Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to address the government's proposed changes to electoral funding which, if this legislation is enacted, will profoundly alter the fairness and accessibility of our democracy. Since I was elected, my Independent colleagues and I have been calling for meaningful electoral reform. We want more transparency; we want more fairness in government. For almost three years, we have called for legislation ensuring both real-time declaration of significant donations and truth in political advertising to be in place at the next federal election, but the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 will not provide that.

Five days ago, the government announced this electoral donation reform bill. It says that this is the biggest electoral reform in 40 years. It is a 200-page document that the Liberal-National coalition and the Labor government have been working on together for six months. My Independent colleagues and I first saw it five days ago. I was elected member for Kooyong by a community which demanded politics done differently—more transparently, more equitably and with a stronger focus on integrity. These reforms fall short of those values. They fall short of the contract that I made with my constituents to try and improve our governance. Instead of addressing systemic inequalities in our electoral system, this bill will consolidate the advantages of the major parties and the incumbents. It will silence independent, emerging voices.

The government's proposal to impose restrictive donation caps, while ostensibly aimed at reducing undue influence, will have significant consequences on the ability of challengers to fund competitive campaigns. The caps would disproportionately benefit incumbents and established parties who already have the advantage of name recognition, entrenched donor networks and of associated entities, which are sometimes worth millions of dollars.

There is an alternative approach. My colleague the member for Curtin has proposed a more fair donation cap of $1.5 million, which would secure sufficient resources for challengers if they're able to fundraise to that extent, whilst still safeguarding against undue influence. This was a thoughtful proposal which deserves due consideration. In presenting this bill to the House yesterday, with the stated intention of ramming it through both houses in this fortnight, the government has ensured that due consideration has gone out the window, along with due process, evidence based analysis and community consultation.

It's worth remembering, too, that donation caps do not prevent cash for access payments to ministers and shadow ministers. They don't prevent the $10,000-a-head dinners held by coteries. They don't prevent the hidden in-kind donations. They're unlikely to limit the effect of those entities which account for a third of the cash which flows into the coffers of the Liberal and Labor parties.

The proposed spending caps pose a similar challenge. Caps on spending benefit MPs who are already in parliament over candidates who choose to run against them at elections. Incumbents have access to a funded car, an office and a comms budget. New candidates have none of these things. These caps will allow parties to concentrate their spending on target seats, enabling them to outspend Independent candidates in those seats. Similar legislation in New South Wales and Victoria has already been shown to decimate Independent representation. It has been shown to shore up the significant advantages of the flagging, bloated and tired major parties. The most superficial reading of this legislation reveals loopholes which will no doubt be exploited by the parties—for example, the ability to have other entities advertise on one's behalf, or to fund unlimited, non-individually branded party advertising in marginal electorates, siphoning money away from safe seats. There is, theoretically, a limit on spending in each electorate, but ads that promote parties don't count.

Taxpayer funding for political parties will increase significantly under this legislation, from $2.91 per vote to $5 per vote at the next federal election. You will pay more for less choice. Australia does love a duopoly. We see it in our supermarkets, and we see it in our aviation industry. These parties would like to see it in our politics as well. It feels like this legislation should be going to the ACCC, not the Senate. The parties will be able to spend up to $91 million at every election—just remember that!—even though this piece of legislation purports to put a cap on spending.

The legislation gives incumbents funding to cover their paperwork and their reporting requirements, but it offers nothing to new candidates, although the requirements for donation reporting and compliance will be much more strict in future elections for new candidates, including Independents.

The bill includes three pages of exempted gifts. You don't have to declare bequests, loans or subscriptions and you don't have to declare the parties' levies on their members' wages. I'm sure this is all entirely legitimate. The problem is that all of these big, expensive changes will primarily benefit established parties, not people who operate outside the major political parties. They're not great for Independents like me, but for people with incumbency there are already entrenched advantages. The problem is that this legislation will make it much harder for new Independents to be elected. This is not the democracy that Australians want or expect.

As we consider these sorts of reforms to our own system, it's worth reflecting on international examples. In the United States the influence of political action committees and super PACs offers a cautionary tale. These entities allow for virtually unlimited donations, often from anonymous sources, resulting in a system in which financial power too often equates to political influence. This approach has fostered an electoral environment in which a small number of wealthy donors and organisations wield disproportionate influence. It can overshadow grassroots participation, and it distorts the democratic process. In Australia we have long prided ourselves on avoiding these pitfalls, but the reforms proposed in this legislation risk introducing their own version of imbalance. They will restrict challenges while entrenching the power of the major parties. In contrast, countries like Canada have succeeded in imposing donation caps and requiring full transparency of contributions. In doing so they have helped preserve trust in the electoral process. Similarly, New Zealand's MMP system encourages diversity in representation. It ensures that smaller parties and Independents do have a voice in shaping government policy. These examples remind us of the importance of designing electoral systems that balance fairness, transparency and inclusivity.

The government claims that increased public funding will compensate for the limits on private donations, but greater reliance on public funds risks a system in which parties can become overly dependent on government subsidies, potentially discouraging grassroots engagement and local fundraising efforts. In a cost-of-living crisis, many Australians are, very understandably, going to resile from increasing the funding that they are providing to political parties. The administrative support allotted in the bill equates to $30,000 per year per incumbent. For the parties, that is more than $2 million a year each—from taxpayers to political parties—to help them with their administrative costs, with no consideration of the economies of scale afforded by the centralised party structure. It's just a question of more taxpayers' money flowing to the major parties. The reforms also fail to address the influence of union funding. As significant donors to the Labor Party, the unions wield considerable sway in our political system. Recent reports linking certain unions to questionable practices only highlight the need for greater transparency and accountability in the area. Ignoring this issue undermines the credibility of the government's reforms. If we are serious about addressing undue influence, we cannot selectively apply this principle. Transparency has to apply across the board.

Electoral reform should strengthen our democracy, not weaken it. Australians want a system that fosters participation, encourages diverse viewpoints and ensures that all voices have a fair chance to be heard. This legislation will benefit the major parties, leaving Independent candidates—especially new candidates—out. It is a stitch-up. Best practice systems are subject to independent external scrutiny and review. The government has told us that this is the most comprehensive electoral reform in 40 years. We're told that the government has been working on this legislation with the Liberal-National coalition for six months. It was first shared with the crossbench five days ago. We have been denied the opportunity for appropriate scrutiny and evaluation of its complexities. Complex pieces of legislation are customarily subjected to detailed committee review.

Yesterday the crossbench tried to have this legislation referred for committee review. This was blocked by the Labor Party and the Liberal Party and the National Party. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party and the National Party do not want this legislation to undergo detailed scrutiny. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party and the National Party do not want this legislation to be analysed and evaluated in detail and at length by academics, the media and the experts. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party and the National Party do not want this legislation to undergo community evaluation. It's not that the Labor Party and the Liberal Party and the National Party are not interested in what Australians think about this legislation. It's just that they don't want Australians to know about it.

This legislation will not affect the 2025 election. There is absolutely no reason to push it through with this unseemly haste, unless the government doesn't want the public to recognise exactly how poorly the major parties are behaving with this bill. The thing is that the public is not stupid. In 2022, one-third of Australian voters voted for Independents and for small parties. In 2025, when the Australian public are deciding who they trust to represent them, we will encourage them to remember this cynical political manoeuvring, this sneaky collusion, and the disrespect that it shows them.

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

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) is of the opinion that the bill:

(a) should not proceed further until referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, to inquire into the intended and unintended consequences, with a report due to the House by the first sitting day of 2025;

(b) creates an unfair playing field, giving advantage to incumbents over new candidates by failing to give all candidates the same public funding for administrative support and failing to account for incumbent resources such as an office, staff, a vehicle and marketing budget whilst imposing a spending cap on candidates;

(c) provides disproportionate yearly administrative assistance funding to major political parties, and fails to account for any economies of scale; and

(d) entrenches political party advantage over independent candidates by imposing a spending cap on individual seats while still permitting additional party advertising under a party's $90m national cap;

(2) requests that:

(a) an assessment of realistic administrative compliance costs under the bill be undertaken; and

(b) a cap be placed on administrative assistance funding to political parties to accurately reflect administrative compliance costs; and

(3) notes that in the midst of cost of living pressures, the Government is giving itself and other parties substantial increases of public funding instead of prioritising increased support to Australians who are doing it tough".

I rise to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. To say that this is a sad day for Australian democracy is an understatement, and I can only say shame, shame, shame on every member of Labor and the coalition that is going to support this legislation.

At a time when the cost-of-living pressures continue to rise, our two major parties have struck a deal to entrench their duopoly through providing themselves increased funding in our elections and diminishing the opportunity to be challenged. This bill—and it appears to have the coalition's support—is highly beneficial to the major parties and smacks of a dirty deal designed to cement their duopoly. What is telling is that currently on the speakers list for this legislation there are no government or coalition MPs prepared to come in this place and speak on behalf of this bill. Beyond the assistant minister and shadow minister, no-one would want to be on the record speaking on behalf of this bill. How could you go back to your electorate and tell them your priority is to get more public funding for yourselves instead of getting support for those in our community doing it tough?

What's clear in the process of this is it's a completely bad-faith manoeuvre by the government and the coalition. This bill should not be rushed through the House. It requires proper consideration of the consequences and the effects it will have. It's a major piece of electoral reform, and there are likely to be long-ongoing issues. For all of the MPs in this place who repeatedly beat their chest and say, 'We are for integrity and transparency and accountability'—and we always see one side saying the other side is so much worse—what we see on this bill is they are all as bad as each other.

I urge the government: do not proceed, like you are at the moment, with this second reading vote; instead, refer this bill to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to inquire into the unintended—but, I would say, likely intended—consequences of this bill, and that is set out in detail in the amendment that I have moved. This bill should not proceed without it going to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It creates an incredibly unfair playing field. It creates advantage in so many ways that I'll go into in more detail, and it provides, to political parties, disproportionate support that is completely removed from any realistic cost assessment and real, actual expenses.

We need, and the Australian people deserve, an assessment of realistic administrative compliance costs. This should be done and should be a direct correlation with what is proposed to come out of the public purse and go into political party coffers.

At a time right now, when cost-of-living pressures are so serious, the hubris and the audacity of the political parties in putting this forward are staggering. The minister has described this legislation as the biggest reform to electoral law and processes in 40 years and yet proposes to ram it through within barely a couple of days of the legislation being public, because you wouldn't want too many people to actually have an opportunity to analyse it before you embed your advantage and pass bad law.

We should not be voting on this bill until it's been properly scrutinised by the joint standing committee. The Australian people are entitled to due diligence in respect to such major reform. I've moved the amendment highlighting the unfair playing field that the bill creates by giving advantage to incumbents over new candidates. This bill fails to give all candidates the same public funding for administrative support and fails to account for incumbent resources such as an office, staff, vehicle, marketing budget, while imposing a spending cap on candidates.

I would challenge most members of the major parties in this place. Have they even read this legislation? I doubt they would have the audacity to vote for it if they had actually read it. Instead, this bill provides disproportionate yearly administrative assistance funding to major political parties and fails to account for any economies of scale for the major parties. Instead, it entrenches political party advantage over independent candidates by imposing a spending cap on individual seats while still permitting additional party advertising under a party's banner up to a $90 million national cap. I will get to the administrative funding in more detail, but the bill should adequately reflect the administrative compliance costs. To do this, the government should undertake an assessment to understand the realistic administrative compliance cost of this bill.

For the benefit of the public, I want everyone to understand just how much money the government and the coalition are proposing to pay themselves. Once this bill takes effect, under the numbers currently in the parliament, Labor are proposing that for their compliance costs they should be paid $2.7 million per year from public funds. The Liberal Party is proposing they should be paid $1.5 million per year for compliance costs. The Nationals are proposing $540,000 per year. No wonder no-one is in here disputing or arguing against this largess that is coming to the political class.

Nothing in the process around this bill has been authentic or in good faith. The government has rushed the bill through the House. It is proposing to do so with very little consultation, with such a short period of time of actual visibility on the bill. There was no exposure draft provided and no active engagement from the government with the crossbench or even the public. The government is proposing to debate a large and significant reform to electoral rules within only one day. It's not only poor practice; it's bad faith governance.

Reform is desperately needed for political donations. While some measures in this bill will strengthen the system, and many people in this place have argued for them for many years, they are completely overshadowed by the bad faith actions the government is undertaking and elements of this bill. The true impact of this bill without proper consideration and without a joint standing committee having the opportunity to analyse it will simply not be known, and the unintended consequences will very likely be very grave from a point of view of fair competition and open field when it comes to our democracy and our elections.

It's clear the objectionable elements to the bill are the spending caps on individuals compared to the national spending of parties, the donation caps and the introduction of gifts. But it's hard to even choose parts to object to in this bill because we know the devil is in the detail, and we've had little over 24 hours with this bill, which is more than 220 pages long with an explanatory memorandum that does not even provide enough detail on the context and the reasoning of these specific changes.

The bill introduces three types of caps that will create a very unfair and uneven playing field. First, the bill imposes a cap of $800,000 spending on individual candidates in the electorate. I agree that it sounds like a lot of money, but the spending cap only relates to the campaign spend and does not account for the incumbent access to government offices, staff, vehicle, marketing budgets that are already paid for.

So, whilst a new challenger and candidate will be expected to pay for all that and need do it, for them it has to come out of their $800,000 budget. For an incumbent, that's okay—you can get that extra. The proposed amendments favour an incumbent not just through those advantages of votes and time spent and presence in the electorate but through that expenditure budget as well. Under these rules, an independent candidate will be outspent before they even reach the starting line.

Secondly, while the spending cap for individuals only applies to a specific seat, political parties get a national cap of $90 million to spend. This means that they will allocate their resources and advertising under that national party cap. It's clear that they are not going to allocate the full $800,000 to 151 seats in an election. They will pick and choose which seats they think are winnable, which ones might be safe and which ones might be marginal. Then they will blanket those electorates with additional advertising under that national cap. We can see a challenger will be limited to $800,000, but a political party candidate will have that $800,000 cap plus any additional amount that can be used from that $90 million cap. So it is clear that there will not be an even spend when it comes to political campaigns and it will disproportionately impact marginal seats, especially if they are trying to fend off a challenger.

We know the major parties already run national television brand campaigns that have mass reach to voters across all electorates. They run centralised campaign offices, databases and infrastructure. But an Independent taking on a major party candidate must set up from scratch. There is just no accounting for that. On top of that, a major party candidate will be able to channel up to $800,000 into seats which they want to win or which are under threat, bombarding them with social media, billboards and leaflets, and they're all designed by head office to stamp out the voice of a challenger.

Then, when we look at the donation cap of $20,000, it is clearly unfair because it is likely to further limit democratic participation and unfairly impact an individual candidate compared to existing legacy parties, who can transfer over their war chest accumulated through their nominated entity provisions. No-one has disputed that there is something wrong when our elections have someone like Clive Palmer putting north of $100 million into an election, but there is also something very wrong when established political parties can just transfer over their war chest accumulated with dark money that has not been disclosed and then try and come into this place and say, 'Everybody should be limited to a cap of $20,000 donations.' Under the provisions in this bill, nominated entities give the political parties bodies that they can use to make unlimited contributions to the parties, including for electoral expenditure. While each registered party is limited to one nominated entity, many parties are actually composed of several registered parties, each of which can access funds through a different nominated entity. The devil is in the detail because there are provisions in the exceptions for gifts that allow for transfer of assets between those various entities from federal to state and the different nominated entities. One example is the Cormack Foundation, which funds the Liberal Party. It is estimated to be worth some $120 million. I don't think that's going to fall under a cap of a donation of $20,000. So is this going to be an even playing field? Not on your life!

The other iniquity in this the bill is the provision relating to administrative assistance funding, which will provide additional funding to existing MPs without making any equivalent allocation to new challenger candidates. New administrative costs may not be able to be spent on campaigning but can provide much-needed funding for assistance with policy proposals and volunteer management alongside compliance costs under the bill. If anyone is wondering, 'What does that really mean?' an existing incumbent MP, including me, will be entitled to a $30,000 admin fee. But a challenger has to just bear the cost of compliance—the daily reporting and all those aspects—completely out of their campaign cap. There is no allocation for them to receive repayment for that administrative cost or that support. That is an incredibly unfair playing field. As I said, before even getting to the starting line a challenger is already being penalised and disadvantaged by the system.

On this, I should note that the government has resisted again that there be more scrutiny on this, and it's resisted in all briefings any notion that there be an administrative assistance funding to new challengers or that such administrative assistance funding should be capped in relation to what the major parties are going to receive. They are proposing just a linear extrapolation of the numbers of members of the current parliament. For any number of MPs in a political party, that just keeps adding lots of $30,000 to that political party. Every year, what you're going to see—even non-election years—is that the public purse will pay political parties at a time when their support is waning. The Australian people are saying: 'We don't trust you. We don't like you as our choice. We want more competition and diversity.' The political parties, rather than evolve to actually reflect and represent the issues and concerns of the community, are turning to: 'How can I rig the game to help myself from the public purse?' It is outrageous.

The very real economies of scale that exist in relation to compliance are just ignored. That is why my amendment seeks that that be specifically assessed. You have to forgive the cynicism, but, at a time when Australians are struggling under cost-of-living pressures, the hubris of the major parties to come in here asking for this gross imbalance of payment is just staggering. There simply is not enough time to say all the things that are wrong with this bill.

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the amendment?

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

I second the amendment. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 is a disgrace. The transparency is good but too late for the next election. There's an argument for some sort of donation cap so no individual has too much influence on an election, but those bits are being used as an excuse to push through a huge increase in taxpayer dollars to current politicians and complicated spending caps that will lock in the major parties and lock out future Independents. This is the two parties colluding to stop future political competition. It's outrageous that the government and the opposition are rushing this through the parliament with no scrutiny, despite saying it's the biggest change to our electoral system in 40 years.

The experts agree. This afternoon, the Centre for Public Integrity, the Australia Institute, Transparency International Australia and Australian Democracy Network have put out a joint statement saying that they're united in the view that the government's proposed bill should not proceed in its current form other than the donation transparency part. These are organisations that are interested in safeguarding our democracy, not furthering a particular political interest. They have no vested interest, and they are saying this should not go ahead.

I want to talk about how we got here and pick out a few of the high-level problems with it. If I had triple the time, I still could be listing problems, and that's after only a few days of seeing it. Firstly, on the history, we've seen a consistent decline in support for the major parties over the last 40 years. At the last election, we saw the lowest primary vote for majors, with one in three voting for minor parties or Independents. The will of the people is changing. They want something different now. This is a threat to the major parties. Parties are machines designed to win, not to lead, and challenging the concept of a safe seat means that they would actually have to represent their communities. But, like any institutions, the parties have a strong immune system and are fighting to retain power and fight change. This bill is a desperate attempt to arrest that trend.

I sat on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which conducted the inquiry into the 2022 election, and I was the first Independent to sit on that committee. They took months to approve my appointment, and, by the time I was allowed to join, they'd heard almost all the evidence about donation reform, so I didn't have the opportunity to ask many questions. But I went through the evidence and gathered all the evidence from the experts who didn't have a vested interest—the academics, the think tanks and the democracy organisations. Much of their evidence did not make it into either the majority report or the opposition's dissenting report, so I put them together in my additional comments. I then put that together into a piece of legislation and provided a path that the government could have taken to show that it was respecting the will of the people and the integrity of our political system.

I put together the restoring trust bill last August, which had the support of the crossbench in both houses and the fair and transparent elections bill in February this year, which was introduced by me in the lower house and by David Pocock in the Senate, and which would have had enough support to pass in both houses.

The government has stated for a long time that its policy is real-time disclosures above $1,000. That was in my bill. It was also in many other private members' bills from other crossbenchers who want to see greater transparency. The government had a path to address transparency throughout this parliament. On any sitting day of this parliament, we could have had greater transparency about political donations, but the government said it couldn't deal with this without also addressing other issues, such as banning lies in political campaigns. I engaged in good faith with the minister, providing a pathway to good reform without it being a major party stitch-up. There was very little actual engagement with the minister, other than some lip-service meetings and certainly no sharing of draft legislation.

The minister and his office said that drafting was very complicated, and that was why it was taking so long. He did also say that he wanted to get bipartisan support, and he was condescending about the concept of multipartisan support, and showed no understanding that the will of the people and the make-up of the parliament have changed. I suspected that we would get a stitch-up by the major parties presented at the last minute to lock in advantage, and that's exactly what we've got here. If the major parties want to rebuild trust and regain their vote share, this is not the way to do it. Voters can see through this cynical, self-interested approach.

There are a few good things about this bill. We've finally got some progress on donation transparency, but it's too late for the next election, so you still won't know who has funded your candidates when you're voting at the next election. I am actually okay with the idea of a donation cap. I don't think anyone should have a disproportionate influence over an election. I proposed a cap model linked to one or two per cent of total public funding as a way of linking the cap to prevent outsized influence. This legislation includes a cap of $20,000 a year. Is that too low or too high? I wish that that was the sensible debate that we were having now—talking about what the donation cap level is. We can talk about it. No doubt there is an appropriate amount. But that is not the debate we're having because there are so many terrible things about this bill.

I want to go through nine of the worst things about this bill, and I'm sure I could find more if I had more time. The first two relate to process. This is being rushed through parliament. We are changing who can get into our parliament without any public scrutiny. It's a fundamental change. The government said it is the biggest change in 40 years, and it's really complicated. It's 224 pages of an interconnected web of donation caps, spending caps, increased public funding and transparency frameworks. It needs two types of scrutiny: what it is meant to do, so we can look at the intended consequences of the legislation, and what it actually does, so we can look at unintended consequences. It's not getting either of those things. The CPI, the Australia Institute, Transparency International Australia and the Australian Democracy Network said this afternoon:

Legislation that will have such significant consequences for our democracy must only be passed after a parliamentary inquiry has had an opportunity to thoroughly scrutinise its provisions. To do otherwise is not in the interests of the Australian public.

My second problem is that the issue of transparency has been separated from banning lies in political advertising. This undermines the government's excuse for delay, in terms of saying that we can't do transparency unless we do truth at the same time. Banning lies in political campaigns is being introduced as a separate bill as a fairly performative measure, knowing that it will be kicked into the long grass. If the government actually wanted to reflect the will of the public and not the parties, it would add the transparency provisions to the second piece of legislation banning lies, and debate that.

My third and fourth objections relate to public funding. The third one is that taxpayers are paying more and getting less choice. There's a huge increase in funding here. The experts today that I mentioned earlier say these laws include more than $40 million in additional taxpayer funding of political parties and candidates, most of which would go to the major parties. It goes up from about $3.50 a share to $5 a share. In terms of the numbers, it may be $40 million or it may be more; we haven't had enough time to go through and look in detail. But no matter how you look at it, it's a massive slap in the face to Australians during a cost-of-living crisis.

This has the effect of locking in major parties and incumbents. Funding is based on how many votes you got at the last election, so there is no funding for new challengers. It just increases the barriers to entry.

The government thought that, because I and other crossbenchers now have incumbent advantages, we would be fine with it. But I'm not here to protect my political career. I'm here to improve our democracy, and this does not do that. Creating extra hurdles to stop new challengers is absolutely unacceptable. It does not reflect the will of the people. To add insult to injury, the major parties can tap into this funding in advance of an election, based on what they expect to win. The fact that this is possible shows that this is a reliable revenue stream to protect the status quo and creates another hurdle for challengers.

This legislation includes a huge increase in what we call admin funding. That's $30,000 per MP and $15,000 per senator, every year, for administrative purposes. There is no relationship between this extra funding and the actual increase in administrative tasks. It's clearly designed to get the coalition on board. It translates to $17 million in extra taxpayer funding in each term, three-quarters of which goes to the major parties. There is not, as anyone in business knows, a linear relationship between the number of people and an overhead like administration. The ALP currently has four people to meet the admin needs of 104 parliamentarians. It does not need another $6 million a year to do that. I haven't seen any proof or even attempt to show that this is the right amount of money, and it's shameful that voters should be expected to fork out millions for parties' headquarters. In South Australia, they've increased admin, but they capped it at 10 MPs because it's indefensible to say that the admin costs go up significantly with every additional MP. New challengers get nothing for their administrative costs, despite needing to set up a compliance framework from scratch.

My objections 5, 6 and 7 relate to spending caps. This sounds good, but it's not a level playing field, so it locks in the status quo. Our democracy experts, in their statement today, have said

The bill would also entrench major party and incumbency advantage, and further disadvantage independent and challenger candidates in elections.

When I was drafting my own legislation on this, I tried to find a spending cap that worked, but it was impossible. If we address transparency and donation caps, spending caps become obsolete. If 5,000 people donate $200 each to a campaign, why shouldn't the candidate be allowed to spend that, if that's come from people below a donation cap?

The fifth objection is related to that, as a sitting MP, I have incumbency advantages, so I now benefit from part of this legislation. There's a spending cap of $800,000 in a division, but that doesn't count incumbency advantages like an office, a car, a team and a budget in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. None of these count towards the $800,000 cap, but a new challenger has to fund all of those things.

My sixth objection is that the spending caps don't account for party advantage. There's an outrageous exemption to the divisional cap for party advertising. Ads that say, 'Vote Liberal,' or 'Vote Labor,' don't count towards that cap. Governments will say that they're caught by a $90 million cap. Yes, but we know that parties use their money strategically. They can allocate the money so that they can double the spending of a challenger easily and still remain inside this cap. This is not a level playing field. The best way to deal with this issue is through transparency and donation caps. If they're structured properly, spending caps are not necessary.

Nominated entities are my issue No. 7. There's a weird, little exclusion for parties to have a nominated entity. This is where you can keep your wealth, if you've got some, without having to account for where it's come from historically. But any new party that were to start wouldn't have access to this hidden wealth source. The ALP and Libs have huge assets, possibly $100 million for the Cormack Foundation, which would be the Liberal Party's nominated entity—we don't know, because there's no transparency. But that's not available for new challengers.

The last two problems relate to transparency.

On balance, more transparency is a great thing. Bring it on! I've been asking for it since the beginning of this parliament, but it won't start in time for the next election. So, given the government has claimed that it's had a policy of a $1000 threshold for many years, it has left it until the very last minute, and now there's no time to implement it. It's hard not to be cynical about that.

Now that none of this reform can be implemented before the next election, where is the urgency? The only thing that's urgent here is the two parties colluding to change the rules to protect themselves before the inevitable happens—voters get wise to it, and their decline continues. I will declare all donations on my website in real time like I did last time. Every politician should do this as a bare minimum to be taken seriously by their community. No voter should cast their precious vote without knowing who is funding the candidate they're voting for. I challenge every MP to do the same thing, whether you're in a party or not. Tell your community where you're getting the money from. There are also so many exceptions to the definition of 'gift'. I won't go into it now, but this clearly needs scrutiny because it is full of loopholes.

In summary, this bill is a travesty. It addresses a cynical anticompetitive oligopoly play as reform, which is being fed to an unsuspecting public. There are huge problems with the process it's gone through. There are problems with the massive increase in public funding, which locks in the status quo. There are problems with limiting spending in a way that creates a very uneven playing field for new challenges. The transparency reform is too little too late, and it's a huge disappointment. Australian voters will not be taken for granted. They will not be taken for voters. And if the major parties ignore their desire for greater choice and push this through with no inquiry, Australians will remember and punish them with their most effective tool—their votes. I do not commend this bill to the House.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Competition is good for democracy, just like it's good for supermarkets and airlines. It drives better performance, encourages accountability and ensures no-one takes their position for granted. When politicians know they can lose their seats, they work harder, listen more carefully and prioritise their constituents. Support for the major parties is at an all-time low, and communities across Australia are embracing a new era of representation with MPs that finally represent the community values. There is no such thing as a safe seat yet. I've been told that by many people across this parliament, from all sides. I think this is a great thing, and that's what my community thinks.

Since the 2022 election, I've spoken to these members and senators. They admit that they are working harder than ever before because they know that, regardless of how safe their seat has been for generations, this time it could be contested and they have to truly represent their communities. It's a win for democracy, and it's a win for the Australian people. It is against this backdrop that the government has introduced its so-called Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill, described by the minister as the largest reform to Australia's electoral laws in over 40 years. I agree that Australia's electoral reforms are in dire need of reform. Nobody wants to see Clive Palmer spend more than $100 million on one election, and nobody wants to see Australia head down the route to the US.

Our current resume for disclosing the donations lacks transparency and timeliness. The $16,900 disclosure threshold is too high. It doesn't capture the business forums and corporate memberships, and donations aren't required to be made public until more than a year after an election. There are also no requirements for political advertising to be truthful, even when paid for by public money. And there are structural inequalities and inequities in the design of our electoral laws, which mean that not all candidates are treated equally. Whilst I, and other Independents, rightly had to declare the cost of our 2022 election campaigns, our major party opponents were not required to do the same. We will never know how much they spent.

I agree with the government that there is a real need for reform. It is something that I have been calling for since before I was elected. Such reform should be guided by four principles. Firstly, it should improve transparency so voters know who is funding elections before casting their ballots. Secondly, it should reduce financial influence so that you can't buy an election regardless of whether you are using private or public money.

Thirdly, it should level the playing field to promote competition, free speech and the right to association. Finally, it should improve trust in our political system or certainly not undermine it.

Unfortunately, this bill completely fails on the first three principles and the way that the government is trying to ram it through the parliament without consultation or proper scrutiny absolutely undermines trust in the fundamental system of electoral reform. As the Centre for Public Integrity, Transparency International, the Australian Democracy Network and the Australia Institute said in a joint statement earlier today: 'This bill should not proceed in its current form because it would entrench major party and incumbency advantage and further disadvantage Independent and challenger candidates. Legislation that will have such a significant consequences for our democracy should only be passed after a parliamentary inquiry has had an opportunity to properly, thoroughly scrutinise its provisions. To do otherwise is not in the interests of the Australian public.' I completely agree.

Let's start with the process. This bill is more than 220 pages long. It has been described by the minister multiple times as a hugely complex reform that has taken month and months to draft. It's the biggest change to our electoral laws in over 40 years and it won't even take full effect until July 2026 and yet there has been pretty much no opportunity for proper scrutiny. The bill has been written behind closed doors by the major parties, with no public consultation. My team and I first saw the draft on Friday and we were briefed on the bill's contents just two days ago. No version of the legislation was made available to the public until it was introduced to the parliament yesterday at lunchtime.

Let me be honest. I know that this reform is complex. I know that it is very difficult to get electoral reform right and meet all those criteria I laid out. I recognise that complexity. I recognise that no form of the bill would probably make me completely happy and there would always be compromises. But, if nothing else, the way that the government is trying to ram this through the parliament really is the most egregious of its acts. It is deeply undermining of any trust that we should have in the government when it says that it is trying to do this for the right reasons. It is absolutely unconscionable.

The government has said it intends to pass the legislation within the sitting fortnight. It intends to take it, as I understand it, to the House tomorrow to be voted on. They're ramming it through in the last two weeks of the year. For so-called generational reform this is an absolutely staggering and unconscionable lack of transparency and scrutiny. When the crossbench yesterday called for a committee inquiry as a standard practice for legislation of this length and complexity, Labor voted against that and most of the coalition didn't even turn up to the vote. The government has said, 'We are open to amendments and discussion on some of these items,' but I can't even get the drafters to do drafting amendments because they have to be put into the House so quickly. The government say: 'We care about expert opinions. We care about hearing from experts.' Some of those experts I mentioned earlier we have been speaking to to try and understand things like how the nominated entities work. They can't give me a clear answer. The minister's own new chief of staff can't give me a clear answer on some of these absolutely incredibly important points of law. I'm speaking on the bill and we're expected to vote on it, probably, tomorrow. This is absolutely unconscionable. If the bill is so great, the government should be open to scrutiny. The fact they are not tells you that they have something to hide. It tells you that this bill is a stitch-up between the major parties, designed to entrench their incumbency and lock out new entrants.

Let's go through the bill's aspects now in detail, one by one. Let's start with transparency. Whilst the process has been shocking, I do acknowledge there are some positive aspects to the bill. I welcome the lowering of the donation threshold to $1,000 and requiring donations to be disclosed in closer to real time. I also cautiously welcome the expanded definition of 'gift', which will now include business forum memberships and cash-for-access dinners. These are changes I have long advocated for and will mean voters know more about who is funding campaigns before they cast their ballots.

However, I note two major concerns when it comes to transparency. Firstly, the reforms will not be in place when voters go to the polls in 2025. The public will still have no idea who is funding their elections. This is despite the crossbench offering on multiple occasions during this parliament to support the passage of transparency measures like this.

We could have got this done a long time ago. It is Labor's choice to delay this implementation, and it shows extreme cynicism that they've chosen to combine them with sweeping and controversial changes in the bill. It is wedge politics at its worst.

My second concern is that there are a huge number of exemptions to the definition of what constitutes a donation or a gift in this bill. Indeed, there are more than three pages of exemptions in this bill, including subscriptions, levies, loans and much more. I asked the government to explain the rationale for each of these exemptions. I'm still waiting for an explanation, and, again, I'm meant to vote on this bill tomorrow. Some may be perfectly legitimate, but it is impossible to be sure. It is impossible to consider the various implications with essentially 48 hours notice, and it is another reason why we need a committee inquiry.

Let me move to concerns about public funding. Beyond the poor process and lack of clarity over these carve-outs, I have four concerns over the substance of this bill. The first is the massive increase in public funding for politicians. Under this bill, public funding per vote will increase from $2.91 at the last election to $5.00. The Australia Institute estimates that at least three-quarters of this will go to the major parties. Incumbents will be able to claim their funding in advance, according to as yet unspecified set rules determined by the minister. On top of this, each sitting MP will receive an additional $30,000 per year for admin support, and senators will receive $15,000. This is in addition to the existing nearly $3 million in allowances for staff, travel, communications and administration that we all already receive. Unlike in South Australia, there is no cap on how many MPs or senators from each party can get this $30,000 rebate, meaning that 85 per cent of this funding flows to the major parties. And, at a time when many Australians can't pay their rent, this bill is a multimillion-dollar subsidy to the major parties. The increase in public funding is estimated to be at least $70 million compared to 2022, and the vast majority will be funnelled to Labor and the coalition.

Worse still, this increase in public funding creates a huge structural advantage for incumbents against new challengers—as if there weren't enough of those already. The minister argues that the $30,000 admin allowance is necessary to help cope with the burden of the new disclosure regime. But what about the compliance costs for a new Independent challenger? Don't they face exactly the same obligations? They do. But apparently they just have to get on with it.

The minister also argues that each MP should get this allowance, that there are no such things as economies of scale and that every MP has to carry out the same task so they should get the same admin funding—except, in fact, they don't. Yesterday evening we heard, from the chief of staff of the minister, that the major party MPs won't even have their own campaign accounts; they won't be responsible for tracking their own spending and what donations they receive. Head office will do that for them, but they still need that $30,000 admin allowance each, and Independent challengers get absolutely nothing. There's no justification for this. And, worst of all, because the government has reneged on its promise to include truth-in-political-advertising laws alongside these reforms, taxpayers will be funding more to fund election ads that tell lies.

My second concern for this bill relates to donation caps. While I support limiting donations, the way that the caps have been designed creates a significant advantage, once again, for the major parties over Independents. A single donor can give $20,000 per year to an Independent, but they can give $180,000 to the Labor Party by donating to each of the eight state and territory branches as well as the national party. This disparity grows even larger over a parliamentary term. An Independent can receive up to $80,000 from a donor across four years, but Labor can receive $720,000. This is a ninefold advantage. For challengers, who typically only begin fundraising the year before the election, this gap is even wider. Because they're not running a party operation for the whole political cycle, they miss out on multiple opportunities to collect donations, meaning they could be eligible to receive 36 times less from each donor than the Labor Party. This means they will start their campaigns with enormous fundraising deficits.

This disparity around caps is compounded by the treatment, under this bill, of so-called nominated entities. This is my third key concern. It's widely known that over many years the major parties have established vast fundraising vehicles based on historical property holdings and business ventures. The Victorian Liberals' Cormack Foundation is reported to have assets of more than $100 million. In the same state, Labor's special cash cow is an entity called Labor Services and Holdings, and the Nationals have something called Pilliwinks Pty Ltd.

Electoral reform that levelled the playing field would treat donations from these entities just like donations from everyone else and cap them at $20,000, but it's not clear what is happening under this bill. Instead, the feedback I've received from several experts suggests that donations from nominated entities may be exempt from the caps. If so, each party branch—that's nine for Labor and eight for the Liberals—would be able to nominate a different entity which was exempt from the rules, locking in unlimited donations from these historical fundraising vehicles. Can Independents set up their own vehicles? No, not really. Because a cap on donations to nominated entities applies, new entrants will never be able to set up the nominated entities of equivalent size to those of the major parties. A major party advantage would once again be locked in. The government may dispute this interpretation, but the provisions of this bill are so complex, particularly when it comes to nominated entities, the experts can't tell me if they are sure, and the chief of staff for the minister can't tell me either.

My final concern relates to spending caps. On paper, there are $800,000 spending caps for individual candidates. That seems reasonable, but when you unpack how these rules are applied, it's clear they create a structural bias towards the major parties. While an independent candidate is limited to spending $800,000, a Liberal or Labor candidate can not only spend $800,000 but also benefit from their party's advertising for the Senate, which can be up to $9.2 million in New South Wales, as well as from their party's spending on national advertising, which can be up to $90 million overall. When these streams are combined, major parties have the ability to outspend independents in marginal seats by a significant margin.

Let me give you an example. The Liberal Party in Wentworth could line every street with corflutes saying, 'Vote 1 Liberal,' and it would not count towards their candidates' $800,000 cap. But if I said, 'Vote 1 Allegra Spender, Independent,' it would be captured. For new challengers, this is even more dire. There is no acknowledgement in this bill that new entrants need to spend heavily to build name recognition, credibility and a support base, whereas a major party could turn up for just a few days before the election and probably get a 30 per cent primary vote without anyone even knowing their name. Labor and Liberals claim that this bill will get the big money out of politics. This is simply not true. What this bill will do is lock in massive amounts of public funding for major parties by kneecapping their opponents. (Time expired)

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've all heard that Australians have lost interest in politics, that they see all politicians as cynical and self-interested. Indeed, in a recent Australian Reader's Digest survey on Australia's most trusted professions, politicians won the wooden spoon, ranking last—just below journalists. As a former journalist and now standing here in this place, I get it when people question my choice of job, yet last Thursday night, in my electorate of Goldstein, more than 800 people turned up at a community townhall event at the historic Kingston City Hall in Moorabbin to join me to discuss the issues that matter most to them.

In recent months I've had multiple full Politics in the Pub events, where we've discussed everything from housing to women and the economy, the renewable energy transition, US politics and Australia's place in the world. It is therefore a lazy trope, I think, to say that people aren't interested in politics. These people are passionate about the issues they care about—climate change, housing affordability, the cost of living, student debt, early childhood education and care, just to name a few. They want to be heard and they want to be part of the solution to these problems. They believe in a type of politics where they're included and respected. They want a seat at the table.

Imagine their disappointment and exasperation when, a few days later, they woke up to the news that the Albanese Labor government had apparently done a deal with the coalition on its electoral reform bill that all but locks in the major party duopoly that voters, at best, are drifting away from and, at worst, loathe. Their cynicism would have only grown when they found out that the government dropped this huge and complex piece of legislation late on a Friday afternoon and then demanded that it be hustled through the parliament in a mad rush this week. Even sending it to committee inquiry was a bridge too far. The legislation isn't even set to apply until 2026, and—by the minister's own admission—it proposes the largest reform to Australia's electoral laws in over 40 years. Surely that warrants scrutiny.

Given the ridiculously short time we've had to study this bill, with no exposure draft beforehand, it has been impossible to fully scrutinise this legislation, which I guess is entirely the point. The bill ensures that Australian politics remains a cosy table for two, and it makes it clear to ordinary Australians: you're not invited.

The Labor Party and the Liberal-National coalition—the Coles and Woolies of Australian politics—are engaging in lockout politics. It's politics as usual for the Canberra cartel. The minister says this bill is getting big money out of politics, but actually it's replacing donor money with taxpayer money, which then embeds the incumbents. Rather than banning big money, the bill guarantees big money to the big parties. Let's be clear: they think this will be a short and noisy process—that they'll pass it and everyone will forget about it. Well, we'll see about that.

The expenditure caps in this bill are a clear attempt by the major parties to game the system. The expenditure on creating or communicating electoral matter targeting a division is capped at $800,000 per calendar year. 'Targeting' means naming a candidate or including their likeness or expressly mentioning the division, so a poster or billboard with my photo or name on it, mentioning the seat of Goldstein, would sit well and truly under that expenditure cap, yet political party material that doesn't mention the candidate doesn't count under the cap. The Liberal Party or the Labor Party could line the Nepean Highway with their party-branded billboards, all the way from Elsternwick to Cheltenham, and it wouldn't count under the cap. The electoral expenditure of a party plus its branches cannot exceed the federal cap of $90 million, but that amount still allows the Canberra cartel to shift money around the country and pour it into marginal seat campaigns at their discretion. Call it the sandbagging slush fund.

There are two sets of rules in play here, and Australian voters aren't fools; they can spot a stitch-up when they see one. This legislation has so many loopholes you could sail a ship through it. These loopholes mean that even advertising mentioning a party candidate doesn't fully count towards their divisional cap, provided it's spread around the state, or Senate candidates are promoted alongside the House candidate, or both. That means the parties could spend much more than $800,000 promoting a particular candidate, if they do it in the right way.

Then there's the gaping hole in this bill that is best described as the third-party free-for-all. Any third party, like Advance Australia or the ACTU, can run their own campaign on electoral issues, with a cap of $11 million per annum. Exactly how this works remains a bit opaque, but it appears that, if Advance, for example, wants to spend big on a climate change denial campaign, they can, if they sit under that $11 million cap. The unions could run a pro-jobs campaign geared to Labor. This is in addition to party caps. And that's not to mention the fact that there are three pages of exemptions to the definition of 'gift'. That's confusing and, again, needs scrutiny. Is this the sort of electoral reform Australia needs? Meanwhile, incumbents, including myself, would have the advantage of public funding and resources, while new entrants face the same caps as those of us who are already in office. How is putting the squeeze on new entrants and Independents while giving the green light to partisan lobbyists and political action groups a way to reinstall confidence in the political system?

It is true that several elements of this legislation go some way to reforming our electoral system in a way that ordinary Australians will welcome, as I do. Lowering the disclosure threshold for political contributions to $1,000, from $17,000, and aggregating those donations to determine whether they exceed the threshold is long overdue. Having a more transparent process for the disclosure of gifts is vital. The legislation proposes that it occur within 24 hours during the final week of an election campaign, weekly during the campaign proper and monthly at other times. These transparency measures would ensure that we have line of sight on where the money is coming from and where it's going.

Kicking the dark money out of Australian politics is something I fully support. Indeed, I practiced as close as practical to real-time disclosure during my last campaign. Unfortunately, this legislation won't stop dark money from being poured in to influence the upcoming federal election—and we can expect plenty of it being spent to try to win seats—because, despite the rush to pass the bill, those measures won't be in place in time.

Sadly, the value of these initiatives in restoring faith in the fairness of our electoral process has had the stool kicked out from under it by the other provisions in this legislation. The proposed gift or donation cap for any individual is to be set at $20,000 per annum, and it will reset every calendar year or after a general election. That means there'll be four opportunities for an individual to give every election cycle. The devil is lurking in the detail here. Each party branch will have its own cap. For instance, that means the Labor Party has eight individual state and territory branches as well as national branch. An individual could therefore donate as much as $180,000 per year to the party. Once again, Independents and any aspiring new entrants are playing by a different set of rules to the major parties.

Public and administrative funding of elections should be a way to build a firewall between the electoral process and those vested interests with big wallets looking to pay for access and influence. Public funding will increase from $2.91 per vote at the last federal election to $5 a vote, at a total cost of $40 million. About 76 per cent of that money will land in the coffers of the major parties—once again reinforcing their hold over Australian democracy. It basically doubles the funding they receive now.

Australian voters are crying out for political parties to cut the bull and stop telling lies in their election ads. If there's one initiative that Australian voters are crying out for it's truth in political advertising. This government has other legislation in train that deals with mis- and disinformation, yet when it comes to just that in political ads it's on a go-slow. The bill has been tabled, but apparently there is no rush to pass that one. The major parties are happy to take an extra bucket of public money, but they won't lift a finger to protect Australian voters from the lies and deceit in political advertising. Is it any wonder the professional reputation of Australian politicians has cratered like it has?

Quite seriously, the more time I spend looking at this bill the worse it gets. Ramming it through the parliament without proper scrutiny before Christmas when it won't even come into effect until after the next election is a sign of desperation from the major parties—'Quick! Get it through just in case any more Independents get in and stop us.' This law could fundamentally change who can get into the parliament for a generation. Australian needs a new approach to politics that encourages political engagement and participation in our democracy, not a lockout strategy that signals to ordinary Australians that they are not welcome to get involved. Lead better. Don't change the rules to help you win.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Electoral reform is critical if we are to maintain confidence in the political system. Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes free and fair elections as:

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

We should be rightfully proud that as a relatively young nation we have a mature and robust electoral system. It has served us well. We may not like the outcome of some elections, but we all respect the process and, ultimately, we respect the decision of the people. That is always accepted.

Added to this are our Australian values, particularly the right to a fair go. In Australia, you don't need to be a millionaire to participate in politics. My first election cost me roughly $40,000 to run. Contrast this to the politics of the United States, where the recent election cost a staggering $15.9 billion. The Democrats reportedly spent $6.7 billion, while the Republicans spent a reported $7.6 billion. Increasingly, we are seeing a larger spend on campaigns across parties and individual candidates in Australia. In the last election we saw several candidates from major parties and Independents spending more than $2 million on their campaigns.

The United Australia Party spent more in a single year than any political party in Australian political history. Our democracy must not devolve to a financial arms race that favours the size of the campaign wallet over the quality of the candidate. Australians should not be dissuaded or precluded from participation as a consequence of financial barriers to entry. At the least, Australians must be able to be aware of the sources of the parties' and candidates' funding before they cast their ballots.

I've previously quoted the late great Robin Williams, who said that politicians should wear sponsored jackets like NASCAR drivers, and then we'd know who owns them. In 2019 and 2023, I introduced private member's bills seeking to lower the political donation disclosure threshold to $1,000, provide a broader definition of donations and require real-time disclosure as soon as reasonably practicable within five working days after receipt. This is about transparency. If donations are received in the thousands, the public has a right to know so they can determine for themselves whether the candidate's party or party views are being influenced. And they need to know before the election, not the following year.

The bill before the House will lower the donation disclosure threshold to $1,000 cumulative over a calendar year, as my bills did. It will also, similarly, broaden the definition of gifts over the threshold value so that new disclosure requirements apply. The bill will not, as my bill did, require real-time donation disclosures above this threshold, but it will put in place a requirement to disclose donations monthly in arrears following their receipt and more regularly as polling day approaches—within seven days, once writs are issued, and, in the last seven days, within 24 hours, in the week on either side of polling. I think the 'either side of polling' is really important. This will ensure voters can access the information that they need before casting their votes.

The bill will also require the establishment of a federal election Commonwealth campaign account, monitored by the Electoral Commissioner, to capture all expenditure and gifts received for a federal purpose. It will cap both the amount that may be donated and campaign spending to slow down that electoral arms race so we don't see the obscene amounts of money that are being spent on elections in some countries.

I understand concerns that political party candidates will be treated preferentially in terms of high caps on spending in comparison with independent candidates. The bill will apply a federal expenditure cap of $90 million for parties, a divisional cap of $800,000 for each division and a Senate cap for states and territories based on the number of divisions in the relevant state or territory. I think that this is all exceedingly generous. This is not perfect, but it is still better than the current situation, which offers no limits and less transparency. The sources of an estimated 40 per cent of political donations over recent years are unknown. We never know where the money is sourced from. I think that this bill will be a step towards trying to uncover that.

While I feel that the expenditure cap of $11.25 million per year for significant third parties, associates and third parties who campaign for particular outcomes is also very high, at least spending on such campaigns will now be captured, disclosed and capped. Electoral spending for an independent candidate running in a single seat will be limited to $800,000, which I think is very generous, based on my own personal experience. I recognise and appreciate the concerns of other candidates, although that hasn't been my experience over four or five elections now.

Other improvements expand eligibility for pre-poll and postal voting to ensure that people with a disability or with obligations as a carer for someone with a disability will still be able to vote even if they can't attend a polling booth. It will strengthen the Australian Electoral Commission's enforcement powers to investigate and prevent breaches of the new funding and disclosure provisions and provide protections for voters and workers from harassment during polling, including filming without permission. Provision of administrative funding to meet new reporting requirements and public funding for parties and candidates should also help to minimise the reliance on private donors for electoral campaigns.

I would always prefer that a bill undergo due political review through the committee inquiry process before it's brought on for a vote. I always like to think that we can have that Senate reporting done before we vote in the House of Representatives, but that doesn't always happen. Every time we do skip this process, though, I think we put a bill at risk—that we haven't fully fleshed out the unintended consequences. However, having attempted multiple times over multiple terms in this place to secure vital improvements to transparency of political donations, I am loath to miss this opportunity.

Despite this bill not being perfect, I am of the view that, on balance, it will provide greater transparency and more timely information regarding political donations. It will strengthen the Electoral Commission and it will cap the amounts that can be donated and spent. Australians will go to the polls knowing what each candidate and each party have spent on their campaign. At the very least, if they think it is excessive or that it represents the purchase of influence, they may choose to vote accordingly. Trust in democracy is at a low point, and shining some light on the money trail can only help to improve behaviour and ultimately rebuild that trust.

It's disappointing that politics has degenerated to the point where knowingly using misinformation or disinformation for political gain has been increasing over successive elections and that it has become necessary to legislate against legislators who are willing to do this. Based on my experience and the use of such provisions in South Australian elections over time, I support the creation of an electoral communications bill based on the tried and tested provisions that have served us well in my state. On balance, I support this bill.

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

In a democracy, elections should be about the contest of ideas, the battle to convince voters that your vision for the nation's future is the one they want to vote for. But the reality, in recent Australian elections, has been the battle to see who could spend the most money. In the 2022 federal election, almost $250 million was spent by the major parties. Clive Palmer spent $117 million just on his own. In some seats, Independent candidates spent more than $2 million on just a single race. Big money in politics distorts the contest of ideas. We desperately need reform to our donations laws to reduce the impact of big money and remove dark money from politics in Australia.

That is why I wish I could stand up today and fulsomely welcome the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. We need it, and Australians want it, too. The 2022 Australian Election Study found that more than 90 per cent of Australians supported limiting donations to political parties, and, in a world that is more and more divided, this is something most Australians actually agree on. Australians are increasingly dissatisfied with the major political parties. In 2022, one-third of Australians voted for a minor party or an Independent. Support for the two major parties has never been lower.

What do the two major parties do in response? Do they have a good, hard look at themselves; introduce policies that reflect the migration of votes towards Independents and minor parties; fix their internal processes to be more representative? No. They make a backroom deal to make sure the two-party duopoly is stronger than ever. A 224-page bill was drafted without it being shown to anyone else in the parliament but the two major parties, a bill that ultimately gives the major parties more money and everyone else less—with no exposure draft for the rest of us to see.

I received the 224-page bill and 180-page explanatory memorandum on Friday afternoon. My team and I have been going through it to try and understand just how these reforms will work—because we want them to. What impact will this have on our elections? In the short time I've had with the bill, questions and concerns have arisen. These are questions and worries about aspects of the bill that go to the core issue of our democracy—elections and how Australians participate in them as voters and candidates—and they should give every Australian pause for concern.

But, before I outline my concerns, I want to celebrate some measures in this bill, because there are some good ones. This bill includes some excellent measures that will shine a light on money in politics that has not existed before, and I welcome that.

I welcome the new requirements to disclose all donations above $1,000. This is what I do now on my own website. I also support the provisions for real-time donation disclosures. Under the bill, donations above $1,000 will be required to be disclosed once a month to the Australian Election Commission outside of election periods. During elections, gifts must be disclosed once a week and then, in the week before the election, every day. That's good. This is a win for transparency. It will ensure voters know who is donating to candidates and political parties and, importantly, they will have this information before they cast their vote. I congratulate the government on this section. Right now, we only know who donates to an election candidate for donations above $16,900 and only once a year. Right now, voters are going to the polls with no line of sight as to who has donated to the names on the ballot paper. This bill fixes that, and I am unequivocal in my support for this section.

I also support the intention of other key elements of the bill. Let me be crystal clear. I support donation caps and I support expenditure caps. I want to see a fair and level playing field. The government say they do too, but the devil is in the detail. The government are very quick to say the donation and expenditure caps should come as no surprise, that they were recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and so subsequently we don't need any additional scrutiny of the actual legislation. But this is not exactly true, is it? Yes, the committee recommended we should have donation and expenditure caps. But they did not recommend a number for those caps. Yes, the committee recommended that we should amend the definition of a gift to ensure it meets community expectations of transparency. But they did not recommend the four pages of things in the bill that are excluded as gifts. Yes, the committee recommended a new system of administrative funding and increased public funding for elections. But, again, they didn't mention how much or how this should be calculated. And there are some things in this bill that the committee report doesn't actually touch on at all. This is where we get to my concerns with this bill.

Firstly, let's look at the new donation cap, called a 'gift cap' under this bill. Right now, a business, individual, organisation or anyone can donate as much money as they want to a party, a member of parliament or a candidate. This means those with the deepest pockets have the potential to have undue influence over our elections and over those elected. Voters feel that these large donations are never just donations; one day, they will likely be used to call in a favour. So I support donation caps, and the committee on electoral matters does too. But, importantly, they did not mention what the caps should be. It's important, then, that we scrutinise how exactly the government arrived at the figures they did. Under the bill, the donations are capped at $20,000 to a party, MP or candidate per year. In that same year, a donor cannot give more than $600,000 overall. So, if they want to donate to multiple candidates, they can—up to $600,000.

A key issue I have with the gift cap is not necessarily the cap itself. It's what is considered a gift and what is not—what's in and what's out. For example, in my reading of the bill—and, remember, I haven't had much time to read it—it appears that union affiliation fees, MP and senator levies and a subscription paid to a political party can all be excluded from the definition of a gift. If you're wondering what all these things are and what they all mean, fair enough. The bill currently has four pages of things that are excluded from the definition of a gift. While it looks like the government are turning off the tap of big money, they are still leaving plenty of ways for money to flow to the major parties. I seriously question how this creates a fair playing field in elections. I think the government needs to answer this.

Next, I have real concerns that the spending caps under the bill skew in the favour of major parties and not Independents, especially Independents that are new entrants, that are not incumbents. This is a really big concern for me. Under the bill, each candidate cannot spend more than $800,000 in an electoral division. This seems very reasonable. I don't want to see elections becoming an arms race on whoever gets elected and the person that's elected being the candidate that spent the most in that division. A cap like this appears sensible. Then there is the national cap, set at $90 million. This applies only to a registered political party, not an Independent candidate in the House or the Senate.

This means that a major political party could spend up to $800,000 in the 30 or so marginal seats they're focusing on to form government and significantly less in other, safe, seats and still not reach the $90 million cap. But this isn't the end of it, of course. Under the bill, registered political parties won't exceed the $800,000 cap if they don't 'target' that division. What does that mean? It means that, if advertising or other electoral spending doesn't mention the candidates or the electorate name or refer to their likeness, it doesn't count towards the $800,000 for that seat. What does that mean in reality? It means you could be on the main street of Wodonga in my electorate of Indi and looking at a billboard for an Independent, whoever that might be, that counts towards the $800,000 spending cap and, on the other side of the road, a billboard that says 'Vote Liberal' or perhaps 'Vote Labor' wouldn't count towards the cap at all. This is deeply concerning. That does not feel fair and equal. That does not feel like a level playing field to me. These caps still mean the races in particular seats can be completely distorted by who can spend more than the other, and isn't that what we are trying to avoid? And it will be the major parties that can spend more. Does that sound fair to you? It doesn't sound fair to me.

The government is reducing how much money can be donated and how much money can be spent in elections. But don't for a second think the Labor Party is turning off the funding tap. Who exactly is picking up the tab? Well, dear taxpayer, you are. This bill increases public funding for elections. In 2022 where a candidate received more than four per cent of the primary vote they were paid by the AEC about $3.35 per first-preference vote. Under this bill, this will be increased to $5 per vote. This change will cost taxpayers $41 million per election.

On top of this public funding, under the bill the government will give members of parliament a new administrative funding payment—$30,000 per year for members of the House of Representatives and $15,000 for senators. The government says this funding is needed to help members comply with the new donation disclosure requirements that I outlined earlier. They are onerous. They will take administrative support. Of course they will. But I have two issues with this as well. Firstly, this increase in public and administrative funding is going to disproportionately benefit the major parties, plain and simple. Analysis by the Australia Institute reveals that, under the change to public funding, 75 per cent of this $41 million going to politicians will go to the major parties. Then, on top of this, 85 per cent of the new administrative funding will go, guess where? To the major parties. If a challenger from outside the major party duopoly wants to run for election for the first time, they will not benefit from any of this money, compared to a new entrant or incumbent from a major party, who likely will. As an incumbent, I will benefit from this funding, make no mistake. But, as an Independent, I don't want to just pull up the ladder behind me. I want to see new Independents and challengers fairly enter the competition because, as we have seen, they only improve the competition. That's the heart of democracy.

The second issue I have with an increase in funding is that the government have simply not justified it. They haven't justified their calculation for how they got to $5. This is taxpayers' money. We need justification. Where's the detail? Why $5? Why tens of thousands of dollars for administrative fees? It's as if they've plucked these numbers right out of thin air. These amounts could be justified, but the government simply hasn't explained why. We're just asked to accept that.

These are the problems I've identified in just a few days. Some elements of this bill are good, as I have said, some are concerning and some are simply just too hard to call. It's why it's vitally important that the bill is referred to a joint parliamentary committee for a full inquiry before there's any vote. What is wrong with that? To be frank, on the concerns I have just outlined—public funding, administrative funding and donation spending caps—I can't be certain my interpretation of the legislation is correct. There must be an opportunity to scrutinise this bill for voters, for all the experts out there and for politicians alike.

To be a good legislator, you need to understand the detail. It's not just a vibe; it's not just something that appears on your desk a couple of days before you give a speech and then, dear Lord, actually have to vote on it. You need to look at the detail and ask, 'What is the impact of this? Are there any unintended consequences?' and, the big one, 'How will it impact our democracy?'

Australians agree there needs to be greater scrutiny on these laws before they're passed by the parliament. Polling released on Tuesday by the Australia Institute reveals more than four out of five voters believe proposed changes to Australian electoral laws should be reviewed before they're introduced to parliament—not much to ask. My constituents sent me here to interrogate laws. They didn't want someone who just follows the directions of the major parties; I'm not just a rubber stamp. If the government are serious about electoral reform, then they shouldn't be afraid of scrutiny. If your bill is as good as you say it is, put it under scrutiny. Scrutiny isn't a dirty word. When our parliamentary processes work, we make laws better. Why is this government so afraid of making this bill better? What is this government truly afraid that we might see if we give this bill the scrutiny it deserves? Are they afraid of making it better or afraid of us looking at the detail and finding that it could have serious ramifications for our democracy?

Deputy Speaker, if you think the Chairman's Lounge is an exclusive club, then you should have a look at this so-called electoral reform bill. It's going to make the federal parliament an exclusive club for incumbents and the major parties. I have serious concerns about this bill and I say to the government: do better. Give this the scrutiny the Australian public deserves.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. It won't be my best speech, because it's so rushed. We received a copy of the bill just a few days ago. It's a very large bill, which we're still trying to read, interpret and get a response to. I do apologise for my incredibly rushed speech, but we're trying to draw it together as quickly as possible.

Like so many of my colleagues on the crossbench, since I arrived in this place I've been calling for improvements to our electoral laws, specifically to shine a light on the problem of the private and corporate money in politics. The problem with private money in politics in this country is that so much of it is hidden. So-called dark money has been obtained in ways that have skirted around the rules, avoiding any obligation to be disclosed to the Australian public. This might include things like a $10,000 ticket to a party business forum. According to the Centre for Public Integrity, over $1 billion in dark money has flowed to the political parties over the last two decades, undisclosed and undeclared. The public has no knowledge of where it came from, who it went to or what it was used for. This, quite frankly, undermines our democracy.

I've also long called for greater clarity on the definition of a 'donation' in our electoral laws so that more of the money flowing to MPs and candidates in creative ways is captured and disclosed. I've also called for the disclosure to occur far more frequently. Currently, disclosures of donations to political campaigns are only required to occur every several months, even maybe a year after an election. These two problems have been improved in this bill. Parties will no longer be able to charge $20,000 a ticket to a fundraising dinner or a business forum without disclosing that income as a donation. This is a good change. Similarly, people who purchase the tickets will be obliged to report their donation. The disclosure threshold has been significantly reduced to $1,000, so we will have much greater transparency over who is donating what and to whom and where the influence is flowing.

There will be real-time disclosure requirements.

Outside of an election period, recipients of donations will be required to disclose them on a monthly basis. In the month after the donations are made, once writs for an election are issued, that steps up to weekly, and, in the seven days either side of an election, disclosures must be made within 24 hours. These changes—a broader definition of what constitutes a donation, a reduction in the disclosure threshold and more frequent disclosures—are welcome, but they could have been done much earlier. Many of these things are uncontroversial, and they should have been done much earlier so that they could have been applied to the next election in 2025.

The other problem with money in Australian politics, of course, is the outsize influence of big money. Let's just name the problem. At the 2022 election, Clive Palmer spent $123 million and obtained one seat in the entire parliament. He outspent Labor. Wealthy individuals should not be able to buy a seat in parliament. Donation caps should absolutely be implemented so that wealthy individuals and corporations are not able to sway or undermine our democracy, but it is imperative that the donation cap is not set so low that new entrants who are not part of a major party are not able to raise enough money to be competitive with a major party candidate, particularly because major party candidates will be able to benefit from an additional nationwide expenditure cap of up to $90 million, which parties will be free to spend in marginal seats.

This is the biggest problem with this bill by far—the fact that party candidates, in addition to the $800,000 spending cap per electorate, will have the additional benefit of nationwide spending caps. A new community independent challenger has no such nationwide allocation, so this $800,000 expenditure limit must be considered in the context of other changes that enable the parties—but not independent or minor party candidates, perhaps—to move money around the country to spend in electorates of their choosing, such as marginal electorates.

I will go into a bit of detail now, because these two different types of spending caps are quite complicated, but the Australian public deserves to hear about it. Here's how it's unfair. The parties have a national spending cap of $90 million. That is the maximum amount they can spend on an election in one year. Remember that per election spending cap of $800,000? That $800,000 is for targeted electoral expenditure where the name of the candidate is specifically used. In a nutshell, electoral expenditure is targeted if it goes out to voters in a particular electorate and expressly mentions a candidate or includes their likeness. Here you can think of posters, ads, billboards, T-shirts and the like that say, 'Vote 1 Sophie Scamps,' or have a picture of me on them. I can spend $800,000 on such material, and so can my party opponents. They too are limited to expenditure of $800,000 per electorate per candidate on this type of thing.

But here's the rub. They can spend much, much more than that in each electorate on material that promotes their own brand. They can have ad after ad after ad that says, 'Vote Labor,' 'Vote Liberal,' 'Vote Labor to cap international student numbers,' or 'Vote Liberal to cap all immigration.' If it doesn't specifically name the candidate, they have an expenditure cap of up to $90 million. All those brands, Liberal and Labor, are extremely well known and incredibly powerful. It's brand advertising, brand based marketing, pure and simple. How can you compete with the brands of these two major parties?

As I mentioned, the parties will be subject to a national expenditure cap of $90 million. Unlike Independents, they generally don't raise money for particular electorates. Rather, someone usually donates to the Liberal Party or the Labor Party and it goes into a big pot. The parties are then allowed to move that money around the country at will, so it's available to be spent in any electorate.

It's well known, and make sense, that parties are strategic about where they spend their money at each election. They might, for the sake of the argument, be really worried about 30 marginal electorates—30 electorates where they will need to spend more than in other, safe seats. Let's assume they spend on average $100,000 in electorates that are either safe or that they know they have no chance of winning. That's $100,000 in the remaining 121 electorates. When you put that altogether that equates to $12.1 million. That $12.1 million comes off their national cap, leaving them with $77.9 million to spend on the 30 marginal seats that they are targeting, that they are really worried about. That's around $6 million in each of those target seats—$6 million versus $800,000, which the Independents will be limited to. Please explain to me how this is a level playing field? Yes, the parties will be limited to $800,000 on targeted electoral spending, but in the strategic spending scenario they'll be free to spend an additional $5 million on 'Vote 1 Liberal' ads or 'Vote 1 Labor' ads. That's an extra $5 million to promote an already very powerful brand. This is, of course, astoundingly unfair. It is an insurmountable hurdle for new challengers. Spending caps are simplistically appealing; I understand that, but, until we can design a system where spending caps interact with other rules in a way which maintains the ability of Independent challengers to compete, we are only doing harm to our democracy.

There is a raft of other problems with this bill that my crossbench colleagues have addressed at length. They include the unfair administrative costs payment for incumbents, the nominated entity advantage of major parties, the lack of clarity around how things like membership fees and levies on MPs and party members will be dealt with—the list goes on. Unfortunately, the way in which the government has gone about this bill means that, as of right now, my team and I have not had nearly enough time to properly analyse either the intended or the unintended consequences of this bill. I do understand that the intention of the bill is to take away the influence of money, but it is particularly the unintended consequences which are of grave concern to me. My team was able to obtain a copy of this bill only last Friday, when we heard about it on the news—how is that fair?—and only after seeking it out. I was not briefed on the bill until Sunday, the day before parliament, and I have still not been briefed by the minister, as has been the convention. The government is bragging about this bill being the biggest reform to our electoral system in 40 years, yet it has not released an exposure draft. They do not intend to expose it to the scrutiny of a parliamentary committee, and they plan to pass it through parliament in a fortnight. This is our democracy we're talking about—our most valuable asset.

The way the government has dealt with this bill is nothing short of scandalous. They clearly think the public won't notice or won't care, but I think they underestimate the Australian public.

The Australian people are losing trust in the major parties. We saw at the last election that trust in our political system was at an all-time low. We also see that a full third of voters are directing their votes elsewhere than the big major parties. This is because of conduct like this: hoodwinking the Australian people by rushing legislation through parliament in the last sitting period of the year, refusing—

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 6:30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.