David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand to speak in support of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No. 2), which is co-sponsored by Senators Waters, Lambie and Thorpe. Beyond these co-sponsors, this bill has broad support from much of the crossbench. Along with an identical bill introduced in the other place, this bill has the support of no fewer than 29 MPs and senators. I want to give particular mention to Kate Chaney, the member for Curtin. Ms Chaney has worked tirelessly on drafting this bill and on pushing the government to undertake critical electoral reform. The 29 of us are just the most recent parliamentarians in a rich history of crossbenchers pushing for electoral reform, recognising that we have an incredible democracy in this country and that we can and must improve it.

For decades now, the crossbench has recognised the deep and significant flaws in our electoral laws and the need for reform. Following years of advocacy, the government has indicated that a package of reforms is finally coming, and I am grateful to Minister Farrell for his engagement on this issue and for the Labor Party's agreement that the territories are underrepresented in the Senate. I look forward to working constructively with the government on electoral reform.

This is a bill that seeks to restore trust in our democracy. At its core are four fundamental principles: transparency, truth, minimising financial influence and ensuring a level playing field. Building from these principles, the bill delivers on what Australians want to see in their democracy. Voters deserve to know who is funding their candidates before they vote. Voters should be protected from outright lies in political advertising. No individual should be able to influence the outcome of an election. Voters deserve a competitive choice in candidates, and new challengers should have a fighting chance to get their message to voters so our democracy can continue to evolve.

I know and acknowledge that the government accepts many, if not all, of these propositions. Again, I would like to thank the Special Minister of State for his work on electoral reform. I think I can speak on behalf of the crossbench in saying that we stand ready to work constructively and in good faith to deliver electoral reforms that strengthen our democracy.

One of the concerns of the crossbench is to ensure that electoral reform maintains a level playing field and does not entrench incumbency. We have a competition problem in this country; this has been well canvassed in the Senate. From supermarkets to banks to airlines and many other markets, we're dominated by large players that freeze out challengers, and the result is higher prices, less choice and ultimately a broken market. In many ways, our democracy is no different. Until recently, the dominance of the two major parties was near absolute. But Australians want change. They want challengers with bold ideas and the energy and dynamism to pursue them. For the major parties, a more diverse parliament presents an opportunity to prove to Australians why they should stick with the majors. They should welcome the additional competition and use it to strengthen our democracy and our democratic institutions.

But I'm concerned that increased democratic competition is not being seen as an opportunity by all. I'm concerned that it is being seen as a threat. In embarking on electoral reform, I urge the major parties to put the health of our democracy ahead of self-interest. Electoral reform must not benefit incumbents and major parties at the expense of challengers, small parties and Independents. Overdue reforms to things like fundraising and spending at elections must not be shaped to the advantage of big party machines in order to disadvantage dynamic new players.

Our communities want to see a reduction in the power of big money in our political system; that much is clear. No-one thinks it's good for our democracy when someone spends tens of millions of dollars to influence an election. That's why the bill introduces a major donor cap, preventing anyone from donating more than two per cent of the total public funding from the last election. What I hear from members of the community I represent is that they want big money out of politics in Australia, but they also want more transparency around who is spending money to fund political parties.

Transparency in political donations at the federal level is currently a joke. Some $259 million have poured into political parties in the last financial year, yet we know very little about the sources of much of the funding. In fact, the source of 27 per cent of Labor's income is unknown. That's roughly $23 million worth of dark money fuelling their political machinery. The coalition, not to be outdone when it comes to raising cash, received some $27.5 million in dark money. Even if we just look at the roughly $160 million in declared funding to the major parties, it's impossible to distinguish between political fundraising and other sources of income. Business forum memberships and fundraising dinners mean that Australians don't know who is buying access to their politicians. I argue that they have a right to know.

Over the last 20 years, 21 per cent of all private funding to the major parties came from undisclosed sources. When it is disclosed, the time lag before voters know who paid for election spending is as much as 18 months. This isn't good enough, and it is way out of line with community expectations. At a time when bank transfers are instantly visible for just about every Australian, an 18-month delay makes no sense. This bill fixes disclosure requirements so voters know who is funding political candidates in time for it to inform their decision at the ballot box. I'm hopeful that this sort of transparency will be adopted by the government in any upcoming reform.

But voters deserve more than just transparency; they deserve truth. Elections in Western democracies are becoming increasingly vulnerable to the influence of bad actors telling outright lies. In the last election I was subject to a malicious campaign from the group Advance Australia, who manipulated a photo of me to make it look like I was part of a political party. The photo was then plastered all around Canberra in an attempt to discredit me. These kinds of lies are just the tip of the iceberg. AI is opening up a whole new range of possibilities for the creation of deepfakes and for other uses of generative AI models to mislead and deceive voters. To address this, the bill adopts a model of truth in political advertising used at the state level in South Australia. It's a model brought to federal parliament by the member for Warringah, Zali Steggall, in her Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Stop the Lies) Bill 2022.

The government must act quickly to address the increasingly brazen lies told by those with little respect for our democracy, and this bill proposes a model that we know works. While the bill does not specifically address the use of artificial intelligence to create deepfakes and voice clones, I urge the government and the Senate to deal with this issue as a matter of urgency and rule out the use of deepfakes and voice clones in elections. Our democracy is too precious to allow this level of deception, as has been seen in elections around the world.

I want to end by speaking to a section of the bill particular to the ACT and the Northern Territory. At our national birth in 1901, part II of the Constitution set out that each state was to be provided an equal number of senators. A significant reason for this was the need to safeguard smaller jurisdictions against being dominated by a democratic majority. This is why there are as many senators for Tasmania in this place as there are senators for New South Wales, despite Tasmania having about seven per cent of the New South Wales population. This was a wise decision from the authors of our national birth certificate. It means that, despite representatives of smaller states being vastly outnumbered in the other place, the Senate offers protection to these smaller states from decisions that threaten their interests.

But territories are not afforded the same protection. In 1975 a deal was struck to grant two senators to each territory. It was a political deal based on a calculation that each major party would get two more representatives, but the calculation did not address the core question of what baseline level of democratic representation is appropriate for the territories in the Senate. It overlooked a deeper consideration of the appropriate balance between federalism and representative democracy. As a result, territorians are denied protection and our legislatures suffer from interventions from the federal government.

The historic violations of territory rights are a stain on our democracy. Here in the ACT, we suffered 25 years of discrimination that prevented territorians from accessing voluntary assisted dying. Someone who lives in Tuggeranong should have the same say about their community and life as someone who lives across the border in Queanbeyan, but, until just recently, this was not the case, and I thank senators on all sides of this chamber for their support in legislating the Restoring Territory Rights Bill in late 2022. But attempts from this chamber to reach into territory issues continue. Less than a year ago, we had the Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023 before the Senate. That bill was yet another attempt to prevent the ACT government from making laws that impact ACT residents only.

This federal overreach has to stop, and part of the solution is providing territories fair representation right here in this chamber. This bill would provide territories with half the number of senators of the states. In doing so, it strikes the right balance between federalism and representative democracy and would finally provide territorians the safeguard we deserve. Any electoral reform package from the government must include improved territory representation.

Our electoral laws underpin every decision made in this chamber. They determine who makes these decisions and who can influence the decision-makers. We know that trust in our democratic system has been declining not just here in Australia but globally. To rebuild this trust, we must ensure that voters believe their representatives are making decisions in the public interest, in their interest. This bill seeks to inform the conversation that I hope will take place between the government, the coalition and the crossbench on how to achieve this. With the support of dozens of crossbench members and senators, the bill represents a model that we hope can be built on. But, in doing so, I again urge the government to be mindful that Australians want to see more diversity and competition in our democracy. This is a very good thing that we should embrace. Electoral reform that seeks to entrench the incumbency advantage and lock out new entrants is not in line with community expectations. Australians want our democracy to flourish with additional competition and more diversity, greater transparency, and protection against lies. Again, I thank the crossbench for their work on this bill and acknowledge crossbenchers who have come before us and have pushed this for decades. I commend this bill to the Senate.

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

I'm aware a number of senators want to make contributions about this, but I want to set out the government's approach to this issue and make a couple of comments. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No. 2) proposes amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, which is the legislation that, for most of the period of Federation, has governed our elections and political system. I listened carefully to Senator Pocock's contribution, and there is much of it that I agree with. Much of it goes to the same issues that the minister has been engaged in discussions about with parties and members and senators across the parliament.

I do say, though, that self-interest is not monopolised by the political parties; self-interest is also a feature of the way that Independents engage with this process. We ought to be honest about that. Everybody has their own interest in this process, including Senator Pocock and his crossbench colleagues. There is nothing wrong with having a set of interests that are prosecuted in this, but it is always better when that is articulated clearly and sits alongside a conception of what the public interest and the national interest are. There's nothing wrong, as I say, with self-interest.

There is also nothing wrong with people making donations into the electoral system or spending money in the electoral system, subject to some of the transparency considerations that I'll deal with in a moment. Indeed, Senator Pocock's electoral campaign for the Senate in the ACT was a $1.8 million campaign. That is extraordinary expenditure in an ACT campaign. That is just the fact.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

$1.2 million.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to 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.

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

The coalition holds that electoral changes ought to be assessed on four key principles: fair, open and transparent elections; equal treatment of all political participants; freedom of political communication and participation without fear of retribution; and recognition of freedom of thought, belief, association and speech as fundamental to free elections. Australia's success as a liberal democracy is reliant on the effective operation of the Australian Electoral Commission and the federal government more broadly to satisfy and uphold these four principles. Ensuring that Australians have continued faith in the electoral system is paramount to Australians' faith in its institutions of government.

The coalition will not support attempts to legislate amendments to the Electoral Act that are targeted at supporting certain political participants or types of political participants. Rather, the coalition contends that all parties and candidates ought to be treated equally and that legislation ought to aim to encourage political participation, not thwart it with regulation. Indeed, legislation ought to improve our democracy for all Australians, not support partisan interest.

As such, on behalf of the coalition, I say that this wide-ranging, ideological thought bubble of a bill proposed by the crossbench reads more like a suggestion at the end of a student union article than a piece of federal legislation. The 60 pages of partisanship from this crossbench are recognised by the coalition as a gerrymander. This bill is a 'teal-mander'. This bill wants laws that aim to prohibit what Australian citizens can and cannot say during the political process, it wants laws that prohibit who can and who cannot participate in the political process and it wants to increase the number of territory senators, because that's what the people of Australia are crying out for at the moment: 'We want more politicians, we want them now, we want them to get high salaries and we want them to stay in Canberra.'

The coalition wants more diversity in our political process. Senator David Pocock said that one individual should not be able to influence the outcome of an election. This is where we fundamentally disagree. One individual does determine the outcome of an election. That's the voter. There are millions of them, and what we should be doing in this building is encouraging the voter to have as much choice as possible and not allowing the left-wing majority to set up a 'teal-mander' that determines what voters can and cannot hear.

The coalition holds that freedom of speech is an inalienable right of the Australian people; the crossbench does not. The crossbench believes in freedom of speech only if that speech reinforces their own views. The coalition strongly opposes the introduction of measures that purport to adjudicate truth in political advertising or political discourse. Freedom of speech and the contestability of ideas among political parties, political candidates and voters are necessary. Indeed, they are a strong requirement for a healthy liberal democracy. Distinguishing among truth, opinion and falseness in the context of electoral matters is an inherently subjective process and one that is best left to those who know. And that is the Australian people. The federal government and its bureaucracy, no matter how independent or qualified they are or how many degrees they have, have neither the scope nor the ability to adjudicate truth in election campaigns. It is inappropriate for any government body to censor political parties and candidates in their communications, let alone censor the Australian people, as this bill aims to do.

Part 3 of this bill states:

A person must not print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or authorise to be printed, published or distributed, electoral matter or referendum matter if the matter contains a statement in relation to a matter of fact (including an implied statement) that is:

(a) misleading or deceptive to a material extent; or

(b) likely to mislead or deceive to a material extent.

Let the voters decide that. Don't let a bunch of bureaucrats decide that. Let the voters determine what is correct and what is not correct. The crossbench wants to prohibit not only what a political party can say but also what a person can say relating to electoral matters. This mob want to censor your Facebook, your Instagram and anything that you communicate out there, because they don't like what you say. They want you to put forward only arguments and suggestions that agree with their very swivel-eyed view of the world.

Later in the bill the crossbench requires that the Australian Electoral Commission be the body that arbitrates what political parties can do or say, but it doesn't say what role the Australian people should have in that process. Just think about this in terms of how elections are run. The body tasked with ensuring that the Australian people uphold their belief in our electoral system is now going to be tasked with telling the Australian people what they can and cannot say. Then this body is going to be tasked with punishing Australians who breach such regulations. This is not truth in political advertising. This is a prohibition on the freedom of speech.

So what's going to happen? Are the teals going to set up a teal police force to go around the country and snoop into people's Facebook pages, snoop into what candidates are saying and, with a giant paddy wagon, a teal coloured paddy wagon, arrest people because they've put forward views, ideas or suggestions that the teals have an issue with? Indeed, the electoral commissioner himself said:

As for truth in advertising, I don't want to advise parliament. If parliament tells us to do something, we'll do it. But I use this opportunity to point out that truth in advertising was actually part of the Electoral Act when it was first passed in '84. It lasted for about eight months before it was removed for being unworkable. The joint standing committee considered this again in '97 and decided not to make that recommendation as part of its considerations. They said that they were worried about the impact on the neutrality of the AEC.

So there it is. The electoral commissioner, a wise, independent, politically neutral person, does not want a bar of truth in political advertising or it to go anywhere near the AEC because Commissioner Rogers understands the damage that will fall upon the AEC should it suddenly become this teal police force that's responsible for charging Australians who breach freedom of speech.

Australia's democracy and its elections should remain a marketplace of ideas. If candidates, political parties or Australian citizens make statements or release positions that are viewed as inaccurate, it is the role of the media, civil society and other political actors to contest such statements, not prohibit them. This country is built upon the principle of freedom of speech, and now we have proposals before this Senate that wish to limit freedom of speech. The schedule attached to this bill is ill thought out. No country strengthens its democracy by censoring its political parties, let alone censoring its own citizens. The coalition believes in the inalienable right of all Australians to be free and to speak their mind. This bill attacks that right.

Another aspect of this bill that the coalition strongly opposes is its aim to prohibit donations from groups that the crossbench cabal classify as entities that inflict social harm for profit, and they list tobacco, fossil fuel, gambling and liquor business entities. What they're saying is that Kev who runs my local pub—the Darling Downs Hotel, the Sandy Creek Pub, which is the de facto community centre for my district of Queensland—can't give money to a political party. I don't know who Kev votes for; that's his business. But this bill wants to stop a publican, who employs locals, from giving money to a political party. How completely mad and un-Australian is this! Not only do the teals want to stop people from having freedom of speech; they want to stop people from giving money to a political cause of their choosing. That is just wrong. It also poses the question: How do we determine what groups are committing social harm? How do you define social harm? Isn't that in the eye of the beholder?

Surely we're on a slippery slope here. Soon the teals, because they're a bunch of vegetarians and vegans, will want to ban butcher shops. They won't want butchers donating money, because of the social harm of the meat industry.

Senator Cadell talked about farmers. We know that the Greens and the teals don't like farmers; they don't like the agricultural industry. They'll want to stop farmers from giving money because the evil farmers are clearing land and putting all the CO2 into the air, with their cattle. This is a slippery slope, and this is why this side of the chamber fundamentally believes in freedom, the freedom of speech and the freedom to give money. If candidates or political parties accept donations from certain groups, it is up to those candidates or political parties to be held accountable for those donations. And those donations are released on a regular basis. People can see who gives money to which candidate or which political party. Good. That should be the case. We believe in transparency, but we do not believe that any group should be restricted from giving money on the basis of a nebulous term called 'social harm'.

I know how the Greens operate. The Greens political party is a horrible political party. They are an un-Australian political party. We see how they fail to condemn the vandalism of a sacred site in this country. This Greens political party wants to stop farmers and publicans from giving money to a political party, but they won't condemn the vandalism of the Australian War Memorial. This is where we are in this country. There is a fight on. There is a fight on for those who are pro Australia, for those who believe that the principles that uphold our Constitution and the principles that uphold our Liberal democracy are the principles that have made Australia the great country that it is today. Yes, we can always be a better country; yes, we can always do things better; and, yes, our history is not perfect, but, for this parliament to suddenly decide to restrict freedom of speech means that those men and women whose names are on the War Memorial a couple of kilometres from where I speak, who gave their lives for freedom of speech, what sacrifice have they made when it means that this building, this chamber, wishes to limit those freedoms?

Of course, the Greens political party don't care because they're quite happy for war memorials to be defiled, because the Greens political party are hypocrites. They will abuse the freedoms that Australians have died for in order to take away those freedoms from current Australians. The coalition will always look at proposals to enhance Australia's democracy, but we will not support any proposals that will bring in a financial gerrymander or a political gerrymander or a 'tealmander' that limits the ability of one side of politics or a class of voters to participate in our Liberal democracy.

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

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't expect this bill to pass. It's not that I don't think the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No. 2) is a great bill and one that every Australian voter deserves, finally. It's because the Labor Party and the Liberal Party will join together to vote it down for their own interests. There's a simple reason for this: they don't want Australians to be able to see into the dark corners of their dirty, filthy political donations. They especially don't want any attention on the entities both parties use to launder their dirty election money.

Australians know about those fundraising dinners where businesses turn up and pay thousands of dollars to sit there, usually for a dinner where you have an alternate drop—you have salmon on one side and chicken on the other, and by the time it gets to the table it's cold. That's right; you'll pay 10 or 20 grand for that. Seriously, what a sucker for punishment you are! The big prize is getting to sit next to a minister or even the Prime Minister. You might pay a bit extra for that but, don't worry, they'll take every cent of it. The money from those fundraisers goes into entities—let's call them shelf companies, because that's what they are. Then the cash is funnelled wherever they like, to whomever they like, and, Australian voters, you are none the wiser, although I suspect you are waking up to this.

The bill broadens the definition of 'gift' to cover all monetary and in-kind payments, including the fundraising dinners and the so-called business forums. That's right; you pay for them too. Don't worry; you'll get a cheese board at them. It'll cost you 10 grand as well. Good on you! You're really getting your money's worth. Membership fees also funnel into these parties.

No doubt someone from the red team is about to jump to their feet and start bleating on about the electoral reforms that Peter Malinauskas, the Premier of South Australia, has just brought in. Seriously, wake up, South Australians; here's one for you. You have been absolutely blindsided. The wool has been pulled over your eyes, South Australians. I know you're smarter than this. The South Australian Premier says he wants money out of politics. That would be great if it was true—if you actually made them go and earn their seats instead of buying them. Wouldn't that be fabulous? Imagine the democracy we'd have in this country. But these so-called world-beating laws lock in more money for the major parties and lots of perks for the sitting MPs. Australians, while you're all out there doing it tough, they want more perks—yay! According to Anne Twomey, the highly respected constitutional lawyer:

The funding … not only favours incumbents, but also has the effect of favouring the government …

What's new? You're looking after yourselves.

These reforms give sitting MPs—that the Premier of South Australia—80 per cent of their per vote public funding in advance, amounting to $4.6 million for major parties even before the elections. They haven't even won their seats, they haven't even done that and they're already paying themselves. How about that?

Ask Tasmanians what they think about that. Ask what happens in a state election when you run. You don't get any money back. My God, if you mention that in Tasmania there would be an absolute uproar. It's like mentioning toll fees on our roads. Your government's finished. They didn't have the guts to do that because they know very well they're finished. But to make them pay upfront—Jesus, what's the South Australian Premier on? What are you on, mate?

His proposed reforms also change the definition of 'gifts' so that professional services are not counted as 'gifts'. It keeps getting better, doesn't it? In other words, big accounting or legal firms are allowed to contribute to a sitting MP or major party and it wouldn't be counted as a donation. How about that? Like we don't already have enough problems with outsourcing—and the filth that's going on there.

Guess what? This doesn't apply to Independents or teals, and I assume it doesn't apply to the Greens. There are funding caps in these laws, but they don't apply to third parties who give to the majors. That's right. They forgot about the third parties. There are layers and layers of them, Australians. These are the entities that can funnel dark money back into the coffers of major political parties. All up, the Premier's reforms would get South Australia's major parties over 15 million bucks of your taxpayer cash each election, before they've even won their seats. If you think this is a great idea and that the Premier of South Australia is doing you a favour, open your eyes, South Australians, because he's not. He's setting power up for himself and the Labor Party and the other one there, the Liberals. That's what he is doing to you, South Australians—taking your money because he doesn't care. Even when things are really economically tough, he's over there trying to sell this rubbish. The states' major parties have a nasty habit of designing electoral laws to feather their own nests—what's new?—while, once again, locking out Independents and microparties. Apparently we shouldn't be in parliament with the swill that lives up here in the background. They're the ones.

In the last election, the primary vote for both major parties fell. At least one-third of Australians didn't vote for you. That's what the South Australian laws are all about. They are designed to favour the major parties, making it harder for people like me to be elected. According to wide reporting, that's exactly what the federal Labor Party's electoral reforms will also do. Minister Don Farrell has been out there spruiking the Labor government's intention to bring electoral reforms to the federal parliament. All he is doing is selling a dud to Australian voters. It's beyond feral what he's trying to do to you voters out there; I'll be honest with you. Guess who the South Australian Premier's mentor is? Have a guess! It's Minister Farrell. That's right: Minister Farrell and Peter Malinauskas are from the same faction of the South Australian Labor Right. Peter Malinauskas, when it comes to voting reform, is nothing but the muse of Minister Farrell. That's what you South Australians are getting: an absolute dud.

If Minister Farrell takes the same approach to public funding as his protege, Peter Malinauskas, this would mean $254 million of Australian taxpayers' money, while you're out there doing it tough. And these guys over here reckon they know how to win an election. The majority of that money would flow only to the major parties, Australians. If this government is really serious about levelling the playing field, they would jump on board this crossbench bill today because it is fair for all. It's getting to a point where the only way you're going to make it in politics is if you go with one of the major parties or you've got 10 million bucks in your bank account. That's the only way you're going to win a seat unless you're already established as an independent or a microparty. Nobody else is getting in here; you're not even getting a look in. There'll be no more of those preference deals where you can pick up 0.5 per cent and make your way up over the other little microparties. Malcolm Turnbull took that away from you. They took that opportunity away from you as well. There's no way for you to make your way up here.

This bill also tackles truth in political advertising. But, of course, the red team won't see this—absolutely not—and neither will the blue team, because they don't really want more transparency. Transparency's not in their veins; it's just not there. They don't want to make things any fairer for normal Australians to have a shot at getting up here, and making a difference—those with real life experience who haven't come through prestige education making their way up here without earning it. They want to lock down their power with your taxpayer dollars; that's what they want to do with your dollars, Australians, at an economic time like this. What a disgrace!

The majors tried this before in 2013. But, backbenchers, I remind you once again—and it's a worse economic situation now—the backlash from the public was absolutely outrageous. They were absolutely outraged, and you dropped it. If you think it was bad back then, try your luck today. Imagine all of us—the teals, the Independents and the Greens—putting in $10,000 or $20,000 each and running ad after ad in newspapers for weeks. Imagine how much damage that would do to you. I'll tell you what, there's talk of it; we'll do it. I'll chuck my 20 grand in; I'm happy to. I'll tell Australians the truth. I'll be open and honest with them, because that is what they expect. That's what I'll do. As Laura Tingle and Phil Coorey wrote back in 2013:

Both major parties have suffered a fierce public backlash after it was revealed on Monday night they had been secretly negotiating for more than a year a package of donation reforms which also included the generous extra public funding.

A few months ago I asked Minister Farrell if he had done a deal with the coalition to pass legislation that would effectively lock in electoral laws that would financially benefit majors. He said no. If Minister Farrell was telling the truth then he should show the Australian public he's fair dinkum and back in this bill. If he doesn't, the small amount of faith Australians still have in the major parties will keep falling and voters will turn in ever greater numbers to Independents and micros. Be my guest; try your luck. I'm keen. Bring on your bill; let's see what you've got. Let's see how the public feels about that. We will fight you out there and press at every turn. And, if you think that's going to win you more seats in the next election, once again, be my guest.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.