James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

McGRATH () (): I present an interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the conduct of the 2022 federal election, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Australia's position as a successful democracy is reliant on a robust electoral system. Australia's successful electoral system and related institutions have been developed over many years. They are trusted by Australians, who understand that they are independent, impartial and non-partisan. The electoral system and related institutions protect the democratic rights and freedoms of all Australians. It is critical that any changes made to Australia's existing electoral system are made to improve our democracy for all. They must not be motivated by partisanship.

The coalition will not support any changes that favour a particular political party or cause. The coalition believes that any proposed electoral changes should be assessed on the following principles: equal treatment of all political participants; fair, open and transparent elections; encouragement of political participation without fear of retribution; and recognising freedom of thought, belief, association and speech as fundamental to free elections.

The coalition believes that those who join or actively support political parties, like those who support civil-society movements or not-for-profit organisations, do so on the basis of sincerely held beliefs and a genuine desire to participate in their democratic society. Members of established political parties are not less worthy than those who support other forms of political communication movements or civil-society causes.

In addition, changes to regulations at federal and state levels of government have increased the regulatory burden on political parties, making it harder for active grassroots participation. This is not a good outcome for democratic participation in Australia. Financially stable political parties with active memberships representing the broad political spectrum are important foundations for a healthy democracy. The governing legislative and regulatory framework for political parties should ultimately encourage grassroots participation, not make it harder.

The recommendations of the coalition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters are about improving Australia's democracy and making it easier for everyday Australians to be actively involved in politics. What I will do is to go through the proposed recommendations from the coalition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The first recommendation is:

The Coalition members of the Committee recommend that the Electoral Act be amended to allow for the obligations of Registered Political Parties to be applied to independent candidates where the Australian Electoral Commissioner believes those candidates are conducting their activities in a manner consistent with a Registered Political Party.

Our report goes on to say:

It has been recognised through the course of the Committee's inquiry that the 2022 Election saw a series of successful independent candidates, now known as the Teal Party, contest a number of seats.

There has been evidence presented to the Parliament, and through this inquiry, that suggests that this was done, in part, as a coordinated effort and that this coordination was either not presented in a transparent manner, or was unable to be categorised under the current electoral law.

It is concerning that allegations of this activity were made, while the candidates in question claimed to be unaffiliated independent candidates.

The statement from Teal members of parliament and candidates that they are not a political party is as offensive as it is wrong. Creating a level playing field between established political parties and the Teal Party will ensure equal treatment and limit the ability of 'political players' to game the system.

Our second recommendation is:

The Coalition members of the Committee recommend that the Government give consideration to the adequacy of the current electoral regulatory framework to nominate as a candidate at a Commonwealth election, and in particular any measures that could be implemented to strengthen the integrity of the system.

Our report goes on to say:

The Committee, and the Parliament more broadly, has heard evidence in relation to the ability for the nomination of large numbers of candidates for election that create burdens on electors, barriers to entry for some candidates or parties, and the potential for candidates to be utilised purely for preference distribution.

It is imperative that electors are provided a choice of candidates that is reflective of the community support and that the system of nomination is transparent and effective.

Our third recommendation is that the pre-poll period be limited to:

… a maximum of one week prior to election day and that the Australian Electoral Commission provide parties and candidates with the earliest possible advice about prepoll locations.

The report goes on to say:

The reason for the proposed reduction is twofold. Firstly, a reduction in the length of the pre-poll period would sizeably reduce the administrative burden on both the AEC and election candidates. Secondly, reducing the length of the pre-poll period would also allow for voters to make their voting decisions with the most current information.

Our fourth recommendation relates to the intimidation of voters. In particular, we recommend:

… that a new offence of 'electoral violence or intimidation' be added to the Electoral Act. This amendment is fundamental to address behaviour arising in an election such as violent, obscene or discriminatory abuse, property damage, and stalking candidates or their supporters to intimidate them or make them feel unsafe.

It goes on to say:

No one should feel unsafe while participating in our democratic process.

Over an extended period, the Committee and the Parliament has been presented evidence that political volunteers and supporters have been subject to politically motivated abuse, violence or harassment. The strength of our electoral system rests on the contestability of ideas and the presentation of that contest to electors. But this contest must be safe for the participants engaging in it. There is no greater importance than securing this contest in the electoral system for the ensuring of free and fair elections.

Our fifth recommendation is that the AEC should return all electoral practices to pre-COVID standards. It goes on to say:

Following the removal of any restrictions that were placed upon electors who are participating in Commonwealth elections relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Coalition members of the Committee believe there is no justification for any measures that were put in place to ensure the conduct of pandemic-elections …

The sixth recommendation is:

The Coalition members of the Committee recommend that vote counts after polling day for each electorate should be carried out in the electorate itself, not transported considerable distances.

The Coalition members of the Committee strongly support the counting of votes in locations within local electorates as far as possible. The Commission made extensive comment about their support for local campaign workers in the electoral process, including the scrutiny of the vote.

By removing votes for counting at other and distant locations, campaign workers who are unable to travel for those counts do not have the ability to participate in the scrutiny of their local electorate. This is an important part of the democratic process, and the Australian Electoral Commission should recognise and support that participation, particularly at the point of scrutiny of the vote after polling day.

The coalition members of the committee also made a number of comments in relation to the substantive report and its recommendations by the government members of the committee. While I do not have time to go through those, I would say that the coalition will not be supporting any changes that seek to impose a financial gerrymander on the Australian electoral system, a financial gerrymander that would benefit one side of politics at the expense of the other.

We would call upon electoral reforms to be reforms that are consistent with the four principles that I outlined at the beginning of my speech—that is, that there should be equal participation for all participants and that participation should be fair; that there should be open, transparent and fair elections; that people should be encouraged to participate without fear of retribution; and that we should recognise freedom of thought, belief, association and speech as fundamental to free elections. We will be using those four principles in any discussions we have with the government regarding any reforms that they bring forward following the presentation of this interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

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

I rise to take note of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters interim report that has been tabled. The Greens have been campaigning for years to clean up politics and make parliament better reflect the community that we represent. The 2022 election made it clear the public agrees, with the lowest vote share for the major parties in 75 years and the public returning a parliament that's more diverse than ever. The Labor and Liberal parties have a track record of teaming up to look out for their donors and maintaining the two-party system that benefits them while knocking out other voices.

The interim report includes recommendations relating to electoral expenditure caps, donation caps, truth-in-advertising laws and donation disclosure and transparency, but with no detail. And, with these matters, the devil will be in the detail. Time will tell whether Labor genuinely wants to level the playing field of elections and end the corrupting influence that big donations have on our democracy or whether Labor and the Liberals will act in lockstep to bolster a dying two-party system.

Big money has been flowing to both of the big parties for decades, and we have seen decisions being made in parliament that benefit those donors to the detriment of people and the planet. Without efforts to close the loopholes in donation laws, capping donations would still leave millions in membership fees, subscriptions to business forums and cash-for-access events for the large parties. The Greens want to see these loopholes closed. The Greens maintain that we need to ban donations from the fossil fuel sector, the banking sector and other industries with a track record of seeking policy outcomes that benefit their bottom line. While big money still flows from those sectors, we will continue to see a handbrake on climate action and progressive reforms.

But cleaning up politics doesn't stop with donation caps and spending caps. We must tighten up the rules for lobbyists and ensure that ministers and their senior staff don't walk out of parliament and straight into lucrative lobbying jobs.

Measures to improve engagement of First Nations voters should be expedited to maximise participation in both the Voice referendum and all future elections. The government squandered an earlier opportunity to do that, and we urge them now to reconsider on-the-day enrolment, phone voting and removing restrictions on prisoners voting.

Trust in politicians and our democracy remains at an all-time low, and any changes to electoral laws must make our democracy and our parliament more transparent, more accessible and more reflective of the voices in our community. Critically, campaign finance reforms must be delivered as a whole, not piecemeal. The Greens will not accept partial reforms that leave loopholes and back doors for hidden and dirty money to continue and to further entrench major party advantages over third parties and Independents. One in three voters chose to vote for someone other than a large party at the last election. They deserve to see their votes result in representation in our parliament. This will be our measuring stick for what constitutes good reform.

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 and every time a politician leaves parliament and walks straight into a cushy job in an industry they regulated barely moments ago has led the community to believe that parliament doesn't work for them; it works for the big parties and career politicians. It's led them to believe that parliament doesn't represent the people; it represents political donors.

We have been campaigning for years to clean up politics and make this parliament better reflect the community that we represent. We have called to get big money out of politics, to expose the 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. As I said before, the last election made it perfectly clear that the public wants this too. One in three people did not vote for one of the two big parties. We saw the lowest share, as I said earlier, for the major parties in 75 years. The two-party system is now in terminal decline, and democracy is the better for it.

With electoral reform the devil is in the detail, and there was no detail in this interim report. I think that the Special Minister for State really belled the cat when he said in a media release today that electoral reform should be undertaken in a bipartisan manner—not multipartisan, I might add, but bipartisan. Forgive me if I worry that bipartisanship means ignoring the calls of the Greens and the Independents. Given that when we look at the track record of the Labor and Liberal parties teaming up to look out for their donors and to maintain the duopoly that benefits them, locking out other voices, you can forgive my suspicion. Any legislation to deliver electoral reform must ensure that it strengthens democracy for everyone. The Greens will not support an approach which props up the political fortunes of the big parties and excludes anyone who seeks to represent the one-in-three voters who did not vote for the Labor or Liberal parties.

Big money has been flowing to the big parties for decades, corrupting decision-making and putting a handbrake on reform. The community watched as fossil-fuel donations contributed to a decade of climate inaction and subsidies to open coal and gas projects in a climate crisis. The parties sought donations from the financial and gambling sectors and we were not at all surprised when the regulation of those sectors was put off or watered down. And the community watched as donations from consultants were rewarded with millions in contracts at the expense of the Public Service.

The committee's recommendation to lower the disclosure threshold for donations and to increase the speed with which the public gets to know who is donating was one of the few recommendations for which there was cross-party support. There is also broad support for a review of the definition of 'gift'. Those are important measures to close loopholes which have led to millions in hidden money being gifted to political parties each year. But the benefit of donation caps and greater disclosure will be undermined if donors can continue to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars as subscription fees, or memberships of party-affiliated business forums or expensive cash-for-access dinners, and not report those as donations. The current rules are absolutely farcical, and closing the most egregious of loopholes is critical to the success of any reform. Labor's proposal to provide 'appropriate' exclusions for subscriptions, membership and affiliation fees leaves the door wide open to get around any future donation caps. We want to see these loopholes closed once and for all.

On donation reform: where are the strong measures to ban donations from the fossil fuel sector, the banking sector, big Pharma, defence, gambling, tobacco and all the other industries with a track record of pushing their own interests in policy decisions? We're pleased that the member for Curtin and Senator David Pocock have also called for industry bans, but while big money still flows from those sectors we'll continue to see public interest reforms stalled by industry heavyweights.

The interim report also calls for election spending caps and an increase in public funding so that candidates don't need to beg for campaign funds from those who could later expect their generosity to be rewarded. Such reforms could stop candidates pouring millions into campaigns that flood the public space and drown out their opponents. However, unless they're well designed, spending caps can lock in advantages to the larger parties and exclude Independents and minor parties. Spending caps will go some way to levelling the playing field for Independents and smaller party candidates, but they must be complemented by other reforms to remove the advantages enjoyed by incumbents: access to party resources; government advertising budgets and grants programs; corporate donors; administrative officers; and media profiles. Unless those advantages are addressed, spending caps could disproportionately impact on new entrants. We also need to ensure that reforms don't stifle public advocacy and make it harder for charities to engage in campaigns. Non-government organisations enrich our democracy as a voice for communities in the public interest, and they help to inform the public conversation. Reforms must be designed to ensure that they're not shut out of political debate.

But cleaning up politics doesn't stop just with donations and spending caps; we need to tighten up the rules for lobbyists and ensure that ministers and their senior staff don't walk out of parliament and straight into lobbying jobs. The obscene decision to give $1.9 million to the Middle Arm development—that gas export hub—at the behest of fossil fuel interests is just the latest example of how damaging those relationships are, both for the climate and for the broader public. We need to publish ministerial diaries and to strengthen the register of interests. We need stronger rules about government advertising and the use of electorate office resources. We need to prevent pork-barrelling by ensuring the independence and rigour of grant allocations; by continuing to resource the Australian National Audit Office to audit grant programs; and by giving the National Anti-Corruption Commission the power to investigate allegations of misuse of public funds for electoral gain. We also need to remove constitutional restrictions that disqualify dual citizens and public servants. We need to reduce candidate nomination fees to introduce proportional representation into the House of Representatives.

The Greens will stand firm against proposals that sound good in principle but in practice leave loopholes for hidden and dirty money and further entrench major party advantages over third parties and independents. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.