Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

One point two, he says? I don't know whether that means there's a bit squared away for next time, but the point is that everybody in the system will spend money in an election campaign. That is the nature of the system that we're in, and it's about governing that appropriately. In this case, if we're to protect freedom of political communication, that does involve a pragmatic acknowledgement of contributing to print flyers, paying for advertising, boosting your social media posts and engaging with your own social media posts. Who can forget, 'Great work, Angus; well done'? That is part of political communication.

I don't say that there's anything wrong with Senator Pocock's $1.8 million election campaign. I just think we've got to be open and transparent about it. As he says, the Labor Party, too, spent money in the ACT election, and we spent money in every contest that we participated in. But it should be properly regulated. That is in the public interest.

The Labor Party has had a long-term interest in electoral reform and in the proper administration of elections. We believe that is not only in our interest but also in the national interest. In the 1980s it was the Hawke government that introduced measures to require disclosures of political donations over $1,000. Consistent with that approach, making a contribution to a political party, to a third-party campaign or to an independent party campaign is a mode of political communication and, indeed, free speech. We want a stronger democracy where unions, community groups, individuals and private sector organisations are participating fully in the democracy in a transparent and accountable way.

Of course, subsequent changes by the Howard government have caused this to blow out. Today donations up to $16,300 don't need to be disclosed, and this threshold will increase again at the start of this financial year. I think everybody in the community—except, potentially, Mr Palmer—would agree that a donation of $16,000 is a large donation. That is something that the government will move to address. Even after a donation of that size has been made, voters don't find out who has supported a party in an election until well after the event. That is not fair dinkum.

With no guardrails on how much can be donated or spent in an election, we have indeed seen billionaires attempt to sway Australian elections, not through policy or participation but through money and misinformation. Mr Palmer, in the last few elections, has spent tens of millions of dollars of his own money in an effort to have an impact on decision-making in the Australian parliament. We have clear commitments to improve transparency and accountability across our electoral system.

Despite these deficits, we do have an electoral system that we can be proud of and that we should be proud of. It is the envy of the modern world. But our system isn't perfect, and it can and should be strengthened. That is why the Special Minister of State, Minister Farrell, is determined to reform the system and improve transparency in our democracy, and he will continue to engage across the parliament on those questions. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Reform has provided a broad set of recommendations for improving the system and how it encourages and supports voters. JSCEM's interim and final reports make clear that we must act on money in politics. The key reforms are in three areas: lowering the disclosure threshold, real-time disclosure, and caps on election donations and expenditure.

For my own part, it appears to me that real-time disclosure reform in the Australian system will have a very positive impact on our democracy. There is no reason parties and actors in the system can't be compelled to immediately disclose donations upon receipt. As I said, there is nothing wrong—in fact, we should encourage it—with individuals and organisations participating fully in our electoral system. When the O'Farrell government in New South Wales acted to ban political donations, I and a number of my colleagues came back down here to Canberra to the High Court. I never thought I'd find myself as an applicant in the High Court, but there I was. It was about that principle, once again, that freedom of political communication involves a capacity to donate, and to spend money in politics was protected by the court.

I'll perhaps leave for another day comments about the relationship between this important set of reforms and a series of other issues that go to the relationship between the ACT and the Commonwealth parliament. We are determined, and the minister is determined, to get this work done and to work across the parliament to produce a good result that is in the national interest.