Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the government response to the interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on its inquiry into the conduct of the 2022 federal election, and I seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report:

Conduct of the 2022 federal election and other matters Interim Report

Introduction

On 19 June 2023, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) tabled a report titled Conduct of the 2022 federal election and other mattersInterim Report    .(Interim Report).

The Government's formal response to the recommendations of the Interim Report follows below.

Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report:    

Conduct of the 2022 federal election and other matters Interim Report

Majority:

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government lower the donation disclosure threshold to $1,000.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government notes the recommendation and welcomes the JSCEM Interim Report into the 2022 Federal Election.

Chair Kate Thwaites, together with all members of the committee, have worked diligently to provide a list of recommendations aimed at strengthening our democracy.

The Government has clear commitments to improved transparency and accountability across our electoral system and believes electoral reform should be undertaken in a consultative and bipartisan manner.

The Government looks forward to engaging with colleagues across the parliament on these vital reforms, pending the committee's final report in 2023.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce 'real time' disclosure requirements for donations to political parties and candidates.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government gives consideration to amending the definition of 'gift' in the Electoral Act to ensure it meets community expectations of transparency in political donations.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce donation caps for federal election donations.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce expenditure (also known as spending) caps for federal elections.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 6

The Committee recommends that donation caps and expenditure caps apply to third parties and associated entities.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 7

The Committee recommends the Australian Government introduce a requirement that all political parties, members of Parliament, candidates, associated entities and third parties be required to establish a Commonwealth Campaign Account for the purpose of federal elections, to better allow for disclosure and monitoring.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 8

The Committee recommends the Australian Government introduces a new system of administrative funding to recognise the increased compliance burden associated with a reformed system.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 9

The Committee recommends the Australian Government introduce a new system of increased public funding for parties and candidates, recognising the impact changes a reformed system will have on private funding in elections.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 10

The Committee recommends the Australian Government provide the Australian Electoral Commission with additional resources to support, implement and enforce these reforms.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 11

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government develop legislation, or seek to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, to provide for the introduction of measures to govern truth in political advertising, giving consideration to provisions in the Electoral Act 1985 (SA).

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 12

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider the establishment of a division within the Australian Electoral Commission, based on the principles currently in place in South Australia, to administer truth in political advertising legislation, with regard to ensuring proper resourcing and the need to preserve the Commission's independence as the electoral administrator.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 13

The Committee recommends that, providing the Committee receives a reference to conduct a review of the next federal election, consideration of the new framework be included in terms of reference to the Committee. Such consideration could include the effectiveness of the revised arrangements, and identification of any further improvements.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 14

Consistent with the recommendation made in this Committee's Advisory report on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, the Committee recommends that the Australian Government strengthen the opportunities for electoral enfranchisement and participation to allow the Australian Electoral Commission to support increased enrolment and participation, particularly of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including in remote communities.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 15

The Committee recommends the Government resource the Australian Electoral Commission to work directly with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community organisations to increase Indigenous enrolment and participation, particularly in remote communities.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Minority report by Kate Chaney MP

Recommendation 1

I propose a further recommendation in terms that—the Australian Government introduces a system of more meaningful funding disclosure that will be readily available on the AEC Transparency Register by:

removing the opaque 'other receipts' category and replacing it with categories to separately identify event income, investment income, membership fees, political party transfers and public funding reimbursement;

requiring the disclosure of the terms of the loans; and

making the AEC Transparency Register easy to use and searchable.

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 2

In relation to transparency reforms, I propose a further recommendation in terms that—the Australian Government develops legislation, or seeks to amend the Electoral Act 1918, to regulate lobbying including expanding the lobbyist register and requiring the publishing of ministerial diaries.

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 3

In relation to reducing financial influence reforms, I propose a further recommendation in terms that—the Australian Government implements any donation or spending caps informed by the principle of creating a level playing field for new entrants.

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 4

In addition to donation reforms, I propose a further recommendation in terms that—the Australian Government seeks to amend the Electoral Act 1918 to:

prohibit political donations from government contractors;

prohibit political donations from social harm industries; and

require corporate entities and unions to obtain member approval before making political donations.

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 5

I propose a further recommendation in terms that—the Australian Government seeks to amend the Electoral Act 1918 to enable an independent candidate to register an Independent Candidate Entity, to be treated the same way as a political party.

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 6

I propose a further recommendation in terms that—the Australian Government develops legislation, or seeks to amend the Electoral Act 1918, to prohibit government advertising from 2 years after an election until the next election except in the case of a national emergency or other compelling reason as determined by an independently constituted body.

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 7

I propose a further recommendation in terms that—the Australian Government seeks to amend the Electoral Act 1918 to ensure the independence of the postal vote process by preventing parties or candidates from achieving an advantage through the process (e.g. by restricting the use and delivery of the AEC postal vote application form).

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 8

I propose a further recommendation in terms that—the Australian Government amends the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) to remove the exemption of a registered political party from the operation of the Privacy Act.

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 9

I propose a further recommendation in terms that—the Australian Government amends the Spam Act 2003 (Cth) to remove the exemption from the Spam Act of registered political parties to send unsolicited electronic messages.

The Government notes this recommendation.

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Minority Report by Senator David Pocock:

Recommendation 1

Increase the baseline level of representation for the ACT and NT in the Senate to as close to half the representation of States as possible. Given the current number of Senators in each State, this would see the ACT and the NT each have 6 Senators. Terms should increase to six years and commence on 1 July following the election in line with the states.

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 2

The government should commission an independent body, such as the Australian Law Reform Commission, to develop recommendations to require full disclosure of all receipts above the threshold. Consideration should be given to removing the 'other receipts' category, disclosure of loans and the creation of an AEC Transparency Register, in accordance with Recommendation 1 made by the Member for Curtin, Kate Chaney MP in her Additional Comments.

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 3

I support Recommendation 2 made by the Member for Curtin, Kate Chaney MP in her Additional Comments that the government should expand the lobbyist register to include in-house lobbyists. I further recommend that, if a lobbyist holds a sponsored pass that gives access to the Australian Parliament House, the details of the pass including the sponsoring MP or Senator are captured on the lobbyist register. Details of sponsored passes should also be listed on Parliamentarians profiles on the Australian Parliament House website.

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 4

The government should establish an independent body to manage and rule on truth in political advertising complaints. This body should be completely separate from the AEC, whose neutrality is a critical feature of our electoral architecture and must be maintained.

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 5

Any system developed to regulate political donations and election spending must be developed by a non-partisan, independent body. The introduction of donation and spending caps has the potential to have a significant impact on the ability of independent candidates and micro parties to be elected to Parliament and as such the development of any system must be free of the undue political influence of incumbents.

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Dissenting report by Coalition members of the Committee:

Recommendation 1

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.

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 2

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.

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 3

The Coalition members of the Committee recommend the pre-poll period be statutorily limited to be 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.

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 4

The Coalition members of the Committee 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.

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 5

The Coalition members of the Committee recommend that the AEC return all electoral practises to pre-COVID standards.

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

Recommendation 6

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.

Response:

See response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority report.

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

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak to the Special Minister of State's tabling of the Australian government's response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report Conduct of the 2022 federal election and other matters: interim report. I am also privileged to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, alongside my fellow South Australian Senator Marielle Smith, and I know that we both see this as a deeply important part of our work. The integrity of our electoral system is critical to a functioning democracy, and we've spent the last 12 months looking in depth at the issues that are facing our electoral system and the challenges that we all know are there but which some people refuse to accept are there.

One of the acute lessons that we are learning in this world is that the democracy that so many of us have enjoyed cannot be taken for granted. Our democracy is fragile. We have to protect it. We have to make sure that this is not just something that we set and forget. We must review after every election and learn the lessons of what has occurred. Democracy is built on trust—trust in institutions, trust in information and trust in our political structures—and we know that is being challenged. In a world where anyone can post for free on TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X, or whatever platforms are coming or going on the day, our challenge is to ensure a well-informed electorate. It is a far cry from the world that we were living in, say, 30 years ago or even 20 years ago, when information was a lot less prevalent but usually a little bit more targeted or controlled. What we are seeing now is that, with various algorithms and structures, all sorts of information circulates, and we need to ensure that that information is informing our electorates and that people are getting the information they need to understand how our democracy works, what various political parties or individuals are putting forward, and what they are offering for people to vote for.

The increased accessibility that we've seen can also be a really good thing. Having broader access to information can be excellent. But we do need some control. We do need some balances and checks to make sure that the information out there is critical and that it is relevant. One of the recommendations that the interim report put forward was on truth in political advertising. What we need to ensure is that people are never targeted in such a manner as to provide them with incorrect information or divert them from truth, reality or broader access to information. As a mature democracy, we have a role to play in countering any misinformation that may occur.

As South Australians, my colleague Senator Marielle Smith and I are very used to this, because South Australia has had truth-in-political-advertising laws since 1984, and the world has not ended. The sky did not fall in.

Despite all the clucking noises about how you can't do this and why you can't do this, you absolutely can put in place structures to deal with incorrect electoral information.

The Electoral Commission in South Australia can act on any material brought to their attention that contains a statement that's purported to be fact but is both misleading and inaccurate. They require a referral and then they can investigate where the reality sits. It's quite simple, it's quite straightforward, and, like I say, it has worked in South Australia for a considerable period of time. There are two key aspects to this. One is that the onus is on the complainant. Somebody has to put forward a complaint. It is not for the Electoral Commission to scan every ounce of material, which would be an epic task. It does shift the burden of the resources primarily to the people who wish to monitor these things—predominantly political parties, I would say—who then put in a complaint, which is then investigated. For a statement to be a breach, it must have been purported to be fact. There is no impact on statements of opinion or predictions of what might happen; it's just whether you're purporting something is fact when indeed it is not.

The second aspect is that the penalty is corrective. It places a burden on whoever provided the misinformation to correct it. In reality, it is a real disincentive. If you've sent 50,000 flyers out to the electorate with intentionally incorrect information on them—not an opinion but an incorrect 'fact'—you then have to send out another 50,000 to correct it. That's a huge disincentive, and we know from our experience in South Australia that it works. It's a huge disincentive and stops an enormous amount of bad behaviour. As I said before, the sky hasn't fallen in. We do have a thriving and healthy democracy and it cannot be hijacked by harmful behaviour.

One of the key recommendations in the interim report is to deal with this matter on a federal basis. I think I speak for the South Australians who have experienced this system when I say we know it can work. I'm really looking forward to seeing the final report released and seeing the government's response to it. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise that the Special Minister of State, Senator Don Farrell, has spent many, many years on improving our democracy, our system of governance, and working towards the most robust democratic process that we can possibly find to run elections in this country.

Obviously, that's not the only thing in the report. The report deals with a whole range of issues around donations and caps that have been discussed for years. It's about time something was done about them. One issue we face is the difference between an electorate voting on the basis of their beliefs and the constructs they believe someone is going to bring forward as their representative—something they believe in and can get alongside—and the buying of votes. There have been many media stories and disclosures about how much money was spent on the last election—how much money various individuals donated. The concept of real-time donation disclosure is about seeing how many millions of dollars person X has donated to party X or how many millions individual A has donated to individual B so that there's clarity and you understand exactly what's going on: who's funding what. What is it that you are seeing? Are you seeing the ideas of an individual, are you seeing the ideas of a party, or are you seeing what can be bought with the cold, hard cash of a wealthy person or wealthy corporation?

I am very much looking forward to the final report of JSCEM and the government's response. I commend you to read the report. It is well worth it. It is very informative. We must protect our democracy and that includes improving our electoral system and working towards the most balanced and fair system that we can possibly achieve.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the beginning I want to associate myself in the strongest terms with my good friend Senator Karen Grogan's extensive contribution to this debate, particularly her comments regarding the electoral system reforms made in South Australia and the impact of those reforms on transparency, truth in our political process and strengthening the great democracy that does exist in our home state of South Australia. It has been a privilege to work with you on this committee, Senator Grogan.

As a proud member of the federal parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters I'm really pleased to be speaking on the interim report and, indeed, on the tabled government response to it. I kick off my comments by acknowledging the fantastic work of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the member for Jagajaga, Kate Thwaites MP. She has shown tremendous leadership in our committee inquiry. She has spent many hours fine-tuning what I think is a very good interim report. Our inquiry received nearly 1,500 submissions and to date the committee has held 12 public hearings around Australia. I also take this opportunity to thank everyone who took the time to engage and participate in our committee's work. Everyone who contributed has helped inform the report and helped inform the resulting 15 recommendations made by our committee in the interim report.

The interim report came from a request in July 2022 from the Special Minister of State, who asked us to commence an inquiry into the election and related matters and into our electoral system. The terms of reference were extensive. We were asked to look at reforms to political donation laws, reforms to funding of elections, truth in political advertising, encouraging increased electoral participation and enfranchisement of First Nations people, the potential for the creation of a single national electoral roll, other ways to increase electoral participation and enfranchisement more generally, and proportional representation of the states and territories in the parliament in the context of the democratic principle of one vote, one value.

The interim report doesn't go to all of those terms of reference. Indeed, we looked at only terms of reference (a) to (d)—considering reforms to donation laws and the funding of elections, truth in political advertising laws, and encouraging increased electoral participation and lifting the enfranchisement of First Nations people. Whilst our final report will revisit many of these matters, it will also provide more detailed consideration of terms of reference (e) to (g).

There has been much debate in recent months—and, indeed, in recent years—about the state of our democracy. Whether it comes to political donations, truth in political advertising or the need for modernisation in our electoral system, it is clear that there is significant and substantial work to do to strengthen both our democracy and the institutions within it. These debates of course aren't just limited to here in Australia. These are debates being had right across the world, right across our globe. We in Australia are lucky to live in a democracy like we do here, but our democracy was never intended to be static. We must always be concerned with the business of strengthening it and we must always be concerned with the business of defending it when it comes under attack from those who don't share our democratic values and ideas.

I will say that transparency is absolutely one of those values.

In the great Australian Labor Party we have a proud history of electoral reform, and we have a strong commitment to transparency and accountability across our democratic system. It was the Hawke Labor government that was the first to introduce a donations disclosure regime in the 1980s, ensuring that Australians could see who was donating to their elected representatives. It was a really important measure to make our democracy more transparent and to make that information more transparent to the Australian people within that democracy. But then we saw the coalition, under John Howard, seek to diminish this transparency. They lifted the threshold for disclosure so that only larger donations were disclosed. I remember when they did this. I was a student at the Australian National University studying political science. I remember what a significant change to the very value of transparency within our democracy this was and the many papers written on this across that university and other institutions, because it really did represent such a significant change and a significant lowering of transparency, with no clear value to the democratic process.

But Labor is committed to electoral reform. We believe in improving transparency. We believe in increased accountability, and, of course, we believe in fairness in our democracy and across all other levels of government and public policy. Over the course of six years in opposition, the now Special Minister of State—another good South Australian—Senator Don Farrell, introduced several bills into the Senate to improve our electoral system, including increased transparency of political donations. The Special Minister of State has been clear about his intention to pursue long-overdue reforms in this term of the Albanese Labor government.

As I noted earlier, this report puts forward a set of 15 broad recommendations for change. These recommendations include caps on campaigning, donations and spending. I think it's really important to note that, in relation to political donations and electoral expenditure, we heard from the many submitters to our inquiry the importance of examining key issues around transparency and integrity. We heard about the influence of big money and what submitters saw as an electoral arms race. Submitters broadly called for donation reform, including by way of caps, and suggested that there has been general public acceptance for a number of years which warranted change at the federal level. In that, I refer to the debates that have been going on for many, many years about the need to increase transparency and strengthen our institutions, and I'm very proud that our committee report has gone to these issues.

Our committee has recommended a much lower threshold for declaring donations and reporting of donations in real time. It's an important step forward after the coalition's significant step back. Specifically, that recommendation reads:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government lower the donation disclosure threshold to $1,000.

Our committee was of the view that this amount would ensure a robust level of transparency without discouraging the participation of members of the public in local activities, and it would also broadly align Commonwealth laws. Importantly, these donations and spending caps are as applicable to political parties as they are to third parties, because we have seen in recent times the influence of big donors and big money in elections not just here in Australia but also overseas. Knowing who is bankrolling campaigns and political candidates is absolutely fundamental to our democracy and fundamental to transparency—that absolutely critical value at the heart of our democracy and our institutions. Lowering that threshold, returning it to $1,000, would give voters a much better idea about who's supporting a political candidate, and combining reducing that threshold with real-time disclosures would allow voters to know who is backing candidates and would significantly improve transparency in our democracy and in our elections. It's a really important principle.

When it comes to real-time disclosure, the committee recommended that the Australian government introduce real-time disclosure requirements for donations to political parties and candidates.

The report noted that this would require additional administrative time and resources. However, many submitters recognised that reducing the disclosure period would represent a really important development for improving transparency within our democracy. We know that participation in our democracy shouldn't depend on your own personal wealth or the wealth of your backers and your donors. It should be about your ideas, it should be about your policies and it should be about your values. As a minimum, we should all be able to agree that Australians, regardless of their own financial background, should be able to stand for our parliaments and stand for high office. What we don't want to see an electoral system where expenditure by certain individuals can unduly influence our election results. (Time expired)

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the interim report that's being discussed. I was moved to speak because I listened to some of the contributions here today, and I do have some sympathy for truth in political advertising. One of the reasons I have sympathy is the amount of time I spent on prepoll at the last federal election listening to Greens volunteers handing out election material saying their election promises were fully costed and funded. I sat on prepoll listening to them, 'Our promise is free dental care, free this, free that, fully funded, fully costed.' What did we find out? There was no truth in political advertising there because the Parliamentary Budget Office, an independent agency that sits within this parliament, actually costed the Greens's policies after the last federal election and found that they would have generated an aggregate fiscal balance through the forward estimates of negative $260-plus billion.

The Parliamentary Budget Office fully costed free dental care, free this, free that, all sorts of promises made by the Australian Greens—no responsibility, no accountability because they're not a party of government. They promised the world, represented that it was fully funded and fully costed, and the Parliamentary Budget Office—unfortunately, after the election—produced a report that the aggregate black hole that would have been produced by implementation of the Greens's policies was north of negative $260 billion. The Australian Greens have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. They have no credibility when they talk about truth in political advertising. Judge them by their deeds, not their words. And when you judge them by their deeds, have a look at the independent analysis of the Parliamentary Budget Office, a minus $260 billion black hole if the Greens's policies were implemented in Australia. It would have caused an economic catastrophe. They promise the world, they come in here and provide us their platitudes about truth in political advertising, but when you look at the detail, you look at the actual evidence, the independent Parliamentary Budget Office calculated a fiscal negative balance in aggregate north of $260 billion if the Greens's promises, fully funded and costed, had been implemented. So much for truth in political advertising.

Debate adjourned.