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

by leave—I move amendments (3) and (4) together:

(3) Schedule 4, item 2, page 100 (lines 29 to 30), omit "is not mainly communicated to electors enrolled outside Divisions", insert "is communicated to electors enrolled in the Division".

(4) Schedule 4, item 2, page 101 (lines 9 to 19), omit subsection 302ALC(3), substitute:

(3) Electoral matter is express coverage matter for a Division, State or Territory if the electoral matter is communicated to electors enrolled in the Division, State or Territory.

These amendments ensure electoral expenditure targeted at a division counts against the division cap regardless of whether it mentions the candidate. This goes to the heart of the concern of the crossbench. You've heard us speak about this time and time again in this rather short debate. In fact, only the crossbench has been speaking in this debate, if we're perfectly honest. This is the bit that matters. This is the bit that seems to be dismissed—well, not seems to be but is dismissed by the major parties, and there's a very good reason for that. Under the current expenditure caps in the bill, major political parties could spend up to $800,000 in the 30 or so marginal seats they're focusing on to form government.

The assistant minister's quick to say that the major parties would be contesting every seat across the nation, but let's be absolutely honest. We know that major parties target some seats more than others. There's $800,000 in the 30 or so marginal seats they're focusing on to form government. They can then spend significantly less in other seats and still not reach their $90 million expenditure cap. But, under the bill, registered political parties won't exceed the $800,000 cap if they don't target that division. That means that, if advertising or other electoral spending doesn't mention the candidates, electorate name or refer to their likeness, it doesn't count towards the $800,000 for that seat. This goes to the heart of our concern.

We've all gone through elections where the entire electorate is just blanketed in major party paraphernalia. Vote Labor, vote Liberal, vote National—whatever it might be—and this would be allowed. This means that you could be in the main street of Wodonga, in Indi, looking at a billboard for an Independent—maybe it would be me, with my smiling face—that counts towards the $800,000 spending cap. That's all within the rules, that's good. On the other side of the road, however, the billboard that says 'vote Liberal' wouldn't count towards the cap at all. Isn't that cute? This is deeply concerning. These caps still mean the races in particular seats can be completely distorted by who can spend more than the other person, and it will be the major parties who can spend more, because this legislation makes sure of it.

This amendment would curtail this egregious problem in this bill. It would mean that regardless of what electoral expenditure major parties spend in a seat—and let me be clear about this because I was misrepresented last night by the assistant minister. I agree with expenditure caps. Make no mistake, I do. But this amendment would curtail this massive loophole that you could drive a B-triple truck through. It would mean that, regardless of what electoral expenditure major parties spend in a seat, whether it mentions the candidate or not, they cannot exceed the supposed level playing field of $800,000. This is the cap that independents are subject to; this is the cap that the major parties must be subject to if this is to be a fair and reasonable electoral reform.

This amendment would help level the playing field, and it would help ensure that Independents, whether they're incumbents or challengers, are not drowned out by the major parties. I, again, ask all members of parliament to read the legislation and see what you're signing up to. I would say to you: you should support these amendments if you truly believe in electoral reform.

See this speech in context