Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

Electoral reform is critical if we are to maintain confidence in the political system. Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes free and fair elections as:

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

We should be rightfully proud that as a relatively young nation we have a mature and robust electoral system. It has served us well. We may not like the outcome of some elections, but we all respect the process and, ultimately, we respect the decision of the people. That is always accepted.

Added to this are our Australian values, particularly the right to a fair go. In Australia, you don't need to be a millionaire to participate in politics. My first election cost me roughly $40,000 to run. Contrast this to the politics of the United States, where the recent election cost a staggering $15.9 billion. The Democrats reportedly spent $6.7 billion, while the Republicans spent a reported $7.6 billion. Increasingly, we are seeing a larger spend on campaigns across parties and individual candidates in Australia. In the last election we saw several candidates from major parties and Independents spending more than $2 million on their campaigns.

The United Australia Party spent more in a single year than any political party in Australian political history. Our democracy must not devolve to a financial arms race that favours the size of the campaign wallet over the quality of the candidate. Australians should not be dissuaded or precluded from participation as a consequence of financial barriers to entry. At the least, Australians must be able to be aware of the sources of the parties' and candidates' funding before they cast their ballots.

I've previously quoted the late great Robin Williams, who said that politicians should wear sponsored jackets like NASCAR drivers, and then we'd know who owns them. In 2019 and 2023, I introduced private member's bills seeking to lower the political donation disclosure threshold to $1,000, provide a broader definition of donations and require real-time disclosure as soon as reasonably practicable within five working days after receipt. This is about transparency. If donations are received in the thousands, the public has a right to know so they can determine for themselves whether the candidate's party or party views are being influenced. And they need to know before the election, not the following year.

The bill before the House will lower the donation disclosure threshold to $1,000 cumulative over a calendar year, as my bills did. It will also, similarly, broaden the definition of gifts over the threshold value so that new disclosure requirements apply. The bill will not, as my bill did, require real-time donation disclosures above this threshold, but it will put in place a requirement to disclose donations monthly in arrears following their receipt and more regularly as polling day approaches—within seven days, once writs are issued, and, in the last seven days, within 24 hours, in the week on either side of polling. I think the 'either side of polling' is really important. This will ensure voters can access the information that they need before casting their votes.

The bill will also require the establishment of a federal election Commonwealth campaign account, monitored by the Electoral Commissioner, to capture all expenditure and gifts received for a federal purpose. It will cap both the amount that may be donated and campaign spending to slow down that electoral arms race so we don't see the obscene amounts of money that are being spent on elections in some countries.

I understand concerns that political party candidates will be treated preferentially in terms of high caps on spending in comparison with independent candidates. The bill will apply a federal expenditure cap of $90 million for parties, a divisional cap of $800,000 for each division and a Senate cap for states and territories based on the number of divisions in the relevant state or territory. I think that this is all exceedingly generous. This is not perfect, but it is still better than the current situation, which offers no limits and less transparency. The sources of an estimated 40 per cent of political donations over recent years are unknown. We never know where the money is sourced from. I think that this bill will be a step towards trying to uncover that.

While I feel that the expenditure cap of $11.25 million per year for significant third parties, associates and third parties who campaign for particular outcomes is also very high, at least spending on such campaigns will now be captured, disclosed and capped. Electoral spending for an independent candidate running in a single seat will be limited to $800,000, which I think is very generous, based on my own personal experience. I recognise and appreciate the concerns of other candidates, although that hasn't been my experience over four or five elections now.

Other improvements expand eligibility for pre-poll and postal voting to ensure that people with a disability or with obligations as a carer for someone with a disability will still be able to vote even if they can't attend a polling booth. It will strengthen the Australian Electoral Commission's enforcement powers to investigate and prevent breaches of the new funding and disclosure provisions and provide protections for voters and workers from harassment during polling, including filming without permission. Provision of administrative funding to meet new reporting requirements and public funding for parties and candidates should also help to minimise the reliance on private donors for electoral campaigns.

I would always prefer that a bill undergo due political review through the committee inquiry process before it's brought on for a vote. I always like to think that we can have that Senate reporting done before we vote in the House of Representatives, but that doesn't always happen. Every time we do skip this process, though, I think we put a bill at risk—that we haven't fully fleshed out the unintended consequences. However, having attempted multiple times over multiple terms in this place to secure vital improvements to transparency of political donations, I am loath to miss this opportunity.

Despite this bill not being perfect, I am of the view that, on balance, it will provide greater transparency and more timely information regarding political donations. It will strengthen the Electoral Commission and it will cap the amounts that can be donated and spent. Australians will go to the polls knowing what each candidate and each party have spent on their campaign. At the very least, if they think it is excessive or that it represents the purchase of influence, they may choose to vote accordingly. Trust in democracy is at a low point, and shining some light on the money trail can only help to improve behaviour and ultimately rebuild that trust.

It's disappointing that politics has degenerated to the point where knowingly using misinformation or disinformation for political gain has been increasing over successive elections and that it has become necessary to legislate against legislators who are willing to do this. Based on my experience and the use of such provisions in South Australian elections over time, I support the creation of an electoral communications bill based on the tried and tested provisions that have served us well in my state. On balance, I support this bill.

See this speech in context