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

Well, finally, the jig is up. We see many, many months of negotiations that both of the major parties denied having culminating in a very cosy little arrangement that suits both of them quite nicely. It's one of the ironies of this appallingly bad process that we didn't see an inquiry happen into this incredibly detailed, 400-page bill. But I think the greatest irony is that we still have not seen the detail of that deal, the stitch-up that was just finally landed by Mr Albanese and Mr Dutton, who are BFFs on this matter. It is 7.33 pm, we are to vote on this in 2½ hours, and we still have not seen the amendments.

This is absolute insanity. I've seen some pretty shabby process in my time here since 2011, but I reckon this one takes the cake. We are debating a bill where there has been a stitch-up, and they still won't tell us what the stitch-up is. They still haven't even circulated the amendments that they've been working on for these long hours, as Senator Hume describes. Meanwhile, the minister has spent more time telling journalists that he's consulting with the Greens and the crossbench than he has actually spent consulting with the Greens and the crossbench. Senator Hume has just belled the cat—it's because they've been having these long, detailed conversations between themselves for quite some time.

The vote for the two big parties at the last election was the lowest it had ever been. What's the lesson that any ordinary person would take from that? 'Well, maybe I need to fix my policies. Perhaps what I'm offering the public isn't that attractive.' But no: rather than actually having a good, long, hard look at themselves and maybe taking action on the climate crisis, taking real action on the cost-of-living crisis or building some actual affordable housing—rather than doing that—they're just chatting to each other about how they can cancel their competitors. They're just chatting to each other to change the rules to make it harder for anyone that's not already elected and harder in particular for anyone that is not in the Labor, Liberal or National parties. This bill is going to make it harder for the parliament to represent the community. This bill is going to lock in the shape of the parliament for years to come in a cosy little stitch-up that suits the two-party system, which has been crumbling. Their only response is, 'Let's rig the rules to try to keep us both in power.' Nothing unites that lot like self-interest, and it's on fine display tonight.

You would have thought that, with the most momentous reforms to our democratic system, as they have been described by the previous speaker, which have such a momentous outcome that will dictate what sorts of decisions the country takes on the big issues that really make a difference in people's lives, the normal process would apply and we'd have a Senate inquiry. But oh, no; we don't want to tell you anything about what's in this cosy little deal. And so last week, once again, when I moved for an inquiry, the two big parties voted together as they're going to do later tonight. They didn't want the scrutiny. They don't want the expert analysis of what this bill will really do. I think it's because, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. This is a deal designed to shore up their own flailing power and it's designed to cancel the competition. Well, there are other ways of improving your vote in the polls, and I suggest that you actually improve your policies rather than rigging the rules.

Now, we have repeatedly said to the government, in what scarce discussions we have had about this topic in the last 18 months, that the Greens stand ready to pass the transparency measures that were originally in this bill: the $1,000 disclosure threshold, lowered down from $16,900. We have repeatedly said that truth in political advertising needs to pass. There's a bill to do that, but do you think that's what's being rushed through tonight? No, they introduced that bit, but then they said, 'We're not going to do that bit.' That bit's not being guillotined and rammed through the chamber tonight; in fact, that part will probably never see the light of day, because that's the part that the opposition didn't want to see happen and, frankly, it's the part that Labor was only ever half committed to and was just doing for the look of it.

So we have a situation where the Greens said to the government, 'You have a pathway to pass reforms through this parliament. We will pass these transparency measures. We will pass truth in advertising. We will pass funding reforms. But we want a Senate inquiry into your particular type of funding reforms because they look pretty suspicious to us,' and we were right. They were suspicious. An inquiry was denied, and now, at the eleventh hour, we see a guillotine motion to ram this cosy deal through and we still haven't seen the damn amendments! This is absolutely remarkable. Democracy is a sham, folks. When the two big parties reach an agreement, none of this here actually matters. The deal was done in a back room, probably between Mr Albanese and Mr Dutton personally, probably last night after he tried to wine and dine the teals while kneecapping them at the same time, and here we go. The parliament is now meant to just rubberstamp this stuff. I'm grateful that the Greens and the crossbench won't ever just rubberstamp stuff, particularly not very large reforms with very consequential outcomes.

I can't wait to see these amendments, because we thought the bill was a bit dodgy, but what we're now reading through the newspapers, not through the actual amendments, is that there are changes that make it even less effective. The disclosure threshold, which was going to be $1,000, now is going to be increased, at the behest of Mr Dutton and the opposition, to $5,000, so there will be more secrecy, not more transparency, than was originally planned by this bill. The donations cap, originally planned to be $20,000, is now going to be $50,000—again, at the behest of Mr Dutton and the Liberals. So that's more money sloshing around in the system.

There is a particularly egregious change which we haven't yet seen the detail of, because we still haven't seen those amendments. We read from the media, not from the minister, that the draft bill would have capped the amount that peak bodies could receive from their member bodies—folk like the Business Council and the Minerals Council—in membership fees at $20,000, which could then be spent on electoral matters. I will confirm this if I get the opportunity in committee stage, but, on my reading of this, each of those big mining companies will be able to give $250,000 in membership fees to the Minerals Council, who will then be able to spend that money on electoral campaigning to the tune of $11.5 million. It doesn't seem like that's getting big money out of the system to me. Call me a purist, but that still seems like an awful lot of dough that the big vested interests will spend on campaigns to try to get policies and politicians to act to boost their own private profits.

We're all meant to be here to fix the problems that people are facing and trying to fix the planet, but, no, this deal has got these additional loopholes designed and built into it to facilitate the likes of the Minerals Council, the Business Council and all sorts of other political players who are very cashed up and whose profit bottom lines very much depend on the access and influence that they peddle with politicians here. Now there are special favours for them. This is precisely why we needed an inquiry process and, frankly, precisely why we need to see these amendments. It's quarter to eight, and we still have not seen the detail of this deal.

I mentioned before that we didn't have an inquiry into this bill. Indeed, that doesn't bother just me; it bothers quite a lot of learned academics and professionals in this field. The Centre for Public Integrity, which has been really active in this space in the last few years—they had a lot to do with the design of what then became the NACC, the National Anti-Corruption Commission—had a lot to say about how we should better structure our democratic decision-making. They've put out a statement today saying:

The Centre for Public Integrity has long advocated for reform of our political donations laws. We have fought for greater transparency via a reduced disclosure threshold and real-time disclosure, as well as a broader definition of what constitutes a donation. We have fought for solutions to the problem of undue influence in the form of donations and expenditure caps. We have also fought for fairness, because the advantages of major-party membership and incumbency are significant and need to be compensated for in any system capping donations and spending.

It is an affront to our democratic process that the Electoral Legislation Amendment—significant, complex legislation which concerns the very foundations of our democracy—is proceeding without proper parliamentary process and scrutiny. The Government's guillotining of debate, and proceeding in the absence of a parliamentary inquiry or the advice of an independent expert panel, is of profound concern.

That was a statement from the Hon. Anthony Whealy KC, the Hon. Michael Barker KC, the Hon. Margaret White AO, Professor Allan Fels AO—and he would know all about anti-competitive conduct, I might add—Professor Joo Cheong Tham and Geoffrey Watson SC.

This is a debasing of our democratic process, and it's just such a choice example of it. They're scratching each other's backs. Meanwhile, the community is going to be hung out to dry, because the community actually wanted a more diverse parliament and they wanted decision-makers who were not for sale to corporate donors and to these business councils, minerals councils and other conglomerates. They've now had this special little pathway given to them where their big money can keep sloshing about, trying to influence democracy.

You should be embarrassed by this, and I think you've got the audacity to be proud that you've pulled it off. Well, everyone else is going to be appalled. This is not the fix for your falling popularity that you might think it is. I'm going to be moving a second reading amendment that was in fact circulated last November, so hopefully the excellent chamber attendants will be able to circulate that for your convenience.

But in that second reading amendment we have noted that reforms have to strengthen democracy, not just the electoral fortunes of the two big parties. We are concerned that the proposed reforms entrench incumbency and stack outcomes in favour of the two-party system, and we will continue to advocate, as we have for decades, to get big money out of politics and to ban donations from fossil fuel companies and other social-harm industries. And there's a list of folk that are used to buying influence in this joint: the gambling industry, the pokies industry, the alcohol industry, big property developers, weapons manufacturers, the big banks and big pharma. There's a list of vested interests that should not be allowed to donate. Do you think this bill does that? No way, Jose! It rolls out the red carpet for them with these dodgy little backdoor provisions.

We will keep advocating that those dirty industries and social-harm industries not be allowed to make political donations to anyone. They've got enough influence over our system. They should not be buying further influence. We will keep pushing to implement truth in political advertising because people deserve to make decisions based on the actual policies of a party, not on some bullshit that has been promulgated—