Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

We've all heard that Australians have lost interest in politics, that they see all politicians as cynical and self-interested. Indeed, in a recent Australian Reader's Digest survey on Australia's most trusted professions, politicians won the wooden spoon, ranking last—just below journalists. As a former journalist and now standing here in this place, I get it when people question my choice of job, yet last Thursday night, in my electorate of Goldstein, more than 800 people turned up at a community townhall event at the historic Kingston City Hall in Moorabbin to join me to discuss the issues that matter most to them.

In recent months I've had multiple full Politics in the Pub events, where we've discussed everything from housing to women and the economy, the renewable energy transition, US politics and Australia's place in the world. It is therefore a lazy trope, I think, to say that people aren't interested in politics. These people are passionate about the issues they care about—climate change, housing affordability, the cost of living, student debt, early childhood education and care, just to name a few. They want to be heard and they want to be part of the solution to these problems. They believe in a type of politics where they're included and respected. They want a seat at the table.

Imagine their disappointment and exasperation when, a few days later, they woke up to the news that the Albanese Labor government had apparently done a deal with the coalition on its electoral reform bill that all but locks in the major party duopoly that voters, at best, are drifting away from and, at worst, loathe. Their cynicism would have only grown when they found out that the government dropped this huge and complex piece of legislation late on a Friday afternoon and then demanded that it be hustled through the parliament in a mad rush this week. Even sending it to committee inquiry was a bridge too far. The legislation isn't even set to apply until 2026, and—by the minister's own admission—it proposes the largest reform to Australia's electoral laws in over 40 years. Surely that warrants scrutiny.

Given the ridiculously short time we've had to study this bill, with no exposure draft beforehand, it has been impossible to fully scrutinise this legislation, which I guess is entirely the point. The bill ensures that Australian politics remains a cosy table for two, and it makes it clear to ordinary Australians: you're not invited.

The Labor Party and the Liberal-National coalition—the Coles and Woolies of Australian politics—are engaging in lockout politics. It's politics as usual for the Canberra cartel. The minister says this bill is getting big money out of politics, but actually it's replacing donor money with taxpayer money, which then embeds the incumbents. Rather than banning big money, the bill guarantees big money to the big parties. Let's be clear: they think this will be a short and noisy process—that they'll pass it and everyone will forget about it. Well, we'll see about that.

The expenditure caps in this bill are a clear attempt by the major parties to game the system. The expenditure on creating or communicating electoral matter targeting a division is capped at $800,000 per calendar year. 'Targeting' means naming a candidate or including their likeness or expressly mentioning the division, so a poster or billboard with my photo or name on it, mentioning the seat of Goldstein, would sit well and truly under that expenditure cap, yet political party material that doesn't mention the candidate doesn't count under the cap. The Liberal Party or the Labor Party could line the Nepean Highway with their party-branded billboards, all the way from Elsternwick to Cheltenham, and it wouldn't count under the cap. The electoral expenditure of a party plus its branches cannot exceed the federal cap of $90 million, but that amount still allows the Canberra cartel to shift money around the country and pour it into marginal seat campaigns at their discretion. Call it the sandbagging slush fund.

There are two sets of rules in play here, and Australian voters aren't fools; they can spot a stitch-up when they see one. This legislation has so many loopholes you could sail a ship through it. These loopholes mean that even advertising mentioning a party candidate doesn't fully count towards their divisional cap, provided it's spread around the state, or Senate candidates are promoted alongside the House candidate, or both. That means the parties could spend much more than $800,000 promoting a particular candidate, if they do it in the right way.

Then there's the gaping hole in this bill that is best described as the third-party free-for-all. Any third party, like Advance Australia or the ACTU, can run their own campaign on electoral issues, with a cap of $11 million per annum. Exactly how this works remains a bit opaque, but it appears that, if Advance, for example, wants to spend big on a climate change denial campaign, they can, if they sit under that $11 million cap. The unions could run a pro-jobs campaign geared to Labor. This is in addition to party caps. And that's not to mention the fact that there are three pages of exemptions to the definition of 'gift'. That's confusing and, again, needs scrutiny. Is this the sort of electoral reform Australia needs? Meanwhile, incumbents, including myself, would have the advantage of public funding and resources, while new entrants face the same caps as those of us who are already in office. How is putting the squeeze on new entrants and Independents while giving the green light to partisan lobbyists and political action groups a way to reinstall confidence in the political system?

It is true that several elements of this legislation go some way to reforming our electoral system in a way that ordinary Australians will welcome, as I do. Lowering the disclosure threshold for political contributions to $1,000, from $17,000, and aggregating those donations to determine whether they exceed the threshold is long overdue. Having a more transparent process for the disclosure of gifts is vital. The legislation proposes that it occur within 24 hours during the final week of an election campaign, weekly during the campaign proper and monthly at other times. These transparency measures would ensure that we have line of sight on where the money is coming from and where it's going.

Kicking the dark money out of Australian politics is something I fully support. Indeed, I practiced as close as practical to real-time disclosure during my last campaign. Unfortunately, this legislation won't stop dark money from being poured in to influence the upcoming federal election—and we can expect plenty of it being spent to try to win seats—because, despite the rush to pass the bill, those measures won't be in place in time.

Sadly, the value of these initiatives in restoring faith in the fairness of our electoral process has had the stool kicked out from under it by the other provisions in this legislation. The proposed gift or donation cap for any individual is to be set at $20,000 per annum, and it will reset every calendar year or after a general election. That means there'll be four opportunities for an individual to give every election cycle. The devil is lurking in the detail here. Each party branch will have its own cap. For instance, that means the Labor Party has eight individual state and territory branches as well as national branch. An individual could therefore donate as much as $180,000 per year to the party. Once again, Independents and any aspiring new entrants are playing by a different set of rules to the major parties.

Public and administrative funding of elections should be a way to build a firewall between the electoral process and those vested interests with big wallets looking to pay for access and influence. Public funding will increase from $2.91 per vote at the last federal election to $5 a vote, at a total cost of $40 million. About 76 per cent of that money will land in the coffers of the major parties—once again reinforcing their hold over Australian democracy. It basically doubles the funding they receive now.

Australian voters are crying out for political parties to cut the bull and stop telling lies in their election ads. If there's one initiative that Australian voters are crying out for it's truth in political advertising. This government has other legislation in train that deals with mis- and disinformation, yet when it comes to just that in political ads it's on a go-slow. The bill has been tabled, but apparently there is no rush to pass that one. The major parties are happy to take an extra bucket of public money, but they won't lift a finger to protect Australian voters from the lies and deceit in political advertising. Is it any wonder the professional reputation of Australian politicians has cratered like it has?

Quite seriously, the more time I spend looking at this bill the worse it gets. Ramming it through the parliament without proper scrutiny before Christmas when it won't even come into effect until after the next election is a sign of desperation from the major parties—'Quick! Get it through just in case any more Independents get in and stop us.' This law could fundamentally change who can get into the parliament for a generation. Australian needs a new approach to politics that encourages political engagement and participation in our democracy, not a lockout strategy that signals to ordinary Australians that they are not welcome to get involved. Lead better. Don't change the rules to help you win.

See this speech in context