Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Conduct of the 2022 federal election and other matters: interim report.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted?

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted—and can I just acknowledge the member for Bruce. I love hearing members quote themselves; there's nothing better!

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to hear from the member for Jagajaga.

Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians are rightly proud of our democracy and our electoral system. However, these systems are only as robust as the institutions and the frameworks that support them, and it's vital they remain trusted, relevant and fit for purpose. Our democracy is best when it is conducted in a way that is transparent and where our community feels confident that our political system and our politicians are accessible to all, not just to those capable of making very large donations. Across the Western world we see the potential for a drift from democracy when people feel like their political system isn't working for them and believe their system has been captured by vested interests. This is a trend we must work hard to avoid in Australia.

In this interim report the committee considers a number of matters pertaining to the 2022 federal election, including reforms to donation laws and the funding of elections, truth-in-political-advertising laws and encouraging increased electoral participation and lifting enfranchisement of First Nations people. The committee's inquiry has received nearly 1,500 submissions, illustrating the importance in which Australians hold the electoral system. We have held nine public hearings to further examine some key questions with a wide range of stakeholders, and we have further hearings planned as we progress towards our final report. The committee is deeply appreciative of the witnesses who have appeared at those hearings to aid us in our work. The evidence we have heard has allowed the committee to develop clear goals for reform to increase transparency in election donations and curb the potentially corrupting influence of big money, to build the public's trust in electoral and political processes and to encourage participation in our elections.

The report makes 15 recommendations grouped around three major themes: political donations and expenditure; trust in the electoral system; and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in elections. The committee recommends lowering the donation disclosure threshold to $1,000; introducing real-time disclosure of donations; introducing donation caps and expenditure caps for federal elections; and the provision of additional resourcing to the Australian Electoral Commission to support, implement and enforce these reforms. To help restore and maintain trust in the electoral system, the committee recommends that the government introduce legislation to govern truth in political advertising and that the AEC be established as the administrator of these measures. We also recommend the government strengthen opportunities for electoral enfranchisement to increase participation in elections by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, especially in remote communities. The committee will do more work on this and other matters before we present our final report before the end of this year.

In this interim report the committee recommends significant changes to our federal system. It is important to note that many of these reforms are not untested ideas or approaches. States and territories around Australia have grappled with the same challenges the federal system must now respond to, and they've provided models from which the Commonwealth can learn and adopt.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the many people who have taken the time to engage with this inquiry and our work. I thank the secretariat and my colleagues for their ongoing engagement with the important work of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The report has been strengthened by the sincere and good-faith involvement of members across the political spectrum, even when we do not agree on all topics.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I too rise to speak to this report and, in particular, commend the dissenting report from coalition members. This report will obviously see, clearly, a number of pieces of reform—perhaps in one bill or in multiple bills—come before parliament. We, in the coalition, hold grave concerns about attempts to partially change our electoral system to favour one particular political hue. In particular, we are concerned that the government will be proposing reforms that benefit them and the union movement and their business model. Whilst they will claim the virtue of things like limiting donations and expenditure, we're very wary that the report of the majority and the potential legislation that might come forward will be about using the union movement's business model with the Labor Party and undertaking reforms that give them a particular advantage.

Expenditure caps and donations are a really good example, and the crossbench—in particular, I hope, in the Senate—need to be alive do this. Ways of using third parties and the union movement, which will claim to be third parties in legislation—some unions are affiliated to the Labor Party; some unions aren't technically affiliated with the Labor Party. Unions will funnel money to the Labor Party through things like affiliation fees instead of donations, and when the government bring legislation forward we should be very alive to the concept of how that will allow 'funny money' to be fed into one particular party in this country outside the spirit of the claimed virtue of reforms that the government at the same time will be putting forward through that reform.

We see this in this report, but we've also seen it in the reforms that Labor governments have undertaken at a state level around the country. I know particular examples from my own state, but every Labor government are very consistent on these things: they're very good at looking after themselves and the union movement when they get the opportunity to undertake reform. The fact that we could see changes to our electoral system that are not about improving our democracy but are about gerrymandering financial benefit to the union movement and one particular party in our system must be resisted in the interests of our democracy.

I look forward to working as hard as I can with my coalition colleagues—but, more importantly, hopefully with those on the crossbench—to resist this sort of trickery that is designed to entrench the advantage of one particular political persuasion over another. We should all defend democracy and stand up against that sort of rorting. We, in the coalition, are alive to that. We can see in this report the beginnings of these claimed arguments of transparency that are actually about providing a direct benefit to the union movement and the Labor Party over other political participants. We will resist that, tooth and nail.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to support the recommendations in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Conduct of the 2022 federal election and other matters: Interim report and to speak to my additional comments in this report. There is strong appetite for reform around our election process. Australians want to see a level playing field, transparency and truth, not big money affecting the outcomes of elections and policies. Transparency is a great place to start. Australians want to know who's financing candidates before they vote.

I support the recommendation of the majority report, which requires real-time disclosure of all donations above $1,000. This is a no-brainer. In my campaign last year I disclosed every cash donation in real time. It's really not that hard. We built a website in a week that can do this. In my additional comments, I make recommendations that go further on transparency. The AEC publishes a so-called transparency register every year, but, even with a lower disclosure threshold, about a third of major party private income is hidden under other receipts. This includes expensive fundraising dinners, membership fees, investment income and who knows what else. This should all be disclosed under clear categories. The lobbyists register should be expanded so everyone can see who the 1,900 unknown in-house lobbyists are. Ministerial diaries should be published so we can see who our decision-makers are listening to.

Beyond transparency, Australians are worried that big money has too much influence in politics. The majority report recommends caps on donations and spending. This sounds good, but it may backfire. Voters also want to know that they have a choice, and a bit about the candidates, which requires spending to get the word out. Having run against a major party, I know it's a daunting and expensive challenge. The devil will be in the detail on caps. Structuring caps in a way that's effective and fair will be complicated. I look forward to seeing how the government proposes to respond to the recommendations on caps, and I urge the government to ensure that it does not create another barrier to entry.

Some types of donations just shouldn't be allowed, and I make additional recommendations in relation to these. Government contractors, including consultants, shouldn't be able to donate. It creates an unhealthy co-dependency, and most OECD countries ban these donations. Companies that inflict social harm, such as gambling and tobacco companies, should also not be able to make political donations. They clearly donate to get a favourable policy outcome, to the detriment of society. As in the UK, companies and unions should have to get shareholder or member approval before making political donations. They should be required to explain to their shareholders or members what benefit they hope to achieve by spending money. I support the majority recommendation establishing a truth-in-political-advertising framework and acknowledge the work of my fellow crossbencher, the member for Warringah, in this area. Politicians should not be able to tell lies in ads.

The biggest risk in these recommendations is that any donation reform may further embed the two-party system. In my additional comments, I make further recommendations to level the playing field to ensure that we have competition and renewal in our electoral system. With the largest crossbench ever at the last election, Australians have shown that they want to be represented in different ways. Only 0.4 per cent of Australians are a member of a major political party, but major parties have ways of locking in their advantages. The 99.6 per cent of Australians who are not a member of a major political party may want to be represented by someone other than the 0.4 per cent. Our electoral system cannot lock out these new candidates. In my comments I've identified 13 party advantages and five incumbency advantages. These are a bit boring and technical, but they add up to big barriers to entry. My recommendations try to address some of these advantages, such as banning excessive government ads before elections, equal treatment under privacy and spamming laws, protecting the postal vote process, and creating an independent candidate entity to equalise some of the administrative and tax advantages.

In conclusion, the report makes a good start on improving transparency and reducing financial influence, but the devil will be in the detail. I look forward to the government's response. I urge the government, civil society and the public to drive additional reforms to level the playing field to ensure that any donation reforms do not entrench incumbents and reduce competition in our political system.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member for Jagajaga to move—

Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move—

That the House take note of the report.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next setting.