Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Today I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Transparency Measures—Lowering the Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2019, introduced as a private senator's bill by Senator Farrell. As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate. Senator Farrell's bill proposes to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 regarding the amount at which disclosure of political donations is required. It claims that amending the act will restore the integrity of our democracy, but what it will actually do is place an unnecessary administrative burden on political parties and increase the red-tape load disproportionately to the amounts being donated. Don't forget: political parties are largely volunteer-run organisations. Do we want to tie our hardworking volunteers up with even more red tape? A disclosure threshold as low as $1,000 could pick up donations or spending by very small groups such as neighbourhood associations, RSL branches, sporting clubs and other small players who comment favourably or adversely on a federal politician or federal party. It would be unreasonable to expect the smallest donors, like your local footy club, to report with the same intensity as major players. Those donors have only limited financial means, and, while their interest in politics may be only at a peripheral or hobbyist level, we do not want to discourage that interest or their willingness to donate to a political cause. Diversity in donors encourages diversity in views, making our political landscape more representative.

We need to strike a balance that ensures transparency for the largest political donations while protecting the democratic freedom and privacy of smaller players. A disclosure threshold that is set too low will mean a loss of privacy, which in turn compromises the ability to freely sponsor participants in public debate. This bill throws up potential consequences, in that it could expose a person to harassment. Aspiring politicians may shy away from further political participation as a result. Privacy rights should not be traded away so lightly. Consider the harassment tactics that have become popular with political activists in recent years. Personal attacks, particularly via social media, have become so commonplace now. We heard harrowing evidence of this during our hearings into the 2019 election campaign. In an environment where such behaviour is becoming accepted as the norm, there is an even greater need to be cautious about aggressive campaigns that demand greater disclosure of political beliefs. Small businesses, which make up the majority of the Australian business landscape, are often owned by the same person who serves you at the counter, who does the books and who markets their operation. They are likely time poor. If they are to donate to support a candidate or political party who champions their values, they do not want that act to be arduous.

On top of the red-tape issue, small businesses are particularly susceptible to 'cancel culture' intimidation. Word-of-mouth is a key marketing tool for small businesses, but negative word-of-mouth can cost these small operations dearly. This means they might decide not to make a political donation, for fear of harassment or intimidation. A low donation threshold would take away the platform for the diverse opinions that are otherwise heard in public debate today. Many of these opinions come from small players like mum-and-dad small businesses and local sporting groups. We don't want to silence their voices. We want these players to have a say in Australian public debate. This bill is such a blunt instrument that it not only proposes to lower the cap but it also does away with indexation of the disclosure threshold, by proposing repeal of section 321A of the Electoral Act. This would mean that the $1,000 threshold would be frozen in nominal terms, effectively lowering the cap each year. Thousands more Australians would therefore be caught in the red-tape-reporting net as a result.

The coalition has already implemented several reforms to improve the integrity of the electoral system. These include prohibiting foreign political donations, including those from foreign governments and state owned enterprises, from being used to finance public debate; limiting public election funding to demonstrated electoral spending that can be substantiated by receipts; requiring public reporting by key non-party players, like left-wing organisation GetUp; applying the electoral authorisation requirements to modern communication channels, like SMSs; increasing funding for the Australian Electoral Commission to use electronic certified lists of electors, to guard against electoral fraud and ensure that absentee voters have their votes counted in the right electorate; funding modernisation of the AEC's Transparency Register to make it easier to locate and extract data; and making it mandatory for an election candidate to complete a qualification checklist to show they are entitled to run for election to parliament.

We explored the topic of electoral processes and procedures and clarified the relationship between federal, state and territory electoral finance laws just a few months ago in this place, when the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 was debated. That bill acknowledged that the legislation around elections and referendums held in Australia could be clearer. It also showed how electoral processes could be enhanced and modernised to allow for greater flexibility within the Australian Electoral Commission. More clarity and streamlined election delivery strengthens our electoral integrity and builds confidence in our voting system. To achieve this clarity, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 amended the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. In amending the Electoral Act, it clarified donation and disclosure laws relating to the relationship between federal electoral events and those in the states and territories. This followed the 2019 High Court decision of Spence v State of Queensland and reflected the High Court's findings about the exact limits of the Commonwealth's legislative power. The miscellaneous measures bill also provided greater clarity around the relationship between federal, state and territory electoral laws to improve certainty for those who participated in elections across different levels of government. Individuals and entities are subject to different electoral funding and disclosure laws across federal, state and territory jurisdictions, leading to confusion and potentially costly or unlawful errors.

After each federal election, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters conducts a review into the election. As a first time member of that committee but a long-time volunteer involved in both state and federal campaigns, I found the process enlightening. Naturally, there are always going to be different views from all sides of politics, and we need to ensure that recommendations made and acted upon improve the outcome for the people of Australia. I'm certain that the committee's chair, Senator McGrath, will elaborate on many of the 27 recommendations made from that inquiry during his contribution later today; however, I want to mention just a few that I believe will provide further confidence in the election process for our community. The first of those is the need to identify voters when they present at a polling booth. With a background in banking, where privacy and security are paramount, I have never understood how anyone can simply walk into a polling booth, state their name and address and be accepted in good faith. Who is to say that they haven't been into every polling booth in the neighbourhood and voted on behalf of their family, their neighbours and anyone else they know the details of? In today's world you're asked to verify your identity in almost every aspect of life using PINs, thumbprints or fingerprints and, yes, occasionally even signatures on a regular basis. Why should voting be any different? Further to this, the chair's report also recommended that the electoral roll be strengthened to ensure only those with photo ID or other forms of suitable ID can enrol or change enrolment. This is a simple no-brainer to me.

Other recommendations included broadening the test for affiliated organisations, exploring the possibility of introducing an electronic certified roll, replacing compulsory preferential voting with optional preferential voting, and introducing the Tasmanian initiative the Robson rotation for ordering candidates on ballot papers for the House of Representatives.

Further opportunity to gain insight into the transparency and accountability around political donations and disclosure is currently underway, with the current Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters reporting later this year on its review on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018. This review commenced on the second anniversary of the royal assent of the bill and will allow us to understand the impacts of the amendments made at that time while also providing an opportunity for further community consultation on this matter.

We need to ensure that we maintain a balanced approach when it comes to political donations. Yes, we need transparency for the largest political donations, but we also need to protect the democratic freedom and privacy of smaller players. This bill seeks to introduce a disclosure threshold so low that it will rob small donors of their privacy and drive them out of political life. A balanced disclosure regime is one that allows political participation by all Australians. The current disclosure threshold appropriately balances red tape, political participation and transparency of the electoral system. Therefore I call on the Senate to reject this bill.