Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024

Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Minister for Trade and Tourism, Special Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (21:30): Thank you, Senator Pocock. Again, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree about this issue. If you're a candidate in a lower house seat then you are limited to an expenditure of $800,000.

You're right; there is a total expenditure for the major political parties. But that figure is lower than what the parties have spent in previous elections, and it will certainly be lower than what the parties spend in this election. You'll have seen the rivers of gold, particularly flowing into the teal seats, in this election cycle.

There's going to be a huge amount of money spent at the next election. What this legislation does, and the reason I think you're wrong about your analysis of the benefit for the major parties, is that we're capping the amount of money that the major parties can spend in elections. We are, Senator Pocock.

We're capping the amount of money that political parties can spend in elections. If we were seeking, as has been claimed in the press today, to benefit the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party or the Greens by this legislation, we wouldn't be limiting the amount of money that we can spend; we'd be increasing the amount of money that we can spend vis-a-vis the Independents.

We're taking a haircut—I know you have a haircut from time to time, Senator Pocock. We're taking a haircut, voluntarily, to limit the amount of money that the major parties can spend. For that reason, your argument doesn't follow.

We're limiting the expenditure in the seats. We're also limiting how much the political parties can spend on a broader scale. That, Senator Pocock, is the reason that, I hate to say, your analysis of what this legislation is doing is completely wrong.