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

I wish to respond to a range of the matters that have been raised both here in the Federation Chamber and in the House over the course of today's debate. I committed to a range of members that I would come back to them to ensure accuracy on a range of assertions but also to make sure that there's clear understanding of the government's intent around getting big money out of politics.

First, I'd like to respond to some matters raised by the member for Indi. I did so before, but I will do so again to say that the government acknowledges her genuine questions around a review period and potential amendment to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters review currently included in the bill. I note that the minister has taken that view and agreed to continue consulting with the member on the review mechanisms in the lead-up to the Senate debate. Again, I wanted to put that on the record.

Further to the member for North Sydney, thank you for the genuine questions around administrative spending and the level of the caps. The legislation does make it clear on the definition of 'administrative expenditure'. The bill does not seek to make special exemptions. It does not seek to curtail political organisation or engagement. It seeks to make clear what campaign spending is—money used in the system to influence an outcome—and to restrict the use of that expenditure. Parties do have national caps but are restricted both by the total number and the divisional and Senate limits calculated to ensure that the $800,000 limit for an Independent member is sufficient should various parties also be contesting the seat.

I also want to note that, when it comes to the ability of the member for Curtin to join the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, it was the government who put that forward.

When it comes to the member for Warringah, who asked why we would spend money on strengthening our system, it is the government's view and the minister's view that defence of our electoral system is worth investment. It is worth investing in. Other proposals that the member for Warringah has put forward, like truth in advertising, also cost millions of dollars and will cost millions more over time. In fact, the member's own proposal when it comes to truth in advertising would itself cost upwards of $50 million. It doesn't mean that it's not a worthy policy consideration and that it's not worth debating.

The member for Wentworth raised the issue of nominated entities. I want to clarify this because I think it's important that we're very clear about how this legislation operates when it comes to nominated entities. As the member herself already knows and has been provided in writing, a nominated entity must be registered with the AEC and must be auditable by the AEC. An entity may only be nominated by one party, and only one party can nominate that entity. For all purposes, they are captured and aggregated with their nominating party. That means that any donations to that entity or spending by that entity is captured, auditable and listed against the party. There is no ability to get around the caps by the use of that entity. An entity can share resources with their nominating party, but they share each and every spending cap, therefore restricting any perceived benefit. The amendments circulated by the member for Curtin would remove that restriction and allow those entities to spend without restriction. Again, that's another reason the government does not support them.

In terms of some of the matters the member for Curtin raised, the government rejects the assertions and has made clear its position on the amendments suggested that remove campaign limits. It's not a clarification or a question from the member; it's a policy difference. There is a policy difference here. We believe that spending should be limited. The member for Curtin believes it should be unrestricted. They are two very different policy positions. The government is very clear in our belief that spending should be restricted. It is essential to make sure that we put power back in the hands of the Australian people. It is unsustainable to argue otherwise. If we accepted the member for Curtin's proposition, then those who are already wealthy would be unrestricted in their spending, again giving us an uneven playing field. The member for Curtin hypothecated about 5,000 donors giving $200 or $2,000 each, but that's not what's occurring. In her campaign at the last election, there were 10 individual donations ranging from $50,000 to $100,000 from one billionaire donor.

For these reasons, the government supports the bill in its existing form. For these reasons, the government does not accept the range of amendments that have been put forward today. For these reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context