12 November 2024
The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:57): I rise to speak in favour of the Electoral (Accountability and Integrity) Amendment Bill and indicate that the Greens will be supporting this bill. I want to start by saying how excited I am that we are finally at this point. It is interesting timing for me. If you will forgive me on a brief indulgence, this week is actually my 10th anniversary in frontline SA politics. I was elected to the Adelaide City Council back in November 2014. As you know, I went into the Senate before I came here.
One of the issues that I have consistently campaigned on is the need to get money out of politics, to end its corrosive influence on our democracy, and indeed this has been a core mission of the Greens for many years in this place. After all, in our democracy, he who pays the piper so often plays the tune. If we are going to tackle the inequality crisis and the climate crisis that is gripping our state, we need to get money out of politics and end the undue influence of vested interest groups, groups that are strangling our democracy.
In Town Hall, I pushed for a developer contact register to log councillor contact with developers, which was opposed by the Team Adelaide faction. Here in the state parliament, I have moved to amend the Local Government Act to move towards continual disclosure of donations to candidates. I have also pushed for the publication of ministerial diaries and, of course, reforms to crack down on government advertising. The fight for those things continues, but today is a positive step forward. This is a reform that has the capacity to really strengthen our democracy.
The bill not only reduces the capacity for vested interests to potentially influence our decision-makers by making donations, it also reduces the capacity of these groups to exert undue influence over election campaigns, pouring huge amounts of money into election campaigns in an effort to sway election outcomes. We have seen examples of that here in our state in the past and I will highlight some of those examples for the benefit of Hansard.
When the government first introduced this proposal back in June, the Greens indicated that we would carefully consider the details of the bill and that the devil would always be in the detail. We have spent many months working through the details with the government. We undertook our own consultation with stakeholder groups, including the Centre for Public Integrity and SACOSS, and we have also sought the advice of legal academics; indeed, I have met with a few constitutional law experts to seek their views on the bill that the government put forward.
I also sought the views of Greens SA party members and supporters via an online survey. I received many responses to the survey and the respondents encompassed a broad cross-section of Greens SA members, extending from those who are active at grassroots level to our office bearers to members whose involvement is limited to simply donating to the Greens or volunteering on election day. There was strong support for restricting donations and further regulation and compliance requirements for political parties and third-party campaigners.
Overwhelmingly, members of the Greens indicated to me that they supported a ban on donations to political parties from harmful industries in particular, and also regulations on third-party campaigners to limit their spending. It is clear that members wanted us to work with the government to improve this bill and to secure its passage through the parliament; indeed, that is what I have attempted to do in engaging with the government over the last few months.
Like Greens rank-and-file members, one of the issues that I was most concerned about in the government's original draft was the lack of regulation of third-party campaigners and interest groups. I did not want to see the emergence of US-style super PACs here in South Australia, and this has been a long-term concern of the Greens. If we turned off the tap for political donations to political parties there was, under the government's previous proposal, the potential for these groups outside of the parliament to have a disproportionate impact on our elections—because, of course, there would be nothing that political parties could do to be able to compete with those sorts of campaigns.
This was a key issue that stakeholders raised and one that the Greens raised with the government in our negotiations, so I am very pleased that the government agreed to improvements to the bill in that regard. As a result of these discussions, the government has agreed to impose a limit of $450,000 on statewide spending by lobby organisations. That is a $60,000 cap on expenditure in lower house seats for lobby groups and a $5,000 cap on donations to individuals by these groups. These third-party organisations or lobby groups will be required to register prior to incurring political expenditure. Exemptions for some of the work of civil society groups and charities have also been negotiated and that means that they will be able to carry on their important work without being unduly impacted by this new regulatory regime.
There is also going to be an advance post-election funding scheme. A reduction in the threshold for receipt of public funding for Legislative Council candidates from 4 per cent to 2 per cent has been proposed, allowing Legislative Council minor parties that have two members to be able to draw up to 50 per cent of their advance funding entitlement at the next election. We will also have some access to additional administrative funding and there will also be an increase in donation cap amounts for new entrants from $2,700 to $5,000. I consider that to be an important change because I note the concerns that have been expressed by some members around the potential impact on new and emerging players.
I do agree the last thing we want to do through this new regime is actually discourage new people from getting into our political system. But, might I say, I think giving new candidates the opportunity to accept $5,000 donations does mean that they are still able to build a base for themselves and compete at an election. They will also have access, potentially, to some advance funding as well. Again, I think that is a good thing, and I would imagine most donations that small emerging parties receive or, indeed, individual candidates receive would not be in excess of $5,000 in any case, so that is a positive improvement.
There has also been a switch to a decreasing marginal rate model for operational funding, which will provide adjusted funding for additional party members. As I mentioned before, a political party like the Greens that has two members will get a little bit more funding in recognition of the fact that a party like the Greens might have additional operating expenses. I should indicate that the Greens, in our negotiations with the government, made our financial statements available to the government. In the spirit of transparency, we made our statements available to them, and they have taken those into consideration in framing this model.
Critically though, as the Hon. Mr Pangallo has identified, there will be a statutory review that will occur after the next election. This is a significant undertaking, and a significant experiment in many ways. It is one that I think has the potential to really strengthen our democracy but, of course, we have to make sure we get it right, and so a statutory review that will occur after the next state election will give the parliament the opportunity to revisit this, and make changes if we have it wrong.
There are lots of other elements of this bill. I do not wish to touch on all of those because I feel the government members will delve into that in more detail, but I think it is important to talk about some of the principles that are at stake here, and why this particular reform is worthy of support. Is this the model that I would have chosen if I was coming up with my own bill? No, it is not. It is the government's proposal, and that was the basis for the discussions, but I think it is absolutely worthy of support because it addresses so many of the problems we have within our current political system.
One of the significant challenges we face at the moment in Western democracies is a lack of faith in governments and in politics. Part of this is based on the belief that parliament and governments are too captive to powerful vested interests. Indeed, the Social Research Institute at Ipsos conducted a study back in 2018 on this very point. It found that, and I quote from The Conversation:
Just 31% of the [Australian] population trust federal government. State and local governments perform little better, with just over a third of people trusting them. Ministers and MPs (whether federal or state), rate at just 21% [trust], while more than 60% of Australians believe the honesty and integrity of politicians is very low.
What are the three biggest beefs that the broader community have with politicians? Well, the public says they are not accountable for broken promises; they do not deal with the issues that really matter; but also, big business has too much power. Why would people say that? It is not hard to see why this is the case, because big business does have too much power in our democracy.
Why do we not see the action on the climate crisis that we desperately need? Why can we not crack down on the predatory tactics of big food retailers and corporations? Is it because they bankroll the campaigns of our major political parties? Why do we have a planning system that serves the interests of developers rather than the interests of the community? These are the questions that people ask out in the community. That is why people want to see money being taken out of politics: they want to be assured that the people in this place actually serve their interests rather than the interests of the big donors.
There is a useful article that I want to highlight that comes from the website Market Forces and they release this every year looking at the contributions to the major political parties from the fossil fuel industry. This one came out on 1 February 2023. It asks the question:
So why do all three major political parties—
and by that they mean Labor, Liberal and the Nationals—
continue to back the fossil fuel industry at the risk of catastrophic climate change? A trawl of the latest political donations data, released on 1 February, offers some clues.
…fossil fuel companies donated $2 million to the ALP, Liberal and National parties [last year]. Yet given Australia's reputation for woefully inadequate political disclosure and 'dark money' donations, with 35% of all contributions coming from unknown sources, the true figure could be significantly higher.
Well, that should concern all members of the community. Here in South Australia, the government is presenting us with an opportunity to actually do something about it and to help restore some of the trust in our politics. Looking at some of those political donations that are of particular concern to me, Adani, in the year 2021-22, donated just over $107,000 to the Liberal Party. Alinta, in the same year, donated $12,000 to the ALP. Ampol, in the same year, donated $56,500 to the ALP and $32,250 to the Liberal Party.
APA donated $27,500 to the ALP and $30,000 to the Liberal Party. APPEA donated $56,700 to the ALP and $23,500 to the Liberal Party. The Australian Pipelines and Gas Association donated $27,500 to the ALP and $30,000 to the Liberal Party. BHP donated $16,704 to the Liberal Party. Cartwheel Resources donated $50,000 to the ALP. Chevron donated $45,470 to the ALP and $43,000 to the Liberal Party.
It is a disgrace and it needs to end and we are bringing it to a close here in South Australia, thanks to the Malinauskas government's work on these reforms. It is an important reform and it is time we take action on this and that is one of the reasons why the Greens are supportive. We do need to break the nexus between big money and politics.
I also think it is important to identify some of the examples of the nefarious influence, the unfair influence, that big money has had on our politics over the last few elections. I understand the concern that the Hon. Mr Pangallo flagged, but his party, the Xenophon Party, in 2018, was a great casualty, might I say, of the undue influence of external groups in our democracy. The state's gambling lobby in that state election contributed $100,000 to party coffers to campaign against Mr Xenophon and his team because they did not want to see them get a foothold here in the South Australian parliament. There was a huge amount of money that was given to other political parties so they could campaign against the Xenophon team. I quote from an InDaily article at that time. The AHA boss, Ian Horne, told InDaily that:
…over the 2017 calendar year the lobby group had provided $43,534 to the ALP, $49,973 to the Liberal Party and $20,000 to the Australian Conservatives…
They must have been desperate not to have Mr Xenophon in parliament if they gave money to that outfit.
This is an example of vested interest groups trying to influence our elections. It is not right that they should be able to give money to try to deny a party like Mr Xenophon's political party positions in the parliament. It is not right that they should seek to do that, and that is one of the things that we need to stamp out in our democracy, because that should not be the way that things work here.
I note the concerns of Mr Xenophon at that time, when he slammed the AHA not just for donating to the major political parties so that they could actually run in opposition to the Xenophon party but also for running television commercials saying that a vote for SA-Best would put thousands of jobs in the hotel sector at risk.
Again, I know the Hon. Connie Bonaros is passionate about the role of small parties, and I share her passion. I know the Hon. Frank Pangallo is passionate about that as well, and I share their concerns. The reality is that we in small parties can never compete with the deep pockets of these vested interest groups. At least under these reforms there will be a cap imposed on what these groups can do and they will be prevented from being able to make donations to political parties. I think that is a really good thing and a positive advancement in our democracy.
I also note some of the views of different stakeholder groups. I note in particular the report of the Australia Institute that came out in November 2023, where they talked about sweeping changes needed to reduce the influence of money in our politics. They push for a 'mega-donor cap that prevents any one entity from contributing election-distorting amounts of money'. They also talk about the need to consider a ban on donations from companies receiving large government contracts and the tobacco, liquor, gambling and fossil fuel industries.
I know many places around the world, and indeed here in our own country, have taken the approach of trying to exclude particular classes of donors, but I think what the government is doing here is they have gone a step further and said they are not accepting donations from anybody and they are levelling the playing field in that regard.
I note that over the last few days I have had the opportunity to talk to many members in the community who are deeply concerned about the events that have unfolded in the United States and the election of Donald Trump. I am concerned about that for a range of different reasons. One of the things that I think is really terrifying people about democracy in the United States is the influence of these super PACs, political action committees.
I looked up recently to see how much money these super PACs were receiving in donations and what kind of influence they were having on the US presidential election. Between January 2023 and April 2024, US political campaigns collected around $8.6 billion for the 2024 house, senate and presidential elections. A total of 65 per cent of that money—$5.6 billion—came from political action committees.
That is a huge amount of private donations flowing into that system. I think the risk with the previous bill that the government put forward was that we could open the door for those super PACs, or some kind of similar structure, to be rolled out in South Australia. We have closed the door on that, and I think that is a really good thing.
I talked about what we saw before, with the campaign that was run against the Xenophon team by the gambling industry and by the Hotels Association. I do not support that and I thought that was really appalling at the time, but we have seen it also happen at a federal level, with the mining tax campaign that was run by Gina Rinehart, Twiggy Forrest and others in an attempt to destroy the Rudd government. We have seen it here locally, with the campaign run against the former Liberal government's land tax reforms.
We also saw it with the campaign run by the big banks against the former Labor Party's big banks levy, which was a bold, progressive initiative that was opposed vociferously by the big banks. They went out there and said, 'We can't possibly do this. It's going to be ruinous for the South Australian economy,' and ran a huge campaign which people could not compete with. Again, those days are numbered in South Australia because at least there is going to be some level of regulation. I think that is a significant improvement.
I think it is important to address, before I conclude, some of the responses from key stakeholder groups. I note the media release from the Australia Institute that has been issued earlier today where they say that this bill will not improve trust in politicians. I think it references the phrase that the bill has backfired, there has been no public inquiry and a secretive consultation process, and they identify some of their concerns with the bill.
I have a huge amount of respect for the Australia Institute and the work that they do. I think they are a very influential advocacy organisation, but I do not think it is true to say that there has been insufficient consultation in relation to this bill. The government came out with a draft bill six months ago. They asked members of the community their views, and they have also undertaken ongoing consultation with civil and society groups and tried to address many of their concerns.
The challenge, I guess, for the government, and it is for them to articulate the rationale for the approach they have taken, but my guess would be that were this bill to be delayed into the new year then we run out of time in terms of being able to put forward this reform in time for the next state election, and of course then we run up against the federal election. So I understand that concern, but in this instance to delay the bill into the new year means we really are missing the opportunity for this reform to take effect, and that means another state election under the old regime where we see potentially the influence of these vested interest groups continuing without any regulation. This is an opportunity for us to fix that.
As I say, I respect the work of the Australia Institute, but I remember when I was in the federal parliament dealing with Senate voting reform. They were concerned about that at the time, but I maintained it was the right thing to do. Indeed, there was concern at that time that Senate voting reform could see the Greens being wiped out of the parliament. Well, fast forward years ahead and actually the Greens have their strongest ever representation in the parliament.
In that circumstance we voted with the Liberal Party to make that reform happen, so I am open to working with Labor or the Liberals if they come to the table with sensitive ideas to try to improve our democracy. That is the approach we have taken in this regard.
I want to also reference some of the comments that have been made by the Centre for Public Integrity, which I also had the opportunity to meet with when the government put forward their draft legislation. They note in their press release that very substantial improvements have been made to the original draft bill through what they call a rigorous, vigorous and constructive consultation process. They note the quantum of administrative funding that will be available to major party incumbents via not only generous taxpayer-funded payments but up to two nominated entities is substantial, and they reference the independent audit they understand is currently in process to find if it is justified, and they urge the government to amend the bill accordingly if it finds that there is a need to do so.
I share that view. If the auditor comes back and identifies issues with the funding model that we need to look at, well of course we extend an opportunity to the government to work with the Greens to try to get that right. They note one of the most important improvements to the original bill is the addition of a robust statutory review clause, which will see an independent panel examine its impacts after the 2026 election and provide a report to parliament. I think that is a really welcome safeguard in this bill.
They also referenced some of the key improvements that have been made to the bill as a result of the public consultation. There are now third-party expenditure caps. There is a statutory review clause. There is policy development funding. There is the provision for volunteer labour and professional services being treated equally, regardless of recipients. There is administrative funding only able to be used for administrative purposes, not political campaigning. There are donation caps for new entrants. There is a threshold of 2 per cent retained for public funding of candidates in Legislative Council elections. There is administrative funding scaled at a decreasing marginal rate.
These are all, I think, really important safeguards in this legislation. Is the bill perfect? Of course not. Are there things that I would have liked to see in the bill? Of course. Could we have gone further or adopted a different approach? Of course we could have. But my view is that this is an advancement on the status quo, and it is worthy of support. It is a bit of a leap of faith, in many ways, for our democracy. It is going to be a grand experiment at the next state election in 2026, but I feel optimistic that this is something that could really enhance our democracy.
Before concluding, I also want to touch on one of the elements that has come up in discussion around this bill, and that is the significant amount of public funding that has been put on the table here. I understand members of the community will be concerned about the large amount of public funding that is being put forward, particularly in the context of a cost-of-living crisis. I totally understand that. But my view is that one of the best ways that we can get action on inequality in our state is to actually break the nexus between big money and politics and to actually get political outcomes that serve people and our environment, rather than setting up a system that is so reliant on donors.
I guess the fundamental question for South Australians is: who would you rather politicians be responsive to: donors and big corporations, or the citizens? This new model I think ensures that our political parties are responsive to the people whom they should always serve: the South Australian taxpayers, not their donors. I understand the concerns about the public funding model, but lots of places around the world do this, and I think it is a better direction for us to go in in our democracy, rather than seeing us drift further and further in the direction of the United States and all the catastrophic outcomes that flow from that.
In concluding, as has been observed by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, there has been a huge amount of work that has been done behind the scenes to get this bill to this point, particularly on a very tight timeframe. I want to acknowledge the staff who have done a huge amount of work to make this happen, in particular of course the drafters, who I think have been working very hard to make a range of changes to enhance the bill. I want to acknowledge the Premier, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, for the collegial and collaborative way in which he has engaged with the Greens on these reforms, and Minister Dan Cregan. I have enjoyed working with both of them on this; we have had lots of discussions over the last few months.
I also want to thank Victoria Brown from the Premier's office and Lukas Price from Minister Cregan's office. I also thank my staff, Melanie Selwood and Sean Cullen-Macaskill in particular, who spent a lot of time over several weeks getting their heads around all the details of what is being proposed.
In closing, it is a leap of faith, but sometimes in life you have to take risks, and when opportunity comes, when the train comes, you get on. My hope is that it is going to carry us to a good destination for our democracy. Let's view this as an opportunity to do something positive. One thing I am hearing in my discussions in the community at the moment is that people are desperate for politicians to do things differently to shake up the system. I see this as an opportunity for us to do that.