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

by leave—I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name:

(2) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 12 to 22), omit clause 3, substitute:

4 Review of operation of amendments

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of the amendments made by this Act before the end of 12 months after the first general election that is held after 1 July 2026.

(2) Without limiting the matters to be covered by the review, the review must consider the following matters:

(a) the effectiveness of the amendments in achieving transparency, accountability, integrity and public confidence in the electoral process and its participants;

(b) the impact of expenditure caps and gift caps on the election, the electoral process and its participants.

(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

This amendment ensures that this bill goes to an independent statutory review before the end of 12 months after the first election that is held after July 2026. Currently, under the bill, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is required to undertake such a review. But, let's be honest, this is like the fox guarding the hen house. The JSCEM comprises parliamentarians. Parliamentarians actually doing a review of their own expenditure and their own disclosure is problematic when it comes to electoral reform. We need to make sure that the Australian public and, indeed, the parliament can have complete confidence in what is, as spruiked by the government, the biggest reform in electoral matters in 40 years. We need an independent review that would ensure that the amendments to the Electoral Act are scrutinised by an independent panel, not by members of parliament who quite clearly have a direct interest in the bill.

The independent review would directly consider the effectiveness of the bill in achieving transparency, accountability, integrity and public confidence in the electoral process and its participants, including the impact of expenditure and gift caps. This amendment, I have to say, is a really good amendment. This amendment would ensure we actually know what the impact of these reforms are—some of the biggest reforms, as I've said, in our democratic process. This amendment too, like other proposals I've put to this chamber, is modelled on what's currently in the South Australian bill. Might I say that the good features of the South Australian bill are a direct result of the scrutiny that that bill was given. It's amazing what happens if you put a detailed piece of legislation to parliamentary scrutiny through the committee process. You actually get improvements and good ideas. There is a similar independent review provision in the Victorian legislation. This is sensible; it's reasonable; it's ethical; it dismisses all conflicts of interest, and that's a big deal.

I urge the government to consider these amendments. This can only bolster your case. This makes you look good. This gives the public confidence that what you're proposing is not what the crossbench says. We've been really clear with you that we think there are elements of this bill that, for the unsuspecting eye, could be perceived as one mighty big stitch-up. Prove us wrong. Have an independent statutory review 12 months after the election, when these laws come in, and let's see how it stacks up.

I've been very pleased to work with the minister's office on all of these amendments, and I've done so in good faith. As I've said before throughout this debate, I thoroughly endorse improved transparency and disclosure laws—100 per cent. I've been screaming for it from the moment I got here. I thoroughly endorse donation caps and expenditure caps, subject to the amendments that I've put forward in regard to that. And I absolutely and utterly believe that the statutory review—rather than a JSCEM review—12 months after the election, when these laws come in, can only be for the good of the nation and can only lock in the improvements we might invariably need to have. Let's do that. I urge the government to support that amendment.

I say to members who may be listening—maybe from their offices, given that they're not participating in the debate—that you should really be in here supporting an amendment such as this. I thank the minister. I hope he might respond to that, or perhaps some of my parliamentary colleagues might. I commend these amendments to the House.

See this speech in context