Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024; In Committee

Hume sought confirmation that natural persons could not pay subscriptions to peak bodies above the gift cap and that the bill preserved existing National Party affiliation arrangements. Hume questioned whether the expenditure cap disadvantaged independent candidates compared to political parties, noting the per-seat equivalent for major parties was lower than the independent cap. Hume also confirmed that parliamentary resources and volunteer staff costs were excluded from expenditure caps and that disclosure periods would be weekly during campaigns and daily in the final week.

Lambie argued that the bill was an attempt by major parties to limit crossbench representation and questioned the government's mandate for the reforms. Lambie challenged Farrell to explain the specific content of the eight amendments, stating that the chamber had not been given sufficient time to review them. Lambie expressed concern that the legislation would disadvantage ordinary Australians and minor parties by restricting external funding sources while potentially increasing reliance on government electoral funding.

Waters requested a detailed explanation of the amendments, particularly regarding the impact on peak representative bodies like the Minerals Council. Waters questioned whether the amendments allowed large mining companies to contribute significantly higher affiliation fees, potentially exceeding previous caps. Waters asked which organisations Farrell had consulted regarding these changes, noting that the Greens had received the amendments late in the process. Waters expressed appreciation for the eventual rundown of the amendments but remained concerned about the potential for increased corporate influence.

Pocock questioned whether the Australian Electoral Commission had advised on the complexity of the new laws and whether modelling had been conducted on the impact for new parties. Pocock argued that the legislation did not create a level playing field, as major parties could still spend significantly on administrative costs and party promotion without mentioning specific candidates. Pocock cited departmental briefings suggesting loopholes for incumbents and questioned the basis for the proposed expenditure caps, noting that successful independent campaigns had previously operated with much lower budgets.

Rennick argued that the bill disadvantaged minor parties and ordinary Australians by capping external donations while maintaining a four per cent threshold for government electoral funding. Rennick suggested that the government might increase the dollar value per vote to compensate for the loss of external funding, thereby monopolising electoral finance. Rennick proposed reducing the funding threshold to one per cent to help minor parties cover registration and campaign costs, arguing that the current bill choked off support for smaller political entities.

McGrath stated that the coalition opposed late amendments related to voter integrity measures, such as voter ID, because they had not been socialised with the opposition. McGrath confirmed that the coalition continued to support strengthening electoral integrity through voter identification requirements. McGrath asked Farrell to confirm whether the Labor Party had plans to implement further voter integrity measures, characterising the proposed changes as voter discouragement rather than integrity enhancements.

Hanson argued that the bill was a cash grab by major parties that failed to reduce election costs, citing rising expenses for recent elections and referendums. Hanson contended that the spending caps and compliance funding structures disadvantaged minor parties and independents, who could not compete with the resources of established parties. Hanson also raised concerns about undisclosed union funding for the Labor Party and questioned the fairness of the proposed reforms.

Cadell asked for clarification on how administrative funding would be distributed if a party disaffiliated or ran non-affiliated candidates. Cadell sought to understand the specific funding arrangements for such scenarios under the proposed legislation.

Pocock challenged the minister's claim that independents supported the bill and questioned whether the legislation adequately addressed the compliance costs for new entrants. Pocock argued that the spending caps did not create a true level playing field, as major parties could still spend significant amounts on party promotion without mentioning specific candidates. Pocock also sought confirmation that no additional administrative funding was provided for new candidates to meet disclosure requirements.

Lambie asked the minister to confirm whether he had suggested that the proposed changes were designed to solidify the two-party system and exclude rivals. Lambie cited media reports of a meeting with Simon Holmes a Court concerning the effect of the donation laws.

Waters inquired whether the bill included a provision for an independent statutory review, noting that stakeholders had expressed a desire for such a mechanism. Waters asked if the government had dropped this provision to secure support from the Liberal Party.

Roberts indicated that he had changed his vote on amendment SC136 from support to oppose. This amendment related to increasing the donation cap from $20,000 to $50,000.

Payman requested that her support for the amendments on sheet 3309 be recorded in the Journals. These amendments were part of the government's circulated changes.

McLachlan presented amendments from the United Australia Party concerning schedules 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the bill. The chamber agreed to oppose these specific elements as circulated. McLachlan then moved a further question regarding remaining amendments on sheets 3188, 3189, 3192, and 3218, which included provisions to abolish public funding and introduce voter identification requirements. This broader question was negatived.

Roberts requested that his vote be recorded as in favour of amendment sheet 3218. Roberts also sought to have his vote recorded as in favour of amendment sheets 3197 and 3190.

Thorpe recorded support for amendment sheet 3196.

Payman requested that support be recorded for amendment sheet 3196.