Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

Democracy is best when it's conducted in the open and when the community feels confident that politicians are accessible to everyone, not just those with big wallets. When people feel like their political system isn't working for them, they lose confidence in democracy itself. I've lost count of the number of times that I've spoken in this place about the erosion of public confidence in Australia's democracy. Every scandal, every report detailing millions in hidden money, every time a politician leaves parliament and walks straight into a cushy job in an industry they regulated mere moments ago—all of those things have led the community to believe that parliament doesn't work for them; it works for the big parties and career politicians. It has led them to believe that parliament doesn't represent the people; it represents political donors. Lobbyists prowl this building day and night. The fossil fuel industry buys politicians, Mr Clive Palmer spends more than a small country's GDP on monosyllabic billboards, and a referendum is poisoned with misinformation because we have no truth in political advertising laws yet.

The Greens have been campaigning for years to clean up politics and to make parliament better reflect the community that we're meant to represent. We've called to get big money out of politics, to expose hidden money, to prevent misleading campaigns, to remove barriers to running for election and to address the incumbency advantages that stack outcomes in favour of the two-party system. The 2022 election made it abundantly clear that the public wants those things too. We saw the lowest vote share for the big parties in 75 years, and we saw a parliament that's more diverse than ever. The two-party system is in terminal decline. The JSCEM process is a chance for genuine reform. Changes could be achieved that would allow voters to know who is funding campaigns and to stop one billionaire spending $100 million, which is 20 times the highest donor and almost double the public funding amount. Genuine reform will look at all forms of income to political parties. What's concerning today is a reference in the government's response that has just been tabled that says that reform should be undertaken 'in a bipartisan manner'. That shouts 'Labor-Liberal deal' to me, and it's not surprising that one of the few things they can agree on is rigging the system to secure their failing political support. If it seeks to lock in bipartisan power, and lock the Greens and the Independents out, then it won't be genuine reform: it will be a rort.

The public will not accept any attempts to rig the electoral funding system and make it easier for the big parties at the expense of other parties and candidates. A reform which limits donations for challengers to Labor and Liberal, whilst protecting their sources of income, will be seen for what it is: a complete stitch-up, and an undermining of our democracy and of our sense of fair play. The people will understand that secret sources of dark money, from big corporations and billionaires, are dodgy. They will rightly conclude that the reason that politicians in charge can't solve the problems that we face is that they've been bought off and they've sold out. Any proposal that means that, if you're already elected, you get a hefty envelope full of cash but, if you're trying to get elected, your donations are heavily restricted, is not a reform: it's a rort. And it's definitely a rort, and not a reform, to outlaw all kinds of grassroots funding while allowing Labor and the Liberals corporate and billionaire funding to flow through backroom loopholes. If there's one rule for the establishment—the bipartisan parties' establishment, with payments via slush funds or business forum memberships or 'cash for access' dinners—and another rule for everyone else, then it's a rort and not a reform. Any reform that means a corporation can continue to buy five $10,000 tickets to a Labor or Liberal dinner party without that being considered a donation is a rort and not a reform.

The Greens are up for genuine election reform, but teaming up to do a bipartisan deal would be an attack on representative democracy. We'll wait for more information and for the government to decide which way it wants to go: bipartisan backroom deals or genuine multipartisan improvements.