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

In summing up this debate, I want to say, once again, it is time to get big money out of Australian politics. It is time for spending caps so we don't have these multimillion-dollar campaigns raging through the suburbs of Australia, and it's time for ideas, not bank balances, to decide elections. It's time for the people of Australia to be given their power back. That's what the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 does. This bill is the result of more than two years of committee inquiries, reports, recommendations, careful drafting, consideration and consultation, including consultation with those on the crossbench.

More than two years ago, in August 2022, the Special Minister of State, Senator the Hon. Don Farrell, wrote to the multipartisan Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and he asked them to inquire. They gave us their report, and we said we would accept those recommendations and act on them. That's exactly what the government are doing, and we're doing it by reducing the donation disclosure threshold. We're doing it by requiring regular and rapid disclosure of donations. We're doing it by capping political donations. I note that earlier in the debate we had someone say that a $20,000 donation was not big. I think, for most Australians, they'd think, if someone's got $20,000 to hand over to a political candidate of their choice, that is big. We're going to do it by capping campaign spending to level the playing field and provide greater access for individuals and entities to participate in the political debate. We're going to do it by introducing a new system of administrative funding to increase public funding and to offset some of the impacts of this legislation.

Labor has had a longstanding commitment to sensible, long-lasting electoral reform. Australia's democratic system is the envy of the world, but we can make it stronger. Multiple inquiries from multiple elections have told us that the biggest weakness in our electoral system is big money, and I think the Australian people will be asking themselves: why do some oppose getting big money out of our political system? Over the last decade, we've seen billionaires repeatedly attempt to sway our elections not through policy or participation but through money and misinformation. What we saw from the recommendations for this bill from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters was a path to get big money out of politics, and I want to walk that path. Through this legislation, we have the opportunity—we can all choose to vote to restore transparency to donation laws and expenditure and to keep big money out of our political system.

The consultation has been extensive. It's been deliberate, and it's been considered. In recognition of this, it's the result of two years of committee inquiries, reports, recommendations and detailed drafting. When it comes to the detail of this, I draw all members' attention to the explanatory memorandum, where it clearly states, on the regulatory impact, which is a requirement we have for significant changes—I do agree with those opposite that this is a significant change, but it says this:

Consistent with the Government's Impact Analysis requirements, the report of the JSCEM into the conduct of the 2022 federal election has been certified by the Department of Finance as meeting the requirements of an Impact Analysis Equivalent.

It draws directly on that report as the consultation and impact analysis for this legislation before the parliament right now.

Further, the explanatory memorandum says very clearly:

T he amendments have been assessed as compatible with Australia's human rights obligations .

Again, I draw everyone's attention to that explanatory memorandum.

I note that Minister Farrell has been public about the need for and the drafting of both donation and spending caps. This should not come as a surprise especially to anyone in this parliament or, further, to anyone who's been following this in the Australian public policy debate.

The position we have from those on the crossbench is to not have a spending cap. They believe that there should not be a spending cap. That is unsustainable. This bill simply implements important recommendations to establish those caps. In 2022 we saw some candidates spend over $2 million on their campaigns. I remember driving through the electorate of Curtin on a regular basis during that campaign, and you couldn't see a fence anywhere in the electorate of Curtin; they were all plastered with signs from various parties and candidates. This bill provides greater access for individuals and entities to participate in political debate. We know that expenditure caps are already in place in several Australian state and territory jurisdictions as well as in international jurisdictions with similar democracies to Australia.

I thank members who have engaged on this bill for their contributions during the debate. I think it's important to note a few things as we go through some of what we've seen. The member for Kooyong said, 'The government's proposal to impose restrictive donation caps, while sensibly reducing undue influence, will have significant consequences on the ability of challengers to fund competitive campaigns.' That is simply opposing donation caps. That's a legitimate policy position for people to have, but I think we should call it out for what it is.

The member for Warringah said, 'We should require proper consideration of the consequences and effect it will have as a major piece of electoral reform.' I agree with that. That's why, for more than two years, we've had inquiries into this; we've had the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters do it.

We then saw what I thought was the best acrobatics in this debate from the member for Melbourne, the Leader of the Australian Greens. He said: 'There are some good measures in what the government is proposing in many respects because they picked up measures we've been advocating for, for a long time. We in the Greens want big money out of politics. We've been arguing that for years.' This is step 1 in the model of the Australian Greens: take credit for the work of others. Step 2 is then to obstruct. The Australian people would like to see everyone in this parliament say that it's time to get big money out of Australian politics.

The member for Mayo said, 'Electoral reform is critical if we are to maintain confidence in the political system.' While I don't agree with all of her contributions, on that I agree. Again, this bill gives an opportunity to do that.

The member for Mackellar described the $20,000 donation cap as 'low'. That's not the view of the government. We think a $20,000 donation cap is significantly higher than what most people in the Australian public could afford to donate to a single candidate of their choice. It's a very high donation cap.

We saw the member for Curtin say: 'More transparency is a good thing. Bring it on.' But she then said that she thinks that this bill should not proceed. We saw the member for Curtin say that transparency reform is 'too little, too late' but apparently it's also too much.

What that all leads us to is that we need to acknowledge that there are a number of things in this bill that level the playing field. That was a very clear question put to the government by the member for Indi, and I will talk about how this levels the playing field. It provides greater access for individuals and other entities to participate in political debate. This levels the playing field by stopping the arms race so that candidates are not outspending each other. Think about how much Josh Frydenberg spent in his contest with the now member for Kooyong—millions and millions of dollars. It will bring things down. It will lower the temperature. It will allow the Australian public to spend more time considering. We will also have restrictions on registered political parties where they will be bound to one set of expenditure caps for national divisions and states or territories. We'll have capped entity electoral expenditure for third parties and associated entities—something we haven't seen before in Australian politics. That will reduce the influence of third parties who are seeking to engage in Australia's democratic processes while still entitling them to the ability to do so.

We had costs associated with managing affairs raised through consultation by independent members of the parliament. The need to have funding for the costs associated with managing affairs of members in complying with this was raised during the process. That's why the funding applies to all elected members equally to ensure they have financial support to comply with the regime. It also provides for a regulation-making power to provide for amounts to be paid in advance of election funding for a future election.

I want to note that when it comes to gifts and donations, every single member of the crossbench who sits as an Independent can receive $20,000 from an individual donor. That donor could donate to member after member after member of the crossbench, but, when it comes to candidates of registered political parties, they are bound by the party donation cap. That again shows there has been significant consideration to the needs raised by those on the crossbench. We'll do things that many have agreed to throughout this debate, which is to start capturing more things, such as fundraising events and business forum events, to ensure they are counted as donations and count towards the cap. Some of the contributions didn't accurately acknowledge that, but I want to say very clearly that is what this bill does. It also ensures that we have strong, clear measures and penalties that are targeted at schemes and mechanisms that are designed to avoid those caps.

If I go to the amendment that's in front of us—the second reading amendment—the government will not be supporting this amendment. Despite the repeated attempts to delay reform by members, the government is of the view that it is time for action. This legislation and the provisions held within it have been subject to multiple inquiries over multiple terms of the parliament. As the minister in the other place has made clear, no coherent argument has been made by opponents of this legislation. Way back since the initial recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in November 2023, the minister has welcomed the views suggestions and proposals from all members in this parliament. It is very misleading, incorrect and disappointing for anyone to indicate that these reforms are a surprise.

The amendment itself contains a number of inaccuracies with no evidence or basis. I also note that my calculation of the impact of the request in part (b) is that the member wants every candidate when they nominate to receive administrative funding. At the last election for the House of Representatives, there were 1,203 people who nominated. Under this proposal, if we were to give $30,000 on nomination to each of those candidates, my calculations are that would be $36 million before a single vote has been cast. If members have suggestions for improvements or amendments to the legislation, put those forward, but let's debate the legislation. Let's not kick this off. It is time to get big money out of Australian politics.

What I want is what I think most Australians want. What the government wants is what most Australians want, too. That is what this bill delivers. It gets the influence of big money out of politics to make sure our electoral system remains a system we can all trust—trust that election results are not unfairly skewed by big money, that elections are a contest of ideas not a contest of bank balances and that we know who is funding election campaigns, with more information about who is providing that money on and before election day.

Australia has an electoral system that is the envy of the world. This bill will enhance and strengthen our elections and Australia's representative democracy. I really do close by thanking again the members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for their recommendations. We've adopted it as the impact analysis compliance for this explanatory memorandum. I thank the committee chair, the member for Jagajaga Kate Thwaites, for her dedicated work, and I thank the Special Minister of State, Senator the Hon. Don Farrell and his team for delivering this bill. I also thank all of those who have worked on it from the Department Finance and those who have given advice through the Electoral Commission and elsewhere. I commend this bill.

See this speech in context