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) (21:34): Thank you, Senator Pocock for your question. Coming back to your preamble, I don't know how I am going to explain to you, but you are simply wrong in your— Senator David Pocock interjecting— Senator FARRELL: You are simply wrong in your analysis.
Senator David Pocock interjecting— Senator FARRELL: Senator Pocock, I will put my arguments against yours any day of the week. I actually think the Australian population will have come to the conclusion that too much money is being spent on elections. They will know this government and the opposition and anyone else who now chooses to come on board—there is still time to come on board—are putting downward pressure on the cost of elections.
Can I refer to that great American president, President Biden. In his final speech, he talked about the oligarchy of the billionaires controlling the American political system. I hate to say it, but that's the direction that our system is heading.
It doesn't matter whether you're a conservative-aligned billionaire or a progressive-aligned billionaire, we can't have a situation where the only people who get elected to this parliament are people who are supported by billionaires. It just can't work for democracy. What I'm saying to you, Senator Pocock, is this is incontrovertible.
This is a plain outright fact: at the next election, when this legislation applies, the major parties will have cut their ability to spend money by 30 per cent. This is not a bill that increases the advantage of the major parties but a bill where major parties are cutting back. Senator David Pocock interjecting— Senator FARRELL: Well, it's the truth.
Honourable senators interjecting— The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Pratt ): Senators, you've asked the question; the minister is answering. Senator FARRELL: Stay sitting up, please, Senator Pocock. If you look at the legislation, I'm happy to go through it after the legislation goes through tonight.
I'm happy to sit down with you again, if you are still of the view that I'm wrong on this point. But the major political parties, for the first time since Federation, since this legislation came into force, are limiting their ability to spend money at the next election. I know it is so attractive when you have access to these rivers of gold that are coming from all the billionaires and millionaires to keep that coming.
I know that's attractive. I'm sure it might be attractive to the Liberal Party and to the Labor Party, but we are saying, 'No, we're not going to take that money anymore.' We are going to self-limit the amount of money that we are going to take from donors. Senator Lambie interjecting— Senator FARRELL: Senator Lambie, it's a good thing that this legislation is passing.
I'm not sure if you're still running candidates in lower house seats. I know you are running candidates in the Senate in South Australia. We are self-limiting the amounts of money.
That's the first time in Australian political history that any party has proposed that, and it's a good thing for Australian democracy. I think the Australian people will get behind this legislation. In fact, I think most of them would think, 'Geez, I wish that was applying this election, so we don't have to wait for it for another three years.' Senator Lambie interjecting — Senator FARRELL: If you want to move an amendment for it to start applying from this election, I'll give that some consideration, Senator Lambie.
But this is an historic piece of legislation. The major parties are limiting the money that they're going to spend at the election after next. They've put downward pressure on the cost of elections, and that's good for ordinary Australians.
It's good for ordinary Australians who want to participate in the electoral process, because it gives them a chance. It gives them a chance. They don't have to be beholden to a millionaire or billionaire.
They can have a crack at a lower-house seat. They can, for the first time, Senator Pocock. Was it $2.1 million that you spent at the last election, Senator Pocock?
In the whole history of ACT Senate— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Pocock, on a point of order only. Senator David Pocock: Yes—misleading the Senate. You can't just make numbers up.
I'm happy to hear the facts of it, but you can't just pull numbers out. Senator FARRELL: They are the facts. I hate to say it.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Pocock, on a point of order. Senator David Pocock: A point of order for misleading the Senate. I'd ask him to withdraw.
It was $1.7 million. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I'm not the adjudicator of the facts. Minister, you have the call.
I ask you not to mislead the Senate with facts that are beyond your knowledge. You can continue. Senator Lambie?
Senator Lambie: I'm just wondering, if that is evidence, can you please table that to the Senate, effective immediately? Thank you. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That was a question, Senator Lambie, not a point of order.
The minister was on his feet, and I will give him the indulgence. He's able to continue his reply. Senator FARRELL: Just so I'm clear, Senator Pocock, you say the figure is $1.7 million, not $2.1 million.
Is that your point? Let's accept that. For the point of argument tonight, let's accept your figure of $1.7 million.
In the whole history of time of elections in the Australian Capital Territory, no Senate candidate has ever spent anything like $1.7 million to get themselves elected. No candidate has ever, ever done that. Senator David Pocock interjecting— Senator FARRELL: Labor, the Liberals or the Greens have never spent $1.7 million to get themselves elected.
Good luck to you. I'm not complaining. They were the rules back then.
You complied with the rules, and you got yourself elected. But what I say is that, if you want ordinary Australians—people like Senator Urquhart, here, who are very ordinary; extraordinary, I should say! I'll pick some ordinary people.
Senator McGrath, he's volunteered. He is a very, very ordinary person. I can tell you that.
Ordinary people like him should be able to stand and project their crazy views about— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator FARRELL: No, he should be able to put himself up to the electorate and say, 'Please vote for me, because I've got these ideas, however crazy those ideas might be.' But not everybody, Senator Pocock, has access to $1.7 million, and then there's the other Senator Pocock—I bet she didn't spend anything like $1.7 million to get herself elected.
She went out there— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Point of order, Senator Hanson? Senator Hanson: Because we're lacking time, and the clock is running down to actually get some questions answered, I'd ask the minister to stop waffling on, running down the clock and answer the questions. If not, let the other people ask their questions.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson, you can seek the call once the minister has finished using his allotted time, based on the question that he was asked. He's still running down the clock. Do you have a point of order, Senator Lambie?
Senator Lambie: I'm just wondering if he's finishing his answer. I'm sorry, I thought he'd answered the question. Is it finished?
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I will return the call to the minister, and he can advise us, based on the two minutes left on the clock, how much of his answer he still has to go. Senator FARRELL: Senator, I know you're embarrassed by that figure, so I won't labour the point any longer.