Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024; Second Reading

Waters criticised the lack of parliamentary inquiry and the rushed process, describing the legislation as a deal between major parties to protect their interests. Waters argued that the amended disclosure threshold of $5,000 and donation cap of $50,000 reduced transparency compared to the original bill. Waters highlighted concerns that loopholes allowed significant spending by vested interests through membership fees and opposed the bill for entrenching incumbency. Waters moved an amendment calling for an inquiry into funding elements and the separation of transparency measures.

McGrath supported the bill, stating it upheld principles of fair elections and equal treatment of political participants. McGrath argued that the $800,000 per electorate spending cap was reasonable and prevented excessive spending by independent candidates funded by vested interests. McGrath noted that the reforms would not apply to the 2025 election, giving parties time to adjust to the new regulations. McGrath emphasised that the legislation protected democracy from undue influence while maintaining a level playing field.

Thorpe argued that the bill was a stitch-up by major parties to cement their power and disadvantage independent candidates and diverse voices. Thorpe contended that the legislation failed to address corporate influence and instead increased public funding for major parties while imposing spending caps on individuals. Thorpe highlighted that the bill did not go through a Senate inquiry, denying proper scrutiny. Thorpe moved an amendment noting the bill's length, lack of scrutiny, and unfair advantages for incumbents.

Pocock argued that the bill did not remove big money from politics but rather increased taxpayer funding for major parties while creating loopholes for unlimited spending. Pocock pointed out that administrative funding did not count towards spending caps, rendering them ineffective for major parties. Pocock criticised the definition of gifts for excluding subscriptions and levies, allowing continued corporate influence. Pocock stated the bill suppressed competition and disadvantaged independent candidates lacking party infrastructure.

Fawcett managed the procedural stages of the debate, putting the questions on amendments moved by the Greens, One Nation, and Senator Thorpe. Fawcett noted that Senator Thorpe's amendment was not circulated within the required timeframe and could only be considered by leave. Fawcett facilitated the voting process, leading to the rejection of the amendments and the subsequent passage of the bill's second reading.