Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. This bill responds to this parliament's inquiry, conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, into the 2022 election. An inquiry into our electoral laws is conducted after every election, which is right and proper. These inquiries consider both the performance of the electoral system and its legislation following an electoral event and whether changes are required to keep our electoral regulations consistent with the current and practices. These inquiries are conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and are some of the most in-depth and detailed work of the parliament. I want to thank my colleague Senator McGrath, a veteran of this committee over several parliaments, for his work in contributing to the committee's deliberations.

The bill that was introduced by the government last year seeks to implement recommendations from that committee's work, which the assistant minister referred to as being 'multipartisan'—but not multipartisan in the agreement of the recommendations of that the committee and its inquiry. Coalition members of that committee reflected our positions when they provided a dissenting report to that committee's work on several occasions. As coalition members stated, the coalition believes that any proposed electoral changes should support our system of fair, open and transparent elections which treat all political participants equally. Our system must encourage political participation that protects freedoms of speech, belief, association and thought. No participant should have fear of retribution for their belief or their support. The coalition believes those who join or actively support political parties, like those who support civil society movements or not-for-profit organisations, do so on the basis of sincerely held beliefs and a genuine desire to participate in their democratic society. Members of established political parties are not less worthy than those who support other forms of political campaigning, movements or civil causes. Changes to regulations at federal and state levels of government have increased the regulatory burden on political parties, making it harder for grassroots participation. This is not a good outcome for democratic participation in Australia. Financially stable political parties with active membership representing the broad political spectrum are important foundations for a healthy democracy. The governing legislative and regulatory framework for political parties should ultimately encourage grassroots participation, not make it harder.

This bill looks to implement recommendations 1 to 10 of the joint standing committee's interim report that was tabled in June 2023. Recommendation 1 proposed to lower the disclosure threshold of donations to $1,000. As the coalition stated in the response to the committee's report, we are concerned there must be a balance between privacy and transparency. We've seen the political intimidation by some in the community recently and often on the offices of parliamentarians. Any threshold should not be a discouragement to participation in the electoral system, where there is any fear of intimidation or retribution from the publication of the support of political parties or particular candidates. The Grattan Institute argued for a higher threshold of $5,000, noting this important balance. They stated that this would protect the privacy of small donors and keep administrative costs manageable, while ensuring that all donations that are big enough to matter are on the public record. The opposition notes that the government has taken on board many concerns of the proposed changes, including that of the Grattan Institute, and will move to amend the bill to raise the threshold to $5,000. The opposition supports this change, noting that it is a sensible compromise and acknowledging that the Prime Minister himself has advocated for a threshold of $1,000 for some time.

Recommendations 4, 5 and 6 of the interim report are also reflected in the bill's schedules. These propose to introduce donations, known in the legislation as gifts, and expenditure caps to the electoral system. The bill originally proposed to introduce a donation cap of $20,000 each year, indexed annually, which would apply to an individual donor whether they are a person or an entity. On expenditure, the bill proposes to introduce a cap of $90 million for each political party, and a cap of $800,000 would apply to expenditure by any party or candidate in an individual electorate. A Senate cap would apply for a state or territory that will be valued at the number of electorates in that jurisdiction. The key concern for coalition members through the process of the committee's inquiry on this matter was that caps be applied fairly and equitably. The ability to set caps of donations for the Commonwealth system, which has never had this limitation, is new ground and may well require review. The opposition notes that the government is intending to move amendments that will lift this cap to $50,000, and we will support this change.

Another important aspect of the government's legislation is that it will capture political entities outside parties and candidates. As Professor George Williams stated on the potential loopholes with caps when he appeared before the joint standing committee:

Unless we actually have a holistic regime, people will set up the equals, whether they be charities, third parties or the like. We need to make sure that they are equally covered with appropriate caps, disclosure and the like. Otherwise, we'll just end up with the electoral fundraising and the fight moving from parties to third parties.

We welcome the review of the government that these caps should also apply to significant third parties, associated entities and third parties who will be subject to expenditure of $11.25 million annually, with other limits at electorate, state and territory levels. Recommendations 2, 3 and 7 of JSCEM's inquiry are being implemented through measures to implement faster disclosure timeframes. These also alter the definition of a gift under the electoral law and establish a system of common accounting for Commonwealth campaign accounts. These recommendations were all supported in principle by the coalition members, and we see merit in these as improvements to the current system's integrity.

The opposition notes that these changes will not take effect until after the upcoming election. This may enable further issues to be considered by the next parliament. The government has worked with all parties and members, including the opposition, to improve this legislation. While this is not the electoral reform that we would have brought forward, and while some parts do remain of concern, we note and appreciate that the amendments that have been brought forward address the concerns around the potential impacts of the proposed laws. Our electoral system and our electoral legislation is complex and intricate. Changes should rightly be made with care, and the devil is always in the detail.

I want to thank the minister and his staff for working constructively to remove as many of those devils as could be found. In particular, I want to thank the minister's chief of staff, Ben Rillo, and the department for working through dense and complex drafting. If you'd indulge me, I'd also like to thank opposition staff who have worked on this legislation, particularly those out of my own office and that of Senator McGrath's, particularly Hughston Parle and John Harris. I'd also particularly like to thank those staff from the leader's office, who have put in long hours to check and recheck the implications of this bill, in particular Michelle Hutchinson and Mike Horner. This legislation represents some very significant changes to the electoral system in Australia, and, like all changes, they've been made in good faith with a bipartisan approach to ensure that our electoral system remains, to the extent that it ever can be, above politics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, withdraw.

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

My apologies—not some lies that have been promulgated and been put on the nightly news and every damn billboard you see as you drive down any road. We will keep pushing for the lobbying code of conduct to be strengthened, because it is a joke. It is an actual joke. Lobbyists run this place, and ministers who formerly were meant to have regulated an industry have left this parliament and gone off to work for the very same industry in five seconds flat. It doesn't breach anything, and that is a complete joke. We need a five-year cooling-off period for ministers. Otherwise, these industries have their claws into our democracy, and it is not right.

My second reading amendment calls on the government to split the transparency measures and the truth-in-political-advertising measures off and to pass those ones pronto. They are good disclosure provisions, and they are good protections for the public against lies. You can't lie to a consumer about what's in the tin of some grocery product they're buying, but you're allowed to lie to them about what your policy platform is or what you opponent's policy platform is. It's pathetic.

We call again for an inquiry into the funding elements of this bill, to allow proper scrutiny. This is the dodgiest deal that I've seen done between these two big parties in my 14 or 15 years here—however long I've been here. This is it, folks. When they're going down in the polls, this is all they've got. They don't have policies to help you. They've got policies to help each other. I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) any legislation to deliver electoral reforms must strengthen democracy and not just the political fortunes of the major parties,

(ii) the Greens are concerned that the proposed reforms entrench incumbency advantages that stack outcomes in favour of the two-party system, and

(iii) the Greens continue to advocate for genuine electoral reform including getting big money out of politics, banning donations from fossil fuel corporations and other social harm industries, implementing truth in political advertising laws, strengthening the Lobbying Code of Conduct and enforcing longer post-parliamentary cooling-off periods for Ministers before they go to work for industries they were regulating; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) separate the transparency measures in this bill so that Parliament can pass them as a matter of urgency, and

(ii) support an inquiry into the funding elements of the bill to allow for democratic scrutiny of its provisions".

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

I rise to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. Elections matter. None of us would be here without an election. I speak as a former chair and current deputy chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I speak as someone who volunteered on my first campaign when I was 15 years old and still at school in Toowoomba. I speak as someone who has spent most of their working life fighting the Left and campaigning for a civil, civic and considered conservativism. I was raised on the belief that politics, voting and elections are part of our civic duty. I also speak as someone who's probably forgotten more about elections and election law than some in this chamber can claim to actually know.

We are blessed to live in one of the world's oldest and most successful democracies. I know that because I've worked in some of the world's newest democracies. Our country works because over the years a lot of people, paid and unpaid, have worked to make it so. Countless Australians have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our democracy and our inherent freedoms that shield us from the dark. The coalition therefore holds that any electoral changes that will impact upon this very special country ought to be assessed on the following four core principles: fair, open and transparent elections; equal treatment of all political participants; freedom of political communication and participation without fear of retribution; and the 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 effectiveness of the Australian Electoral Commission, the federal government and political participants more broadly to satisfy and uphold these four principles. Ensuring that Australians have continued faith in the electoral system is paramount to Australia's faith in its institutions of government and indeed to the very notion of Australia. As such, when assessing legislative proposals, the coalition will always do so through the lens of upholding its four principles to promote a free and fair liberal democracy.

We will look at the amendments moved by the government on this legislation to see if they address some of the concerns that we had with the original bill. The bill will introduce a lower disclosure threshold for Commonwealth elections, real-time disclosure of donations, caps on gifts to political parties and caps on expenditure for political parties. The electoral reforms have a planned commencement date from 2026, which means the laws would not apply for the 2025 general election. That is important. It is very important that we provide political actors with the time required for these laws. We do not support rushed attempts to force these provisions to come into effect in the heat of an election campaign. We should be vigilant in remembering that the Liberal National Party, my party, like other political parties, is run not by faceless ghouls but by volunteers—men and women who see their involvement in a political party as a civil duty akin to their service in other community groups and who have a strong desire to leave their community, their state and their country in a better place than was bequeathed to them. So, while the Queensland voters are my boss, it is the volunteer branch members of my party who give their all so I can stand up for their values.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act is extremely complex, and, with significant reform, we must give all political participants, like my volunteer branch members, time to adjust before the reforms come into effect. We do not want unintended consequences of these changes that could hinder Australians joining political parties or act as a handbrake on party political participation. I have long spoken in this chamber about the inconsistent approach of the intelligentsia, who regard members of mainstream political parties as less worthy than those who support the Greens, the teals or other Climate 200 groups. I would suggest all political participants should be treated equally when it comes to their motivation for joining a party or a cause.

Sadly, the teals and the Greens and their vested, conflicted donors do not share such views. In the last federal election, the teal candidates spent ridiculous amounts of money to win their seats. Monique Ryan spent $2.1 million, Allegra Spender spent $2.1 million, Zoe Daniel spent $1.5 million, Kylea Tink spent $1.3 million and Sophie Scamps spent $1.2 million. This bill would establish an $800,000 cap on spending per seat. So perhaps I can understand why the teals are so upset. It is the teals who are using big money from vested donors to buy elections. The cap for expenditure is a very reasonable upper limit, but still the teals say they cannot support it. The teals have argued that $800,000 sounds good but only for major parties. If you are a minor party or a so-called Independent—remembering that teals are not independent; they're a part of the teal political movement—you should be able to spend more than that. That is not how Australia's democracy operates. All political participants should be treated equally; otherwise you will have a teal coloured gerrymander being brought into Australia. As a former campaign director, I can say to the teals that, if they can't get their message out in a seat with $800,000, then they need to look at their message or they need to look at what they are spending that money on.

This bill takes power away from vested interests and puts limitations on the likes of Simon Holmes a Court by implementing a donation cap. As such, the coalition will consider the amendments but notes that the contents of this bill are not inconsistent with our four core principles. In my foreword to the 2020 JSCEM report into the 2019 election, I noted:

We sleep safely in our beds protected from the claws of the banality of evil because we—

voters—

decide who governs.

We should never forget that we owe it to the voters to have a fit-for-purpose democracy. The coalition supports this bill on that basis.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, what hypocrisy we're hearing here today. We have all the government amendments coming in for a bill that we're about to vote on—the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. Good one, Labor! Shame on you again.

What I'm about to say echoes the concerns of other Independents and minor parties—namely, that these so-called electoral reforms are a massive stitch-up by the major parties to cement their power and influence. We've got to keep the two old white guys running against each other every election!

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, withdraw.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why? Can't I say 'white guys'?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, you are not in a debate with me. Just withdraw the comment.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What am I withdrawing, though? Can you explain what I've said wrong? Am I not allowed to say 'two old white guys'?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, withdraw the comments, please.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But can you explain what is wrong with saying 'two old white guys'?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is unparliamentary.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not unparliamentary.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, you are not in a debate with me. If you don't withdraw, I will be left with a choice to withdraw the call from you. I don't want to do that. You have a right to be heard. But you must—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw from the colony. What I'm about to say—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, I've asked you to withdraw.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw to you, President of the colony.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Senator Thorpe.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor—your Labor Party, President— went to the last election promising electoral reforms, giving voters the impression that the days of corporate influence over our political system would be over—you lied—and that the battlers and everyday people would be better represented. You lied.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, I'm going to ask—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was all a lie.

The:

Senator Thorpe, I'm asking you to withdraw once again.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What have I done now?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, the use of the word 'lie' is unparliamentary. It is well tested. I'd like you to withdraw.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

 That was all dishonest—very dishonest of Labor. It was very, very dishonest. It was dishonest to the voters out there, who think that the two major parties are the way to go when they are rorting the system every day here and siding with each other to scrape the bottom of the barrel and try to pass legislation tonight because you stitched it up. You got in bed together to disallow Independents, people of colour and the battlers out there from being represented in this place. This was done by your masters of the colony—one for the Labor Party and one for the Liberal Party. They're masters of the colony. You want to maintain the white supremacy of the colony.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, withdraw.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which part now?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not going to repeat what you have said.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'White supremacy'?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, withdraw. I think you've been a senator long enough now to know what is acceptable in this chamber and what is not. I've asked you to withdraw.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wasn't asked to withdraw 'white supremacy' the other day. Why is it—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I'm the President, and I'm asking you to withdraw it. If you don't withdraw it, I will withdraw the call, and I don't want to do that. You are entitled to have a say.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. I'll be a good little blackfella like the ones in your party. The bill before us does offer—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, you've made a further derogatory comment against senators—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I'm not a good little blackfella.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, I will withdraw the call. I've asked you to withdraw the first comment you've made, and now I'm asking you to withdraw—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But you're not even explaining.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, I am not—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're not even explaining, President. Every other person that sits in that chair explains the situation.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, I will withdraw the call and ask that you no longer be heard. You're not in a debate with me. I'm the President of this chamber. I've asked you, on two occasions, to withdraw. Simply withdraw.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you—for the first offence. And, for the derogatory comment you made towards Labor senators, there's a second withdrawal.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of clarification, President: what was the first thing that I was asked to withdraw for?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, I've said to you a number of times I do not intend to repeat your offensive words. I've asked you to withdraw them.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. And before you continue—

Senator, withdraw that comment.

Senator Thorpe, withdraw that comment.

I would hope that that is the role of your staff. Please withdraw the comment.

I want you to withdraw before you go on.

Senator Thorpe, just a moment. I don't think broadcasting is on. So I would ask—is that what you were—

Yes, sure. Thank you. We'll make sure it's broadcast. Thank you, Senator.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where do I begin? I mean, the microphone's been turned off because I said 'white supremacy' and I said 'gammon', and I got shut down—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and I've never been told that—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe! You are repeating offences I've asked you to withdraw. I draw your attention now to standing order 203, particularly those parts about senators refusing to conform to the standing orders and disregarding my authority. Do not repeat those offences. I'm, again, asking you to withdraw.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw to the President of this place, which is on stolen land.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Thorpe.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to start again. What I'm about to say echoes the concerns of other Independents and minor parties—namely, that these so-called electoral reforms are a massive stitch-up by the major parties to cement their power and influence in the colony.

Labor went to the last election promising electoral reforms, giving voters the impression that the days of corporate influence over our political system would be over, that the battlers and everyday people would be better represented. 'That was dishonest!' said the President. The bill before us does offer some small, positive changes to give these pretend Labor and Liberal politicians some talking points to distract and gaslight the public into thinking this is a good bill. But that is not the truth.

The bill goes some way to limit influence from major donors, with donation caps and more transparency around political donations, by lowering the disclosure threshold. But it also brings in a suite of measures to make the whole system more undemocratic and less representative of the people in this country. Look at this place! When you walk outside, this place does not represent the people out there. Look how white this place is.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, I ask you to withdraw once again. Please don't refer to senators in that way.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't refer to senators. I just said 'this place'.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and I'm asking you to withdraw.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The white part?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I have asked you, on about four occasions, not to repeat the offence.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This spits in the face of voters and is not in their best interests. The government is even refusing to put this bill through an inquiry process, which is a standard parliamentary procedure. This should be an absolute necessity for a bill which will dramatically change electoral and policy outcomes for everyone in this country. This bill gives more public funding to parties and incumbents. We're in a cost-of-living crisis. You're all paying each other.

It makes it much harder for new and independent candidates to run election campaigns—and you know that—particularly those that cannot front up large sums to run election campaigns, and you know that too. We don't have mates like Gina. Who do you think those people will be? Gina's mates. And the ones who are grassroots, from the community, those people coming from more diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds? Forget it! Not with Gina's mates here! Not the ones who would actually be more representative of a large share of this country's population. It locks out candidates who would actually fight for country, people, equality and justice, who understand that, while the politicians play games and hoard more power and wealth, people on the ground are starving—starving! Youse are all in your little money pits with all your donors and your mates.

President! President, attention! I'm being heckled here by a well-known, convicted racist.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, once again, withdraw.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She's attacking me, and you weren't watching.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, once again, withdraw.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. Can you please pull up this person.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind Senator Hanson—I didn't hear the interjections; they are hard to hear up here—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course they are. Thank you.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, I haven't finished yet, and I haven't yet given you back the call.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. Thanks.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, every senator in here has been heard in silence. I would ask that Senator Thorpe have that same opportunity. Please continue, Senator Thorpe.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It locks out candidates who would actually fight for country, people, equality and justice, who understand that, while the politicians play games and hoard more power and wealth, people on the ground are starving. They're having trouble accessing medications, housing, education and many other basics, which you people wouldn't understand. Why is it that after over 200 years of the so-called civilisation of colonisation, this gammon government can't even—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe: withdraw.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government—I withdraw 'gammon'—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, you are persistently and wilfully refusing to conform to the standing orders and disregarding the authority of me as the President. I ask you again to come to order and not to repeat remarks which you know are offensive. I am a long way down with standing order 203, Senator Thorpe, and I would not want you to miss the opportunity to make a contribution. But I am warning you: this is not a game. Every senator in here is expected to conform to the standing orders. That includes you.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Can I move on?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks. Why is it that after over 200 years of the so-called civilisation of colonisation, this 'g' government—bleep, bleep, bleep—can't even figure out how to make sure children are fed? How is that not the No. 1 priority? That shows you exactly the values of a government that is more interested in its own survival than that of the people.

In addition to spending caps, which will disadvantage independent candidates who don't have the broader advertising and campaign infrastructure that political parties have, the expenditure cap would still allow country-wide political parties to spend up to $90 million on broad political advertisements. How can an Independent keep up with that, especially someone from a non-wealthy background who hasn't stolen any land? For many, running for office means putting their careers and livelihoods on hold, a stark reminder that the opportunity to serve is not a universal right but a privilege afforded only to those with big cash and powerful mates.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out that the measures in the bill may increase the relative monetary power of incumbents and bigger parties and disproportionately impact people with particular protected attributes who are already underrepresented by major political parties, such as women or ethnic minority groups. The committee pointed out that this might limit the right to equality and nondiscrimination in this country. The Scrutiny of Bills report also pointed out that this bill may impact representative government by negatively affecting the diversity of opinions, arguments and other political matters that can be in electoral communications.

This would be a further violation of our basic rights in a country where we already only have limited right to take part in public affairs. This right is supposed to include a guarantee of the right of citizens to stand for public office, to vote in elections and to have access to positions in public service. However, section 44 of the colonial Constitution prohibits those with dual citizenship to stand for federal political office, thereby possibly excluding up to half of the population unless they renounce ties with the other country. This is in a country which, apparently, prides itself on multiculturalism. Any further hurdles put in the way of diverse representation, like those proposed by this bill, need to be avoided by all means.

This bill basically means that many of us don't fit into the middle-class, white-Australian picture and we will be less likely to have real representation in this place. Have a look at it! It says it all. So many of us already don't feel represented by the major parties and their assimilation practices. We want our representatives to be able to speak freely and vote along their conscience. People in the community want parliamentarians to stand up for them, not just a tired old backbencher twiddling their thumbs, taking orders and asking 'How high?' when they are told to jump.

The disappointment with the political status quo is exactly why the Independent and minor party vote has grown over the last decade, and that's what the major parties are scared of. They're scared of the crossbench because we demand transparency and accountability, but these are basic and essential democratic measures and we owe this to the voters. This term alone has shown, so many times, that the crossbench contributes to better policy outcomes through bringing a diverse lens to negotiations, listening to communities and stakeholders—they fall on deaf ears with the major parties—and ensuring that they are being heard. That is the very heart of representative democracy.

This bill is a done deal between the major parties and is being rushed through parliament, explicitly because they know it is so flawed and they're so ashamed of it themselves and it's in breach of basic democratic rights. I want to make clear to everyone here and all voters out there that this bill represents an erosion of democratic principles, participation and representation. This is why I'm proposing to rename it the 'Sham Democracy Bill', because at least that would tell people the truth about what they're up for.

For the record, I would like to see the majority of the politicians in this place recognise how out of touch they really are and give their seats to someone who deserves it and who will actually use it for good. The younger generation know the way. Give it to them. There are too many people that have been here for way too long, crusty—and all the rest of it. I don't want to get in trouble again. After all that, I foreshadow my second reading amendment.

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

Clearly, after the government said to the crossbench they were interested in consulting over the summer, and they've used that as leverage with the Libs and managed to convince them that this is in both of their interests—to pass in a guillotine with no scrutiny.

The government claims that this bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024, will get big money out of politics. I'm all for doing that. Politics should be a contest of values, of ideas and of support in our communities, not who can raise the most money or wage the dirtiest campaign. There's been a lot of talk about what I and other first-time Independent candidates spent last election to crack the two-party stranglehold—to have in a handful of seats, for the first time ever, someone who wasn't from the major parties or, in some cases, from a single party. But there hasn't been much talk about what the major parties spent and what they spent in seats that have never gone to anyone else. They would be totally safe seats. We had the Special Minister of State, months ago, in question time, having a go at me about how much I spent in my election campaign. ACT Labor spent $1.24 million; the ACT Liberals spent $1.43 million in a territory where they had never, ever lost a seat, in the safest of seats.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Gallagher, interrupting is disorderly.

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

Both parties also had more than $1 million in receipts. As I said, I'm all for getting big money out of politics, but this bill doesn't get big money out of politics. It will result in more than $80 million worth of additional taxpayer money being spent on the major parties, and that's every single electoral cycle. So it's not actually about less money; it's about Australian taxpayers picking up the bill. More than that, it's about the major parties reducing competition in a desperate attempt to plug the leaking of votes of Australians who see that there are better options. There are other options in the political landscape now. It's a last-gasp attempt to hold back a rising tide of Independents and minor parties. Rather than stepping up and meeting this challenge and reconnecting with the people you should be representing, you're seeking to skew our electoral system even further to your advantage. My hope is that communities will see through this attempt to suppress community voices, and it will fail.

There are so many loopholes built into this bill. They're clearly designed to stifle competition. Senator McGrath made a contribution earlier. I fear that he misunderstands the issues that Independents have with this bill. He talked about a spending cap of $800,000 per electorate and $200,000 per state or territory in the Senate election, but, if you actually look at the details, that is the individual spending cap. If you stack up some of these contests around the country, where you have a first-time Independent, no-name candidate spending $800,000, an incumbent major party candidate spending $800,000, this bill allows the party to then spend basically an unlimited amount of money up to their $90 million national cap to shore up support in that electorate. There could be $800,000 backing the Liberal or Labor candidate by name and $2 million backing the Liberals or Labor—just don't mention the name. That's not a level playing field. It would be a very different conversation if it truly created a level playing field.

The second loophole is that the major parties can receive unlimited transfers from what are now being called 'nominated entities'. In the last election cycle, the coalition accepted nearly $10 million from the Cormack Foundation and the Labor Party accepted around $6 million from Labor Services & Holdings Pty Ltd.

The third loophole is something called administrative funding. Administrative funding can be used for all kinds of party expenditure, but it doesn't count a cent towards spending caps. It basically makes spending caps meaningless. In a briefing with the department when asking about this—basically anyone who isn't directly campaigning isn't counted in your spending. We know the party infrastructure. People organise events and doorknock and do all the other things. That's not counted. So when the government says, 'We've been spending $120 million on elections and we're going down to $90 million,' that's very disingenuous because that $120 million is actually all the in-kind hours that people are putting into it. Now that's not counted. You've essentially said: 'What do we currently spend on elections? Let's get a lot more of that from the taxpayer, and let's ensure that Independents who are trying to challenge us have a very hard time doing it.'

The increase in taxpayer funding is huge. First—and this is one I take real exception to—is for administrative expenses, which don't account for economies of scale and greatly advantage the major parties. You can't tell me that, with $30,000 per MP, at some point you haven't covered your administrative expenses. That should not scale in a linear fashion. For the coalition, who keep telling us they're the party of business and all the rest, you'd surely know that that is not the case. In South Australia I think they cap it at $5,000, which is probably fair enough. With $5,000, that's enough money to do your administrative tasks.

On top of that—others have talked about this—there's taxpayer funding from votes, from three to five bucks per vote.

Finally, the definition of 'gift', which is really a donation, has three pages of exceptions. The major parties say, 'If the gambling industry takes us out for a birthday dinner, that will be a donation,' but if the gambling industry has a subscription to the Federal Labor Business Forum or whoever it might be—no; that's a subscription. The fact that you may get a few dinners here and there is just one of the perks of having a subscription. As I said, there are three pages of exceptions: subscriptions, levies and dozens of other things. I don't see how you can say with a straight face that this is creating a level playing field, particularly given how challenging so many Australians are finding it.

The major parties want to give themselves millions of extra dollars and don't want to accept the responsibility of truth in political advertising. It's very telling that Labor introduced two bills. One they basically shelved—a bill that had the support of the crossbench to pass. Then they do a deal with the coalition that is clearly in their interests. A bill like this not going through a Senate committee process is, I think, tragic and reflects really badly on this Senate. We call it the house of review—that's not for this bill. In the words of Professor Anne Twomey:

Any suggestion that this bill has already been subject to proper scrutiny is completely disingenuous.

Do the major parties want transparency or scrutiny? It seems like what they really want, when it's in their interest, is a stitch-up. This is a sad, sad day for our democracy. You're ramming through electoral reform that's going to reduce competition at a time when Australians want more competition. They want more competition in politics and more competition across our economy. One of my observations is that there are a whole bunch of things that Australians want that the major parties team up to block, like getting more money for the gas that we export and actually transitioning away from fossil fuels. The major parties voted together to expand the fossil fuel industry. Major parties will vote together on gambling reform. You guys totally squibbed scams legislation to actually protect Australians. We had an opportunity to protect Australians being scammed. We've got half-baked legislation that's just passed: mandatory minimum sentencing, things with absolutely no evidence behind them and protecting lobbyists. We should have more regulation around lobbyists. The list goes on and on.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Pocock! Pursuant to order, the time for debate on the second reading of this bill has expired.