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

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Electoral laws underpin every decision that's made here. These laws affect who makes the decisions and who influences those decision-makers. No-one is disputing that trust in our democratic system, like many others around the world, is declining. We won't be able to rebuild trust in our political processes and our politicians unless voters can believe that their representatives are making decisions in the public interest. This bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024, is built on some really fundamental principles of transparency, truth, minimising financial influence and a level playing field. These principles are common sense and have broad community support.

Voters deserve to know who is funding their candidates before they vote. Voters should be protected from outright lies in political advertising. Companies that stand to benefit from lower regulation at the expense of ordinary Australians should not be able to control policy. No individual should be able to influence the outcome of an election. Voters deserve a competitive choice of candidates, and new challengers should have a fighting chance to get their message to voters so our democracy can continue to evolve. Based on these principles, this bill has been developed with crossbench support in both houses of parliament, with input from academics, think tanks and a range of stakeholders.

There is a long history of the crossbench driving integrity reforms. Our political system has delivered two dominant parties that are now well-oiled machines that are focused on winning elections. These machines have a strong immune-system response to anything that threatens their dominance. We don't let Coles and Woolies regulate supermarket competition, but the two major parties could do a deal on electoral reform to prevent political competition. Sometimes it takes an outsider view to see what needs to change to make it fair, and the crossbench can provide this perspective. If voters stop believing that politicians make decisions in the public interest, our democracy will be undermined.

The government has indicated that it supports a number of the changes in this bill—on transparency, protecting voters from outright lies and finding a model that reduces financial influence—but we haven't seen anything on it yet, despite being nearly two years into this term. At this rate, reform won't happen in time for the next election. You can't say it's government policy to have greater transparency and then not make the change despite being able to do so. I'm introducing this bill into the House today, and Senator Pocock is introducing it into the Senate, to demonstrate that a broad suite of reforms could be implemented now with the support of crossbenchers in both houses in time for the next election. We're concerned that these important reforms will be postponed and we'll be given the excuse that both major parties need to be happy with them.

Many of the reforms in this bill were also in my restoring trust bill introduced in August last year. One additional reform in this bill is a major donor cap. Reducing financial influence is challenging. We don't like seeing lots of money being spent in election campaigns, but the reality is that it's expensive to communicate to voters who you are and what you stand for. Replacing donations with public funding sounds like a solution, but it creates two problems. Firstly, it means taxpayers are paying more for elections, which is hard to sell during a cost-of-living crisis, especially if we don't ban lies. Taxpayers could effectively be asked to pay more to be lied to by politicians. Secondly, it locks in the incumbents. Public funding is based on how many votes you got at the last election, so it massively favours the status quo.

Voters have increasingly indicated that they want greater choice in how they're represented, with one-third casting their vote for someone other than the major parties at the last election. Less than half a per cent of Australians are a member of a major political party. We must make sure that we structure electoral laws so that the other 99.5 per cent of Australians have the option of voting outside the major party system. We need competition in business and we also need competition in politics.

No-one thinks it's good for our democracy when someone spends tens of millions of dollars to influence an election. That's why we've included a major donor cap, preventing anyone from donating more than two per cent of the total public funding from the last election. Many on the crossbench thinks this strikes an appropriate balance. It stops excessive financial influence but keeps competition open and is likely to stand up to constitutional challenge. It doesn't infringe on our implied freedom of political communication. It would apply equally to all donors, irrespective of whether they donate directly to their own campaign, an individual candidate or a party, or through an intermediary like the Liberal Party's fundraising vehicle, the Cormack Foundation, or a crowdsourcing body like Climate 200.

Legislation can always be improved. Today I offer this bill as a way we can progress electoral reforms right now. I welcome input from all sides on how we can improve on this baseline of reforms driven by a principle of fairness. I would love to see public discussion on these important issues, but I fear we'll get a take-it-or-leave-it approach from the government on electoral reform. It seems likely that the major parties will present a package that effectively embeds them but has enough reform on issues like transparency and trust so that the public feels they have no choice but to accept it. We can do better than that. Instead of treating parliament as a rubber stamp, I would like to see the government debating this bill or sharing its own exposure draft so that it can be scrutinised and improved to build trust in the process.

Reforming electoral laws is too important for a take-it-or-leave-it approach. On other significant legislation there is public consultation on an exposure draft so people have time to understand all the intended and unintended consequences of a new law. Reform in this area cannot be driven by protecting the interests of the 0.5 per cent of Australians who are a member of a major political party. Changes must be based on principles of fairness and transparency. That's why I commend this bill to the House.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024. Over the last couple of federal elections there has been a major shift. Australian communities are asking more from their politicians—greater integrity and accountability. They're not interested in the business-as-usual duopoly of the two major parties. They're also incredibly disillusioned with the state of transparency and accountability around elections. It's well past time we fixed this and introduced legislation to ensure greater integrity, transparency and accountability when electing our politicians but also to ensure a competitive field and more choice.

Democracy thrives through the debate of ideas and having a variety of candidates articulating those ideas. This ensures communities have more choice when it comes to electing those who represent them. A system that entrenches the status quo controlled by two major parties limits participation in our democratic process. At the last federal election the combined major party vote was at its lowest on record, and the minor party and independent vote was at its highest, at 31.7 per cent. That's a third of Australians already, on the primary vote, voting outside the major parties.

Then we have the question of funding. We have two systems of disclosures where community independents have to disclose in a vastly different time to the major parties. We also know there is a huge amount of dark money. The origin of at least $57 million in political donations to major parties from 2022 to 2023 is unknown. This amounts to one-quarter of major party funding coming from dark money—don't see that on the front page of the newspapers! Voters want transparency on donations. They want choice. This bill is urgently needed to give voters that transparency and choice. It will improve accountability, it will protect voters from outright lies, it will reduce financial influence and it will level the playing field and limit excessive donations.

We have this crazy double standard where we are protecting consumer rights from misleading and deceptive advertising but not political rights. I am very pleased that the elements of my voter protections bill are included to ban misleading and deceptive political advertising. We know from polling from the Australia Institute last October that some 87 per cent of Australians agree that truth-in-political-advertising laws should be in place in time for the next federal election. So here is the opportunity for the government. It's already two years into this term. It's not enough to say that part of your policy position is to want greater integrity and transparency in elections. Now is your chance to act. This bill sends a blueprint to the parliament and to the Australian people of the kind of election reform we can do. There are the numbers to get this done now, before the next election. I commend this bill to the House.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.