Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 6 and 7), omit "Electoral Reform", substitute "Funnelling Public Money to the Major Parties Under the Guise of Transparency".

In essence, all the amendment seeks to do—it's very brief—is modify the title of the bill, from simply referring to 'electoral reform' to refer to 'funnelling public money to the major parties under the guise of transparency'. This isn't meant to be funny at all. It's a deadly serious amendment and, I think, an appropriate bookend to the case the crossbench has made against these reforms over a number of days now. I have become disillusioned with the practice in this place of naming bills in misleading ways. This is an opportunity to name this bill correctly, because this bill does exactly that. This bill seeks to funnel public money to the major parties under the guise of transparency.

I make the point again that my crossbench colleagues have done an excellent job of prosecuting their argument over the last day or so. I don't think there's any value in me rehashing all of the arguments they have made. But, in looking thematically at the arguments that have been made, there is no doubt whatsoever that these reforms have one principal purpose, and that is to safeguard and entrench the place of the political parties in our electoral system and to prevent emerging talent and new Independents from joining the crossbench, which already numbers 18.

I'm reminded of a comment from the Prime Minister in one of his very first meetings with the crossbench after the 2022 election. I hope he forgives me if I misquote him a little, but he said words to the effect of, 'You're all great, but we don't want any more of you.' I think my colleagues would remember that statement. At the time, we all had a bit of a chuckle. We thought, 'That's all very funny.' Do you know what? He wasn't trying to be funny. He was making a very serious comment, which is reflected perfectly in this bill—that we're lovely, but you don't want any more of us. You don't want any more of us, despite the fact that millions of Australians now have abandoned the major political parties for a range of very good reasons and are now searching for an alternative. This parliament has no right—no right whatsoever—to work so hard at denying millions more Australians from exercising their democratic right to have a ballot paper with a list of good candidates, reflecting a range of views—major parties, minor parties, micro parties, Independents who might be incumbent or might be putting their name on the ballot paper for the first time.

Frankly, I think the government—in cahoots with the opposition, who have cut this grubby deal out the back somewhere—are treating the electorate with complete and utter contempt. For there to be, in this bill, pages—literally pages—of exemptions from what is covered by this bill is scandalous. For this bill to allow, say, the Liberal Party to accept however much money they choose from, say, the Cormack Foundation or, through various underhanded means, for the Labor Party to accept enormous sums of money from the union movement but then to place such limitations—not on us, we're doing fine, with the possible exception of the member for North Sydney, who has a minor difficulty with her electorate! The rest of are competitive. I think we are genuinely competitive. But what about all those brilliant people out there who are even better than us? They deserve a fair go, and the community deserves, or has a right, for those people have a fair go. It is just patently misleading for the government to suggest that they will spend the same amount of money in all 150 electorates next time. They won't.

I close by saying that I'm the first to say let's have almost real-time disclosure. Let's have spending caps. Let's have donation caps. But let's not concoct such a ruthlessly destructive set of reforms that treats the community with such complete and utter contempt. We have no right to do that in this place. The government has no right to do it. The opposition has no right to do it. The reason so many people are voting for people like us now is that we're about the only people in this place who will stand up for the community.

See this speech in context