Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the 2022 federal election, my community of North Sydney sent a clear message to the two major parties that they were done with a political environment that was set on ignoring them. They rose up, took their voices back and sent me, an Independent representative, to this place. At the same time, another 15 electorates decided they were done with the two-party duopoly and voted instead to send their own Independent or minor party representative to this place. As a result, the 47th parliament has benefited from a broader debate than it's possibly experienced since Federation as each crossbench member has determinedly shown up to fight for the reform we know our community wants.

Fast forward to today and I cannot express how incredibly disappointed I am to find myself in this place debating a piece of legislation that is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to erase people like me from this parliament. In his own introductory statement accompanying this legislation, the assistant minister acknowledged that this is the most significant reform of our democracy in over 40 years. But, rather than give this legislation the light and oxygen it deserves, the government, colluding with the opposition, has decided to ram it through in the dying weeks of this parliament. And while some may claim, 'There's nothing to see here,' you need look no further than today's speaking list. It does not include a single major party representative. Now that's convenient. To try and argue that this bill is anything more than a stitch-up designed to kill off Independent politics is disingenuous at least and, at worst, it could almost be considered legislative fraud.

Having seen this legislation for the first time on Sunday afternoon and then being briefed on it twice since and sleeping on it for two nights, I have no doubt that this is the two major parties rigging the rules of the game in their favour so that, in order to contest the opportunity to represent a community, you basically have to be part of a party. The bill before us does this in three broad ways. Firstly, it significantly increases the public funding provided to incumbents, creating a situation which provides an immediate additional benefit for the status quo and disincentivises challenges. Secondly, it caps the funding newcomers can have access to whilst ensuring the two-party system continues to be able to outspend an emerging Independent candidate by more than 1,000 times. Thirdly, it allows the major parties to get around caps by introducing special rules for nominated entities that safeguard the status quo of the major parties' largest donors while ensuring newcomers cannot establish an entity of an equivalent size.

Ultimately, I wish I could stand here and say that I understand this bill inside and out, that I'd examined every detail and each provision and understood how they would work in practice, that I'd been able to consult a broad spectrum of experts and that my community had been given a chance to look at it and provide their thoughts. But none of that has happened. Rather, this bill has been rushed through this parliament without proper scrutiny. As we saw yesterday, despite the best efforts of the crossbench, it will not even go to inquiry.

The legislation reeks of something born of arrogance and self-interest, and the way it is being railroaded through this place is out of touch with the kind of governance and policymaking the public want to see. To be clear, major party votes have been declining for 50 years, reaching their lowest level of 68 per cent in the last federal election. That year, nearly a third of voters went to minor parties or Independent candidates. But, ultimately, this bill sends a really clear message to communities like mine: 'We don't care what you want. We don't want to hear it. We don't want to acknowledge how you voted in 2022. We're just going to make it harder for you to vote that way in the future, because we can do it now. Let's face it: with so many of you turning away from us, if we leave this until the new parliament, where we may no longer have a majority control, your representatives may just take this democracy back and make it about you rather than us. And we can't have that.'

The two major parties have failed to act sufficiently in the interest of their communities and have instead prioritised their own interests and big corporate donors. Rather than shift the dial by actually listening to communities, engaging in more participatory democracy or, God forbid, improving their policies, they are instead using campaign finance laws to entrench a major party duopoly.

With all of that said, then, and the limited time I've had to get my head around this bill, it appears to me to be a really mixed bag of reform. There's what we'll call the potentially good; there's the obviously bad and the downright ugly. Let's start with the potentially good, because my community sent me here to fight for integrity in politics, and that has seen me consistently call for greater transparency, more accountability and truth in political advertising since day one. Ultimately, there's just enough potentially good sprinkled through this legislation for this government to market it as offering all of that.

But, just like a sweet treat which has an artificial sweetener rather than good old-fashioned sugar, don't be fooled. Specifically, expediting donation disclosures is absolutely something my community would support, with the bill improving public reporting timelines and requiring gifts that meet the disclosure threshold to be disclosed sooner. It also lowers the donation threshold from the current $16,900 to a $1,000, which again is reform my community would welcome.

The irony, however, is that the crossbench has been calling for this electoral reform on transparency and integrity measures for years, to no avail. For example, the member for Curtin, most recently in this term of parliament, tabled the fair and transparent elections bill, which, if adopted, would have lowered the disclosure threshold to $1,000, introduced real-time disclosures, prohibited misleading and deceptive electoral materials, broadened the definition of gift, included funding disclosure requirements and major donation caps, and prohibited certain political donations—yet the government wouldn't even debate it. From a practical perspective, I've also tried to walk the talk, publishing, with the permission of my donors, the details of donations I've received on my website in as close to real time as possible.

While these reforms should be welcomed, then, the truth is that voters will continue to have complete transparency over what an Independent raises and spends in their seat but that the same will not be true of a political party member. For, while they will be bound to report on their spending associated with the $800,000 for their division, the additional marketing that their party can run—for example, a national television advertising campaign or billboards in specific locations—that don't include their name will not count against the individual and will instead disappear into the great unwashed budget of a $90 million spend.

Ultimately, lower donation thresholds and real-time reporting could have been implemented at any point during this parliament with the support of the crossbench, yet the government has chosen to do a deal with the opposition, rather than work with us. That just about says everything you need to know.

Let's get to the obviously bad, and that starts with spending caps. While this bill imposes spending caps at a divisional level, state level and federal level, as well as for Senate campaigns, these caps are riddled with loopholes that will ultimately benefit the legacy parties. The divisional cap is set at $800,000 per seat, meaning an independent candidate will only be allowed to spend up to that amount, be they an incumbent or a challenger. A party candidate, however, while in theory being subject to the same divisional spending cap, is free to have their campaign topped up with executions that are funded under a federal cap of $90 million. I acknowledge a political party that is contesting every lower house seat and every Senate seat and is committed to spending the same amount in every seat would not be able to top up every seat without breaching their $90 million federal cap. But let's be clear—that's not how political parties work. They target specific seats, concentrating their funds on a handful of seats. Under this legislation, then, political parties will be able to outspend independent candidates in targeted seats many times over.

Next, the bill introduces a new funding stream innocuously called administrative funding assistance. Administrative funding would see every MP in the House of Reps receive $30,000 per year whilst every senator receives $15,000 a year. In the case of an Independent, that money would come directly to me, but for a party those funds will be consolidated, and the party machine would receive this funding as quarterly payments. This means that the vast majority of this funding will go to the major parties based on the false premise that administrative costs increase proportionately with the number of members. They do not. Most of the costs of running a political party are fixed, and it makes no sense to presume they would increase in a direct line in relation to the number of members.

Insultingly, the government has intimated these provisions have been included predominantly at the behest of Independents like me to cover what are some real compliance costs that come with contesting a seat—things like a lawyer and accounting fees. When it's just you as one person, you bear wholly and solely. But, looking at the detail, it seems that not only will the major parties receive disproportionately larger amounts of administrative funding, but they're also able to use it on a range of expenditures, including things like conferences, seminars, meetings or 'similar functions at which policies of a registered political party are discussed'. That means expenditure and equipment, including vehicles used by staff, or, fascinatingly, expenditure on interest payments on loans. Come on! Give me a break! There's no way my community would support the implementation of an administrative assistance fund, no matter how it's dressed up.

Moving on to nominated entities, these are the bodies the political parties can use to make unlimited contributions to their party coffers, and this is where it gets really confusing. While this legislation purports to be all about equalling the playing field and taking the big money out of the game, the truth is that these legacy entities attached to major parties have, over many years, accumulated massive assets without limitations on their donation caps. As such, they are yet another coup for the major parties, as extraordinarily—and wait for it—this legislation prohibits Independents from establishing a nominated entity and, due to the new donation caps, will make it almost impossible for a new party to build an entity of a similar size.

It gets even better. While each existing registered party can have only one nominated entity, given that the major parties have multiple registered branches and each branch can have a nominated entity, you end up in a really surreal situation. The Australian Labor Party gets a nominated entity, but wait! The Labor Party New South Wales branch gets a nominated entity, but there's more. The Labor Party ACT branch gets a nominated entity. And don't forget the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party of Australia gets a nominated entity. The Liberal National Party of Queensland gets a nominated entity. The National Party of Australia gets a nominated entity. The National Party of Australia New South Wales gets a nominated entity. It goes on and on and on. There is so much wrong in this set-up that I'm not even sure how you'd begin to fix it, but we could start by ensuring the entities are also restricted by capped donations, just like every other third party.

In closing, I'm sure there are many more questions arising from this legislation, including on topics like the pages of exclusions to gift caps. What do they really mean? And what about corporate donations caps? But I want to get to the downright ugly, and that is the process by which this bill is being rushed through this House with no committee hearing and no proper scrutiny. Frankly, it's disgraceful the government is using the excuse that the bill is based on high-level recommendations from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, otherwise known as JSCEM. To be clear, we all know the JSCEM inquiry was specifically tasked to look into the 2022 federal election. And, despite the fact that that election saw the largest number of Independents elected since Federation, there wasn't an Independent representative on that committee until the last day of hearing.

Furthermore, much of this legislation was not recommended by that committee, and the committee has not seen this legislation. So let's just call that for what it is: convenient window-dressing.

I'll double back to where I started. The assistant minister himself has said this is 'the largest reform to Australia's electoral laws in over 40 years'. Ordinarily, even minor changes to electoral laws would be subject to a parliamentary inquiry, yet the government and the opposition are happily working together to bring this baby home through the parliament in this term, and that says everything we need to know.

This legislation is not designed to take big money out of politics; it's designed to prop up a flailing two-party system. And, if the major parties think they can quash the community Independent movement with this bill, they have greatly underestimated the movement along with the communities and the individuals at its heart. Really frustratingly and incredibly depressingly, the major parties have failed to recognise that democracy is at its healthiest—it's absolute healthiest—when it is based on a true contest of ideas. And, for that, history will judge them.

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

In summing up this debate, I want to say, once again, it is time to get big money out of Australian politics. It is time for spending caps so we don't have these multimillion-dollar campaigns raging through the suburbs of Australia, and it's time for ideas, not bank balances, to decide elections. It's time for the people of Australia to be given their power back. That's what the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 does. This bill is the result of more than two years of committee inquiries, reports, recommendations, careful drafting, consideration and consultation, including consultation with those on the crossbench.

More than two years ago, in August 2022, the Special Minister of State, Senator the Hon. Don Farrell, wrote to the multipartisan Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and he asked them to inquire. They gave us their report, and we said we would accept those recommendations and act on them. That's exactly what the government are doing, and we're doing it by reducing the donation disclosure threshold. We're doing it by requiring regular and rapid disclosure of donations. We're doing it by capping political donations. I note that earlier in the debate we had someone say that a $20,000 donation was not big. I think, for most Australians, they'd think, if someone's got $20,000 to hand over to a political candidate of their choice, that is big. We're going to do it by capping campaign spending to level the playing field and provide greater access for individuals and entities to participate in the political debate. We're going to do it by introducing a new system of administrative funding to increase public funding and to offset some of the impacts of this legislation.

Labor has had a longstanding commitment to sensible, long-lasting electoral reform. Australia's democratic system is the envy of the world, but we can make it stronger. Multiple inquiries from multiple elections have told us that the biggest weakness in our electoral system is big money, and I think the Australian people will be asking themselves: why do some oppose getting big money out of our political system? Over the last decade, we've seen billionaires repeatedly attempt to sway our elections not through policy or participation but through money and misinformation. What we saw from the recommendations for this bill from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters was a path to get big money out of politics, and I want to walk that path. Through this legislation, we have the opportunity—we can all choose to vote to restore transparency to donation laws and expenditure and to keep big money out of our political system.

The consultation has been extensive. It's been deliberate, and it's been considered. In recognition of this, it's the result of two years of committee inquiries, reports, recommendations and detailed drafting. When it comes to the detail of this, I draw all members' attention to the explanatory memorandum, where it clearly states, on the regulatory impact, which is a requirement we have for significant changes—I do agree with those opposite that this is a significant change, but it says this:

Consistent with the Government's Impact Analysis requirements, the report of the JSCEM into the conduct of the 2022 federal election has been certified by the Department of Finance as meeting the requirements of an Impact Analysis Equivalent.

It draws directly on that report as the consultation and impact analysis for this legislation before the parliament right now.

Further, the explanatory memorandum says very clearly:

T he amendments have been assessed as compatible with Australia's human rights obligations .

Again, I draw everyone's attention to that explanatory memorandum.

I note that Minister Farrell has been public about the need for and the drafting of both donation and spending caps. This should not come as a surprise especially to anyone in this parliament or, further, to anyone who's been following this in the Australian public policy debate.

The position we have from those on the crossbench is to not have a spending cap. They believe that there should not be a spending cap. That is unsustainable. This bill simply implements important recommendations to establish those caps. In 2022 we saw some candidates spend over $2 million on their campaigns. I remember driving through the electorate of Curtin on a regular basis during that campaign, and you couldn't see a fence anywhere in the electorate of Curtin; they were all plastered with signs from various parties and candidates. This bill provides greater access for individuals and entities to participate in political debate. We know that expenditure caps are already in place in several Australian state and territory jurisdictions as well as in international jurisdictions with similar democracies to Australia.

I thank members who have engaged on this bill for their contributions during the debate. I think it's important to note a few things as we go through some of what we've seen. The member for Kooyong said, 'The government's proposal to impose restrictive donation caps, while sensibly reducing undue influence, will have significant consequences on the ability of challengers to fund competitive campaigns.' That is simply opposing donation caps. That's a legitimate policy position for people to have, but I think we should call it out for what it is.

The member for Warringah said, 'We should require proper consideration of the consequences and effect it will have as a major piece of electoral reform.' I agree with that. That's why, for more than two years, we've had inquiries into this; we've had the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters do it.

We then saw what I thought was the best acrobatics in this debate from the member for Melbourne, the Leader of the Australian Greens. He said: 'There are some good measures in what the government is proposing in many respects because they picked up measures we've been advocating for, for a long time. We in the Greens want big money out of politics. We've been arguing that for years.' This is step 1 in the model of the Australian Greens: take credit for the work of others. Step 2 is then to obstruct. The Australian people would like to see everyone in this parliament say that it's time to get big money out of Australian politics.

The member for Mayo said, 'Electoral reform is critical if we are to maintain confidence in the political system.' While I don't agree with all of her contributions, on that I agree. Again, this bill gives an opportunity to do that.

The member for Mackellar described the $20,000 donation cap as 'low'. That's not the view of the government. We think a $20,000 donation cap is significantly higher than what most people in the Australian public could afford to donate to a single candidate of their choice. It's a very high donation cap.

We saw the member for Curtin say: 'More transparency is a good thing. Bring it on.' But she then said that she thinks that this bill should not proceed. We saw the member for Curtin say that transparency reform is 'too little, too late' but apparently it's also too much.

What that all leads us to is that we need to acknowledge that there are a number of things in this bill that level the playing field. That was a very clear question put to the government by the member for Indi, and I will talk about how this levels the playing field. It provides greater access for individuals and other entities to participate in political debate. This levels the playing field by stopping the arms race so that candidates are not outspending each other. Think about how much Josh Frydenberg spent in his contest with the now member for Kooyong—millions and millions of dollars. It will bring things down. It will lower the temperature. It will allow the Australian public to spend more time considering. We will also have restrictions on registered political parties where they will be bound to one set of expenditure caps for national divisions and states or territories. We'll have capped entity electoral expenditure for third parties and associated entities—something we haven't seen before in Australian politics. That will reduce the influence of third parties who are seeking to engage in Australia's democratic processes while still entitling them to the ability to do so.

We had costs associated with managing affairs raised through consultation by independent members of the parliament. The need to have funding for the costs associated with managing affairs of members in complying with this was raised during the process. That's why the funding applies to all elected members equally to ensure they have financial support to comply with the regime. It also provides for a regulation-making power to provide for amounts to be paid in advance of election funding for a future election.

I want to note that when it comes to gifts and donations, every single member of the crossbench who sits as an Independent can receive $20,000 from an individual donor. That donor could donate to member after member after member of the crossbench, but, when it comes to candidates of registered political parties, they are bound by the party donation cap. That again shows there has been significant consideration to the needs raised by those on the crossbench. We'll do things that many have agreed to throughout this debate, which is to start capturing more things, such as fundraising events and business forum events, to ensure they are counted as donations and count towards the cap. Some of the contributions didn't accurately acknowledge that, but I want to say very clearly that is what this bill does. It also ensures that we have strong, clear measures and penalties that are targeted at schemes and mechanisms that are designed to avoid those caps.

If I go to the amendment that's in front of us—the second reading amendment—the government will not be supporting this amendment. Despite the repeated attempts to delay reform by members, the government is of the view that it is time for action. This legislation and the provisions held within it have been subject to multiple inquiries over multiple terms of the parliament. As the minister in the other place has made clear, no coherent argument has been made by opponents of this legislation. Way back since the initial recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in November 2023, the minister has welcomed the views suggestions and proposals from all members in this parliament. It is very misleading, incorrect and disappointing for anyone to indicate that these reforms are a surprise.

The amendment itself contains a number of inaccuracies with no evidence or basis. I also note that my calculation of the impact of the request in part (b) is that the member wants every candidate when they nominate to receive administrative funding. At the last election for the House of Representatives, there were 1,203 people who nominated. Under this proposal, if we were to give $30,000 on nomination to each of those candidates, my calculations are that would be $36 million before a single vote has been cast. If members have suggestions for improvements or amendments to the legislation, put those forward, but let's debate the legislation. Let's not kick this off. It is time to get big money out of Australian politics.

What I want is what I think most Australians want. What the government wants is what most Australians want, too. That is what this bill delivers. It gets the influence of big money out of politics to make sure our electoral system remains a system we can all trust—trust that election results are not unfairly skewed by big money, that elections are a contest of ideas not a contest of bank balances and that we know who is funding election campaigns, with more information about who is providing that money on and before election day.

Australia has an electoral system that is the envy of the world. This bill will enhance and strengthen our elections and Australia's representative democracy. I really do close by thanking again the members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for their recommendations. We've adopted it as the impact analysis compliance for this explanatory memorandum. I thank the committee chair, the member for Jagajaga Kate Thwaites, for her dedicated work, and I thank the Special Minister of State, Senator the Hon. Don Farrell and his team for delivering this bill. I also thank all of those who have worked on it from the Department Finance and those who have given advice through the Electoral Commission and elsewhere. I commend this bill.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Warringah has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question unresolved.

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill be returned to the House for further consideration.