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

That was quite the wild ride. I might bring us back to the actual substance of the bill that we're dealing with. I'm pleased to rise today to speak to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No.2). It is a bill that I'm co-sponsoring with many of my crossbench counterparts, Senators Lambie, Thorpe and Pocock. I note that it's a bill that's also been replicated in the other place under the sponsorship of Kate Chaney MP, who joined us in the chamber earlier, and a number of other MPs and senators. All up, we have 29 crossbenchers, Greens and Independent MPs who think that we need to clean up our political system so that it starts working in the interests of people and democracy rather than vested interests and political donors.

The Greens have been calling for election reform for decades now. I also stand in tribute to the work of former Greens leader Senator Bob Brown and Senator Lee Rhiannon, who worked tirelessly on these issues. Unfortunately, progress has not been made, because the two large parties keep colluding to make sure that no change ever occurs. The last election in 2022 was dubbed the integrity election, but so far we haven't seen any real action from this government to improve transparency, to implement truth in political advertising or to curtail the influence of dirty industries and those with a vested interest that seek to buy outcomes for their own bottom lines. So I am pleased to work with a crossbench that's bigger than ever before and to have reached agreement with them on a pathway forward for electoral reform.

This bill has rules about truth in political advertising, lowering the disclosure threshold for donations so you can see who is paying whom and changing the definition of 'gift' so that fancy dinners and business roundtable subscriptions are no longer secret and are no longer hidden dark money. It includes a donations cap. It includes a ban on donations from the tobacco industry, the gambling industry, the alcohol industry and, importantly, the fossil fuel sector, something that the Greens feel very strongly about. It bans donations from people seeking contracts from the government or who have already received a contract from the government. It includes limitations on the government using publicly funded advertising in the lead-up to an election. It moves to include more senators in the territories and has a handful of other pro-democratic reforms.

This is a comprehensive bill. It demonstrates that the government has a pathway through this parliament, if it wishes, to actually legislate some reforms to clean up politics. This bill is an invitation to the government to work with the crossbench and the Greens to fix the system. We have been waiting quite some time for this bill that the government keeps saying is coming. We keep getting promised drafts of the bill. We are getting into election season now, folks, and we have seen absolutely nada. That scares me, because I am of the view that the two big political parties are in close talks to stitch up some 'reforms' that might look great on their face but have the impact of shoring up their flailing political support.

That's why the crossbench and the Greens have worked together to propose this bill, which is a comprehensive bill of reforms that would actually clean up the system. This is an invitation to the government to do the right thing and make good on the promise that it made at the last election to fix our democracy, to try to get the influence of big money out of politics, to try to remove the vested interests, to try to curb the influence of lobbyists in this building and other reforms that would improve outcomes and would make sure that it is human beings, communities and the planet that are represented in this chamber rather than those with means that seek to use those means for their own private benefit.

We are ready to progress reforms, but the government doesn't seem to have any appetite for real reform. We have seen reporting and we have heard rumour after rumour of a government bill, but we still don't have a draft bill. The popcorn keeps getting served and it keeps going cold. Where is your bill? Any reform which limits donations to anyone who challenges the Liberal and Labor parties whilst protecting the establishment parties' sources of income will be nothing more than a stitch-up undermining democracy and the public's expectation of fair play. I do note that both big parties continue to accept huge sums of money from dirty industries with a track record of seeking to buy favourable policy outcomes. My view is that that's why we see such paltry action on climate, no action at all on gambling and very limited action on housing. Of course, what's been proposed would benefit property developers. Neither of these large parties wants to upset their donors. That's why we at the Greens will continue to work to ban political donations from industries like fossil fuel, gambling and tobacco to buy outcomes from this place.

Would you like to have a go? You are not on the speakers list, but I'd welcome your contribution.

The Greens will continue to push to stop political donations from those industries. I might make particular mention of the fossil fuel industry. They're not fussy about who they donate to. They make donations to these three political parties here—Labor, the Liberal Party and the Nationals. I might add that the coal seam gas companies are particularly generous to the Nationals, which might be why they've gone quiet on protecting farmland. These coal and gas companies make big donations to those political parties, and what do they get? They get $10 billion every year in public money in the form of fossil fuel subsidies. That was continued in this budget by this government. That was continued when the other mob were in charge. It is bipartisan support to use taxpayer dollars to make it easier for the coal and gas companies to make megaprofits while they cook the planet. They're using taxpayer dollars to do that.

My view is that the fossil fuel companies use their donations to ensure that they continue to get that taxpayer support and, frankly, it's a pretty good return on investment for them. They also make promises of post-parliamentary jobs to MPs, and we often see that resources ministers, who've held the portfolio of allegedly regulating these industries, five seconds after they leave the chamber, are working for those industries that they were meant to be regulating—in fact, they were simply cosying up to them. That revolving door between lobbyists, industry and MPs' offices needs to be firmly closed, and any reform that we may eventually see from government—and I really hope we do see it; we've been waiting for two years now—must include a ban on fossil fuel companies donating to political parties, otherwise there will continue to be, in my view, the reality or, at the very least, the perception that this place is for sale to the highest bidder and that those bidders are the polluters. We can fix that, and we should.

I note that the South Australian government has recently announced some state-level reforms to ban political donations. That's very interesting because, of course, that's where the Special Minister of State hails from, and we drew some hope that perhaps this might be a harbinger of what was to come. But, unfortunately, there's still crickets. I do note, in relation to the SA reforms, that we've got to make sure that third parties aren't ignored, and those reforms don't propose to regulate the donation activities of third parties, but we also need to make sure smaller parties and Independents are not stifled, because diversity is vital for democracy.

There's never been a more important time for donations reform. Our democracy is at risk and public trust in parliament and politicians is at an all-time low. The community feels less and less confident that their representatives represent them rather than simply do the bidding of their corporate donors. And it's no wonder. The big four consulting firms have donated more than $4.3 million to both sides of politics over the last 10 years and they have got $8 billion in government contracts in the same time. There's a bit of a coincidence there, folks! It's a very good return on investment for the big four and it's a terrible deal for rest of us.

But regardless of the source or the amount, the obvious expectation from corporations is that donations will return results for their bottom line. They're buying outcomes. They're not just donating because they like democracy; they're doing it because they can see that it helps them and that it's in their interest. This feeds the public perception that decisions in our parliament are made improperly, with self-interest and the interests of donors and mates consistently overriding the public interest. Frankly, our system is one of legalised bribery. The public should not have to rely on corporations opting to no longer donate to political parties because some scandal has exposed corruption or a dodgy deal. Money shouldn't be able to buy government contracts or development approvals or political access or political influence.

That is exactly why, last year, after a series of bills to ban donations and to clean up the system, I eventually introduced the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fairer Contracts and Grants) Bill 2023, which is a bill that says that if you're seeking a government contract or an approval from government—say, an environmental approval—you shouldn't be allowed to donate for a year before you seek that or for a year after you've sought or received that. People who are seeking favours from government should not be allowed to donate at the time when they are seeking the government's favour. I thought that that might have been the lowest common denominator that we might be able to get agreement on in the chamber. It's certainly not enough. It's the bare minimum reform, but I naively thought that maybe the big parties would come at that sensible reform. I was sadly disappointed. They did not agree on the basic principle that decisions about allocating government resources should be guided by the public interest rather than the influence and interests of donors. But we live to keep fighting on these matters, as we have for decades now.

The public deserves to see where money comes from, and they deserve to see that before elections. As folk would know, there's currently only one day of the year, 1 February—it's the one time in the year—when we get to find out just how much social harm and other polluting, dirty and vested-interest industries are paying for their influence on the government. We've got to wait for the Electoral Commission to publish this data once a year and, still, more than a third of all donations fall below the disclosure threshold, which is currently $16,300. There are all sorts of things, like membership fees and cash-for-access events, that are not classed as donations, so they stay hidden from public view.

Where are the reforms for more transparency and for real-time disclosure that the government promised? Again, surely these are the barest minimum, yet we still haven't seen legislation proposed for those things. We strongly support real-time disclosure requirements on political parties and on lobby groups seeking to buy outcomes for their own private profits.

We also desperately need truth in political advertising laws. I can't quite fathom why you're not allowed to lie in an ad to sell a product but you are allowed to lie in a political ad to sell your idea or to sell your party's principles. That makes no sense to me, and people deserve better. We heard a quite heroic and, frankly, far-reaching contribution from the former speaker, who was conflating free speech with the ability to lie in political advertising. I didn't quite follow the logic there, but he was giving it a good go nonetheless. I don't think it's a limitation on freedom of speech that you shouldn't be able to lie in a political ad. People deserve to know what you stand for and they deserve to have clear and truthful information when they're making their decision about which party or Independent best aligns with their values and which of those people deserves their vote. Instead, we've had some confected outrage that somehow this is an attack on freedom of speech. Actually, it's a defence of truth.

I do want to note that the way in which third parties—in particular, charities—are dealt with is crucial. Charities have been the subject of attacks by former governments. They work in the public interest and they should not be treated in the same way as cashed-up industry lobby groups. As we saw with previous electoral reforms by the former government, treating charities like lobby groups would silence community voices and would have a chilling effect on public interest advocacy. The Greens supported amendments to protect the charity sector then. We continue to do so now, and we will continue to do so in the future. It's important to have that on the record.

All year, Labor has used the JSCEM process as an excuse for rejecting the Greens' and the crossbench's private members' bills for electoral reform on all sorts of things, like truth in advertising, donation reform and transparency, and increasing territory representation. They've used this as a cover, yet they still haven't stumped up their own bill. People are desperate for a parliament that actually represents them and that is more diverse. They don't just want the Coles and Woolworths politics and they're sick of not being able to tell the difference between the two major parties on so many of the big issues that matter to them. That's why support for the larger parties is falling, and it's exactly why the government now have a choice: they can stitch up a deal with the opposition or they can work with the crossbench for genuine electoral reform. The crossbench is saying to the government: 'You can get electoral reform through this parliament. We will work with you on that if your reforms are fair, and we'll actually improve outcomes for the community and strengthen our democracy.'

The Greens have been campaigning for decades to clean up our democracy. It is time for the government to come to the table and work with us and the crossbench to ensure that politicians work in the public interest, not in the interest of their donor mates and not in the interest of shoring up the diminishing support for the two-party duopoly.