18 February 2025

Crossbench MPs team up with The Australia Institute to propose parliamentary reforms

| Andrew McLaughlin
Join the conversation
42
a group of people giving a press conference

The Australia Institute’s director of democracy & accountability Bill Browne launches the proposed reforms with independent MPs. Photo: The Australia Institute.

Crossbench Members of Parliament including Teals, Greens and independents have joined with think tank The Australia Institute to propose several major reforms for the next Parliament.

The Australia Institute says its Democracy Agenda for the next Parliament calls for strengthened parliamentary debate, increased government accountability, and enhanced integrity of Australia’s political institutions.

Its proposed reforms have been endorsed by several crossbenchers, including Greens Senate Leader Larissa Waters, independent Teal MPs Kate Chaney, Zoe Daniel, Sophie Scamps and Monique Ryan, and independents Helen Haines and Andrew Wilkie.

A report outlining the reforms was launched on 13 February by The Australia Institute’s director of democracy & accountability Bill Browne.

“These reform proposals are designed to start a debate about how to improve the efficiency and transparency of Parliament, ensure better representation for all Australians, and create a more open and fair political system,” Mr Browne said.

“The Senate shows that parliamentary debate can accommodate a variety of voices and perspectives, with crossbench and Opposition members bringing on matters for debate and vote without fear of being gagged. The House of Representatives could be reformed along similar lines.

“It is perfectly legal to lie in a political ad in Australia – but that doesn’t have to be the case.

“South Australia has had working, impartial truth in political advertising laws for 40 years. Similarly, the state experience with public hearings shows that the federal anti-corruption watchdog should be empowered to hold public hearings whenever they are in the public interest.”

The proposed reforms include:

  • Adopting Senate Innovations: Reforming the House of Representatives by introducing measures such as private members’ motions, simpler suspension of standing orders, and reforms to Question Time.
  • Independent Staffing Allowances: Ensuring equitable staffing resources for crossbench and Opposition members to improve the legislative process.
  • Fixed three-year terms: Committing to full three-year terms to allow better planning of legislation and inquiries.
  • Integrity and Open Government: Protecting integrity agencies such as the National Anti-Corruption Commission, strengthening whistle-blower laws, and improving transparency in lobbying and political advertising.
  • Political Finance Reform: Enhancing the transparency of political donations, including through real-time donations.

READ ALSO National Anti-Corruption Commission forced to investigate the ‘Robodebt six’

Dr Scamps said Australia deserved a political system it could trust.

“Strengthening the integrity and transparency of our political system would help improve the decisions that governments make, and would benefit all Australians now and into the future,” she said.

Independent MP Zali Steggall said Australia had one of the world’s strongest democracies, but it couldn’t be taken for granted.

“Self-interest can erode many measures,” she said.

“To keep it strong, Australians must trust our political system. Measures like truth in political advertising, whistle-blower protections, and a strong National Anti-corruption Commission are vital to upholding integrity.”

Dr Ryan said she strongly stood by The Australia Institute’s proposals for democratic reform.

“Faith in democracy depends on politicians and public servants being honest, transparent, responsive, and accountable,” she said.

“Improved procedures, better whistle-blower protections, more transparency about lobbying, and truth in political advertising laws will improve the transparency and accountability of our Parliament. Trust in government is difficult to earn and to keep; these reforms will help win it back.”

Senator Waters said Australian voters wanted a democracy that worked for them, not just the major parties and their corporate donors.

“Democracy needs to be in the hands of the people,” she said. “Transparency about donations and truth in political advertising are integral to making that happen.”

Dr Haines added: “This agenda lays out opportunities to improve integrity and strengthen our democracy. It is an important starting point for the next Parliament.”

READ ALSO Latest polling suggests Dutton could be next minority PM

Ms Daniel said that, without trust in the integrity of politicians and public servants, public faith in democracy eroded, leading to disenchantment, disaffection, and worse.

“We must foster better public decision-making by entrenching integrity into our systems of government,” she said.

“This includes real-time publication of ministerial diaries, overhauling laws that regulate political lobbying and moving toward a national system of integrity laws. Electoral and campaign finance reform are also critical. The ability for political candidates to lie in election advertising must end, and the Parliament should consider four-year, set terms.”

The call comes on the same day that Ms Steggall clashed with Special Minister of State Don Farrell over political donation reforms, which were rushed through Parliament with the support of the major parties on 13 February but are not due to come into effect until after the 2028 federal election.

The reforms will see a $50,000 cap placed on individual donations and the disclosure threshold reduced to $5000, while spending limits for political campaigns will be set at $800,000 an electorate, and $90 million nationally.

Mr Farrell was briefing reporters in Parliament House on the details of the reforms when Ms Steggall confronted him over his claim that the reforms would make it easier for ordinary Australians to engage in the electoral process.

“If that’s so sure, why won’t you send the bill to inquiry to be assessed that it is actually democratic?” she asked Mr Farrell.

“Why don’t you tell the Australian people that what is going to happen – the big money that will be in politics is the public money, because now the public is paying for the money that you want to still spend during elections.”

Original Article published by Andrew McLaughlin on PS News.

Join the conversation

42
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
GrumpyGrandpa12:34 pm 21 Feb 25

In general, I’d be pretty sceptical about recommendations that come from a group of politicians, that include The Greens. However, on the surface I’m not seeing too many issues.

I do like the concept of fixed parliamentary terms. I don’t think anyone likes governments who manipulate election dates to best advantage their re-election chances.

@Hidden Dragon
I think your assessment of QT in general is very accurate … it’s a pantomine. However, I don’t agree that the current government has taken it to new levels – rather I think they have continued to maintain the (very low) standards of previous governments, of all persuasions.

As long as the Speaker and President are compliant, read ‘members of the governing party’, the charade of QT will continue unabated.

HiddenDragon9:22 pm 20 Feb 25

One way or another, Question Time has been badly abused by governments of both persuasions for many years – but, if anything, it has plumbed new depths of arrogance, hubris and contempt under Albanese.

Reforms which make it somewhat harder for the government of the day to turn every question, regardless of how concise and reasonable it may be, into an opportunity for a rambling partisan spray would do something for accountability and show greater respect for the taxpayers who are funding the QT circus.

Such reforms would also (even though it may not seem like that to them) be a favour to governments which, as Albanese is belatedly discovering, can get far too carried away with baseless delusions of superiority when all they are really doing is preaching to the converted and beating up on opponents who are fighting with both hands tied behind their backs.

If the Communist Greens “back” anything then it’s a bad idea. PERIOD!

@Rob
Never let the potential, for improving our democracy, get in the way of one of your puerile rants.

Rob, the Greens aren’t communists, I’m begging you mate, read a book.

The rusted on partisans from either major party can be ignored because they cannot point to a single reasonable criticism of any of these reforms.

If we want an end to the two party system looking after vested interests rather than ordinary Australians then this is a good first step.

So the supposedly independent Teals are now aligning themselves with the hard left Australia Institute. Talk about wolves in sheep’s clothing !

@Penfold
Wow – are the Teals actually left aligned? That’s a ground breaking revelation from you … next you’ll be telling me that Pauline Hanson is right aligned!

Nevertheless, what issues, in particular, do you have with the proposed reforms from the Australia Institute, endorsed by many cross bench MPs?

Capital Retro1:30 pm 20 Feb 25

It will be poetic justice if the Teals get wiped out in the forthcoming election.

Stop, CR, I can only get so excited.

That are ALL likewise left aligned. Some in fact Marxist aligned (the Communist Greens).

@JustSaying

Most of the teals are centre right, mostly in centre right seats with centre right voting records, but to the far right everyone else is “left” definition.

None of the proposals here are either left or right. They’re just sensible steps to make the parliament more representative which is why the Labor and Liberal parties will oppose.

Thanks JS, given most of the Teals are from once-Liberal seats and they campaigned on being Liberal-lite it is a surprise.

As for the laughable noises about integrity, well Zali’s little $100,000 unreported donation “error” tells us all we need to know. As does the preaching about climate stuff while driving a Landcruiser. Nothing but hypocrites.

CR – agreed but sadly the recent Yougov poll suggests most will be reelected.

@Rob
Thank you for confirming you have no idea what you are talking about

Quick, look under your bed! The Reds are hiding there!!

@Penfold
… and how does the fact they agree with a suggestion re sensible reform, in any way, change their campaign stance?

Seano – the Teals voting record is they vote with the Greens 72% of the time. On a 2PP basis they vote 61% of the time with the ALP and 39% with the Coalition. Google it if you can handle some facts.

Calling themselves “Liberal-lite” and then voting with Labor on everything just makes them liars. But we knew that when yhey called yhemselves “independent” as well.

Your straight from the coalition talking points are laughable Penfold. An over simplification and one that deliberately misses that they teals voted with the Morrison government on economic issues…but some can’t handle facts.

Meanwhile as I point out above you can’t come up with a single reasonable criticism of these measures because you’re locked into the two part system like supporting a football team. Pathetic.

Seano – how could the Teals vote with the Morrison government given all six were elected in 2022 ? We do read some silliness here sometimes.

@Ken M
So exactly what is “Liberal-lite”? Perhaps the current Labor party, especially in ACT where the right faction rules, could be called “Liberal-lite”?

Perhaps you should actually check their individual voting records before you look silly saying unsubstantiated BS like “voting with Labor on everything”.

As for their status as independents? Oh you say they are not, therefore they are not. Yeah right! Just another of your bats in the belfry rants. Check the APH web page for each and you’ll see the under Party – “Independent” … that’s a fact.

JS – anything that comes from TAI is coming from the hard left of Australian politics so the chances are they’re bad ideas. Looking at the proposals, for example more money for teals smacks entirely of self-interest and greed.

Seano – given all six teals were elected in 2022, how on earth did they vote with the Morrison government ?

@Penfold
I’m not sure to what you are referring by: “more money for teals”

If you can get over your jaundiced partisanship, you will see the suggestion for ‘Ensuring equitable staffing resources’ not only covered the cross benches, but also the Opposition. What’s wrong with an equal playing field for all?

LOL
Never change JS. Nobody but dopes believe the blue shirted stooges all funded by the same backers are independent, no matter how often you repeat the lie, or how far you spit your dummy over it.

I’m going to run for office and call myself a progressive candidate, but I’ll vote back in the white Australia policy, but I’m a progressive because that’s what my website will say!

Sigh….as ever disingenuous. That wasn’t the point I was making and I didn’t say they were the same independents across parliaments. That would be dumb a thing to say…so it’s weird that you would say that.

Scott Morrison was the last Liberal PM over 4 years from 2018-2022 across two parliaments. During which time he dealt all of Stegall, Wilkie, Sharkie, McGowan and Haines as independents who voted largely with the government on economic issues and per their electoral promises on climate and social issues.

It helps to be informed.

JS – if your definition of “equitable staffing resources” means the same number of staff for the government and backbenchers well that’s a silly proposal by the teals. Maybe climate 200 can fund a few extra staff for them.

As for “integrity” and “transparency”, they sound so dreamy but we’ve seen what that means from the likes of Stegall and Ryan, not to mention the Greens. No integrity or transparency at all, just grandiose posturing and hypocrisy.

@Ken M
It’s a shame you are incapable of piecing together anything remotely resembling a coherent, intelligent agrument. Then perhaps I, and others, would have something on which to debate you.

Instead you come up with a perjorative laden opinion and then suggest anyone who doesn’t accept it is a dope. Only a dope would subscribe to any of your sov cit rants.

I have never denied the funding of the teal independents and neither have they. No political campaign is without its backers – be it a party or independent candidate. Oh and by the way, not all independents in the parliament are teals.

Nevertheless, on the many occasions, I have challenged you to demonstrate how those backers have benefitted financially (or otherwise) from the legislative activities of the independent MPs. Surprisingly, you have not been able to produce a response – that would require intelligent analysis, and on that front, when you are involved, enough said.

So after your frothing rant, you then come up with an assinine analogy, which demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the legislative process. One nutter in the parliament, would not be able to “vote back in” any policy.

I’m going to assume you will not be able to present anything of substance in this thread, so I’ll now leave you and the bats in your belfry to have your final rant.

Capital Retro9:26 am 21 Feb 25

Decarb Ventures – set up by Mr Holmes a Court in January – is set for local investment opportunities that he stated could not be provided under a Morrison Government.

He and his wife have a majority 91 per cent stake in the company, with the remaining nine per cent owned by his businesses associate Mitchell Hopwood.

Mr Hopwood set up corporation Climate Outcomes Foundation (COF) in April 2019, two days after Climate 200 was registered, and one month out from the 2019 election.

@Penfold, if you knew the difference between “equitable” and “same” then you might get closer to an intelligible comment.

@Capital Retro
Given, the Morrison Government was led by denialists and the current Labor Government has progressed (somewhat) action on climate change and renewable energy technology, your point is, CR?

The fools in this thread trying to suggest we’d be better off without independents and greens in parliament after the performance of the major parties over the last 40 years are the political equivalents of flat earthers.

Thanks Axon, perhaps you should change your moniker to “Thesaurus”.

So what Capital, Gina Rinehart owns coal mines.

Well done Seano, that is a factual statement, Gina does own coal mines. And thank goodness she does or the lights would have gone out many times this summer. If the teals were really interested in integrity then cheap and reliable electricity would be a great place to start.

“… grandiose posturing and hypocrisy…” completely made up, baseless nonsense so another rusted on can justify not considering reasonable proposals that would benefit us all on their merits. Pathetic.

” Gina does own coal mines”…drivel.

“And thank goodness she does or the lights would have gone out many times this summer”

35% of our energy is renewable, nearly all of SA’s energy is renewable the lights did not go out. You can stop pretending you know anything about the energy market as well.

This isnt true. check AEMO, only threats to baseload this past year have been due to faults in coal generators.

@Penfold, no, it was a dictionary you needed and you did not even understand that difference either.

Capital Retro12:33 pm 21 Feb 25

And thank goodness for that.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.