volumes about why they are doing this is that one of the other reforms that they said they were going to act on in this parliament and that people have pushed for, for ages, is truth in advertising laws, but they are not rushing those through. They are saying, 'Oh yeah, that's an important part of the package that came out of it.' It's not important enough to take priority in parliament. People will have different views about whether that's good legislation or not, but it speaks volumes that the thing that the government most wants to get through is something that's going to benefit just them and the opposition. The onus is really on the government to explain why, for what they are calling the largest reform in 40 years, they want to bypass the standard practice of this parliament. I haven't heard a thing about why this legislation needs to be rushed, especially given it's not about this election but the next one—not a thing. That ought to ring alarm bells.

As I said before, we are in a situation in this country where, if you go back to just after World War II, something like 98 per cent of people voted for the two major parties. I stand to be corrected exactly, but it was something like that—98 per cent in the fifties and sixties. Fast forward to now and that figure is closer to 68 per cent. People are crying out for new voices in parliament. The government of the day could approach this reality, the shifting will of the Australian people, by saying, 'We better have a listen to what the third of the country who are voting for someone else are saying and maybe lift our game and put forward policies that are better.' They could put forward some policies that are better or listen to why it is that people are deserting the two major parties in droves. Or they could do what they've done here, which is to say, 'We'll just try to change the rules of the game to shore up our diminishing vote.' That's basically what they've done.

By racing this bill through without an inquiry, it sends the message to the public that the two major parties just want to rig the rules because they don't have the courage to implement policies that are actually addressing the pressures that people and the planet are facing. Why are we seeing this big shift, with people voting for more Greens, Independents and other parties and moving away from the two major parties? As cost-of-living pressures get worse, as parents say, 'My kid might never be able to afford a home in the way that I could when I grew up,' as people say, 'I'm putting off a family because I'm struggling to pay the rent and think I'll never get a mortgage, and I've got a massive student debt,' as people say, 'I'm looking at the planet burning, cars piled up in Spain, heading towards another terrible summer here, seeing the climate crisis hit us right now, and Labor has just approved 28 new coal and gas projects while the Liberals want to do even more,' it is no wonder that people are increasingly getting the fact that we can't keep voting for the same two parties and expecting a different result.

They're sending more and more of us—third voices—into parliament.

In the face of that, people want change. People are crying out for change. Yes, that change might not happen overnight. We might not be able to fix all the big structural problems overnight, but it will happen when we have more voices in parliament pushing for the things that people want to address—not the two major parties feathering their pockets, listening to big corporations and donors and only advancing their own interests, but listening to what the people actually want. This is an attempt to ensure that the will of the Australian people is not represented. Instead of just doing better, Labor and Liberal are trying to change the rules to rig the system in their favour.

People understand that this parliament should be about the public interest, not about vested interests. We should be making decisions about what is going to address the big problems this country is facing so that everyone in this wealthy country of ours has what they need to live a good life. In a wealthy country like ours, no-one should be going without. There is a reason that parents are getting so distressed at the fact that their kids are not going to be able to enjoy the same quality of life as they did, having a home and living a debt-free life. These are the things that we need to fix, and it's because Labor and Liberal are not fixing them that people are looking for other alternatives. So fix them. Fix those problems and ensure that, in this wealthy country of ours, everyone has what they need to live a good life. Don't rig the rules of the game, Labor and Liberal, to try and advantage yourselves. Just fix the problems.

See this speech in context