Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 8), omit the table item, substitute:

This amendment would pause the commencement of the administrative funding provisions until the government has undertaken an independent audit of the administrative expenditure incurred by registered political parties. This is modelled on what happened in South Australia, which has undertaken an independent audit with Deloitte to audit major party accounts to determine whether the level of administrative funding provided under the bill is actually justified. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended administrative funding due to the increased donation disclosure requirements under the bill.

I want to be clear: I unequivocally support the lowered donation disclosure threshold and the real-time disclosure provisions in the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. I can't emphasise this enough. This is really important—and I'm very pleased that the government has gone to this level of detail around this issue—but JSCEM did not recommend how much this administrative funding should be. According to the Australia Institute, 85 per cent of the new administrative funding will go to the major parties. If a challenger from outside the major party duopoly wants to run for election for the first time, they will not benefit from any of this money compared to a new entrant or incumbent from a major political party, who likely will.

I question whether the major parties will need $30,000 per member in the House of Representatives to undertake these new administrative burdens, especially when new entrants or challengers are getting zero—nothing, zip—to help them comply with this disclosure threshold. They will get no financial assistance at all for the new donation disclosure requirements that they are equally subject to under the law. I question whether this creates a level and fair playing field. As an incumbent, I will benefit from this funding, but as an Independent I don't want to just pull up the ladder behind me. I want to see new Independents and challengers fairly enter the competition, because we have seen that they only improve the competition.

These amendments are in good faith. We should have solid evidence that underpins the numbers that we are given in this legislation. As far as we know and as far as the taxpayer knows, these numbers could have just been plucked from thin air. What we do know is that this amount of money is going to advantage the major parties to an extraordinary level. These amendments would make sure that the government does the work to justify not only to us as a parliament but to the Australian taxpayer how they have come up with the numbers they have.

Question unresolved.

by leave—I move amendments (5) to (7) together:

(5) Schedule 7, item 3, page 172 (after line 5), after the paragraph beginning "The amount of the funding for a registered political party" in section 302AA, insert:

The amount of the funding for a registered political party's expenditure group is subject to a cap.

(6) Schedule 7, item 3, page 172 (line 26), omit "The amount", insert "Subject to subsection (2A), the amount".

(7) Schedule 7, item 3, page 173 (after line 24), after subsection 302AB(2), insert:

(2A) The amount worked out under subsection (2) must not exceed an amount equal to $3,750 multiplied by 32.

It's not clear to me as yet—and won't be until the minister makes his response—if the government want to justify the amount of administrative funding they have set up under this bill. I really hope they will. But, in case they don't, I need to have these amendments. These amendments apply a reasonable cap to the administrative funding received by the major parties. The amendments apply a cap after an equivalent of 32 members of parliament across the House of Representatives and the Senate receive administrative funding set at a rate of $3,750 per quarter.

You might ask how I arrived at those numbers. Well, I did the homework. This is based on South Australia, which set a cap of administrative funding for 10 MPs. It would take into account economies of scale of parties, which is not recognised under the current bill. It would ensure there is not a disproportionate amount of administrative assistance funding going to the major parties.

I urge members to support these amendments. Spending $30,000 per member of the House of Representatives and $15,000 per senator is an enormous amount of taxpayer money. It's not justified. It can't be set out in any evidence that would give us comfort. We need to curtail this. So I put these amendments to the House and I thoroughly recommend any thinking member in the House of Representatives to back in these very, very sensible amendments.

See this speech in context