Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

As we all appreciate, every time we rise in this House we exercise, as I am doing now, a democratic right on behalf of the constituents who have elected us. Those same constituents exercise their right to have us speak or not to speak on their behalf every election. But I contend that these simple, vital democratic rights are increasingly being restricted by a hungry, arrogant and elitist government—the Howard government. The latest threats to these rights come in the form of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005, which is currently before the House for debate.

The Howard government is making it harder by virtue of the changes embodied in this amendment bill for people to vote and, at the same time, raising the bar on political donations—the thin edge of the wedge for a healthy democratic society. That is exceptionally important, because at the heart of the legislation before the House is the creeping, ugly Americanisation of this country under the Howard government. The unquestioning, fawning approach of this government in its relations with the United States, I contend, is breathtaking. Yet decent, hardworking Australians do not want to be another America—for example, just question them on their attitude to health care and the Americanisation of the Australian health care system.

Ordinary Australians take pride in those things that set Australians and Americans apart. One of those key differences is at the heart of the debate this evening—that is, our politicians do not need millions upon millions of dollars to be able to access political office in this country, and I am thankful for that. Alternatively, in the United States, where television rules and political advertising campaigns determine political fortunes, one 30-second ad can cost millions of dollars. The 2004 US election was the first billion-dollar election campaign. Between them, George Bush and John Kerry raised more than $689 million, while more than $330 million was collected through surrogates and allies. This was double the previous record set in the United States for the 2000 electoral contest for presidential office. The effect is a system dominated by the elite for the elite. This is not representative democracy in the way that the founding fathers envisaged.

For years the United States system has been plagued by poor disclosure of campaign donations, allowing millions of dollars to be funnelled through the main parties in a perversion of democratic values and objectives. We need only look at the recent case in the United States of Jack Abramoff, the man dubbed the ‘superlobbyist’ of the Republican Party, to see how our democratic future could be corrupted by secret bagmen—which would be the end result of the changes proposed by the Howard government this evening. Interestingly, some 20 members of the US congress are implicated in one of the biggest political corruption scandals in years. Abramoff used bribes, including campaign contributions and largesse, to influence legislators.

We have been lucky in Australia in that, historically, we have not had that approach to the political system at a local, state or federal level. But the ramifications of this system are far wider than this group suggests. The direct link between fundraising and elections is crystal clear from the results of the congressional elections in 2004. Of the 435 who were elected, only seven incumbents lost to challengers. To get elected, most of the winners spent five times as much as their rivals. In the last four congressional elections, 98 per cent of the incumbents who ran for re-election won—and they won handsomely. Once elected—and this will be the real challenge for all of us if the bill before the House is approved—the incumbents continued to build their election booty. The incumbents in this year’s House and Senate elections already have $400 million which, according to the non-profit, nonpartisan organisation FairVote, is growing at triple the rate of recent campaigns.

US political scientist Ross Baker warns that the US system ‘more nearly resembles hereditary entitlement than competitive democracy’. The American Political Science Association—and this is exceptionally important—has serious concerns. It says:

Even the most optimistic observer would concede that the American system, with politicians’ reliance on private money to fund their campaigns, creates the potential for influence peddling.

But not only the observers are concerned; American politicians themselves are warning about the corruption of the system—and rightly so—and their warnings ought to be heard in the corridors of the Australian parliament. Senator Robert Byrd put it this way:

The incessant money chase that currently permeates every crevice of our political system is like an unending circular marathon … and it is a race that sends a clear message to people that it is money, money, money—not ideas, not principles, but money—that reigns supreme in American politics. The way to gain access on Capitol Hill, the way to get the attention of members of this body, is through money.

That effectively means that under the American system—and this is the challenge for the House this evening—money opens doors, money means influence and money influences legislative outcomes. We as a nation have to be very careful to avoid such a result.

Compounding the problem is the massive amount of time that US politicians put into fundraising. US politicians are no longer concerned about ideas, principles and debate; they are on a continuous round of fundraising efforts. It reminds me of some reports in today’s media about budget evening for the government. Tonight there will be continuous fundraising from room to room and corridor to corridor. It has started in Australia, and this bill will only make it worse. This evening, in this very House, there will be a clear example of what we have to be very careful about with respect to where we are going to end up as a result of the potential amendments embodied in this bill.

We should not forget that, when you are devoting yourself not to your core job of arguing about what is right but to raising money, you are neglecting your electorate and your constituents. We are elected to represent our constituents’ views, to attend to their local concerns and to argue for what is in the national interest. That is why former US senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum—now co-chair, with Walter Mondale, of a campaign finance reform group mobilised by former US President Clinton—said:

Here we are forced to raise money all the time … We don’t sit down and talk to each other very much anymore. We don’t have time. I just don’t know how people find time to think or reflect.

That says it all. It is important to take note of the views of these seasoned US politicians because they are the ones experiencing the problems posed by the poor disclosure of political donations and the impact that unaccountable flows of money have on corrupting a political system. We should be very careful about not corrupting the Australian political system. I say that because Australian politicians, unlike their US counterparts, are not dependent today on extraordinary sums of money to participate in our political system. We ought to be exceptionally proud of that. It means an ordinary person can get elected to a local council, a state or territory parliament or the Australian House of Representatives or Senate. I am proud of that. It means anyone can stand for office.

But I would rigorously argue that this is now threatened by the creeping Americanisation of our electoral system so openly embraced by the Howard government. The dangers of increasingly unaccountable flows of money are clear from the US experience: a race for ever greater funds, incumbents with so much money that they can keep out challengers, and politicians who are so busy raising funds that they do not have time to do their real job of helping their electorates and creating good, strong policies—to actually do the job for which the electors elected them. It is therefore ironic that, in speaking on this issue last year, the then Special Minister of State, Senator Abetz used the following quote from Ronald Reagan to advocate for this bill:

... democracy is not a fragile flower. Still, it needs cultivating.

I know what Senator Abetz wants to cultivate. He wants to cultivate sizeable and unaccounted for donations to political parties in Australia. I simply say in response to that statement by Senator Abetz that in America democracy is becoming fragile by the day. The consensus is that these vast sums of money are corrupting the system, and everything points to it. In light of the American experience and existing concerns about the transparency of our system, how is it even conceivable that the government of the day could propose increasing the financial threshold for nondisclosure of political donations? I actually think the current threshold is more than generous. Under this bill, and this is exceptionally important, no disclosure at all will be required for political donations up to $10,000. This is nearly seven times the current threshold of $1,500—a very generous threshold. There is no justification for increasing that threshold to $10,000. Whether we like it or not, $10,000 can very heavily influence a particular view of a politician elected to this House in a tight political situation and is the massive amount of money which the government now proposes be the very generous threshold for nondisclosure of political donations.

The government will also increase the level of tax deductible contributions to political parties or independent candidates from $100 to $1,500. I simply say this is double dipping. Political funding, which was first brought in in New South Wales and spread to the Australian parliament and many state and territory parliaments, was for the purposes of assisting the political process in Australia. We all know we have very generous entitlements as incumbents: $125,000 per year, for example, just for the purposes of printing material for our electorate, with mobile telephones, computers and postage entitlements rising up to $50,000 to $60,000 per year, all paid for by Australian taxpayers. But it is now proposed that in addition to all these very generous entitlements paid for by Australian taxpayers—from their hard earned dollars, given the sacrifices they make to make an investment in the integrity of the Australian political system—we double dip yet again. The benefits of incumbency are supposedly no longer good enough.

Having been elected in 1996, when the Howard government was first elected, I have seen the dramatic growth in my entitlements. By way of example, I was told on my election in 1996 that the average expenditure on printing of a member of the House of Representatives was $20,000 to $30,000 per year. We now have, and we do not have to account for it other than by meeting guidelines, up to $125,000 per year; yet the government now proposes by way of this bill that we get an even bigger kick as representatives of political parties so that people making donations to us can have tax deductibility increased from $100 to $1,500. It is corruption at its very best ripping off Australian taxpayers yet again with the government saying, ‘Yes, not only do you have to pay for members’ entitlements and for the huge amount of moneys paid to the political parties by way of electoral funding but now you will have to pay even more through tax deductibility on donations.’

I think Australians are entitled to ask: how does this serve us? The effect of this legislation will be to encourage the donation of huge amounts of money without accountability to voters. At the same time, the government is making it harder for voters to get enrolled. It is trying to rob them of their right to vote and their right to take part in the Australian political process. These laws could mean 300,000 Australians are disenfranchised. With one hand the Howard government will be giving the green light to those with money to influence and get their way in this country, to peddle their influence, while on the other hand the government will be taking away from those ordinary Australians their opportunity to even cast a vote. That is the crux of the debate: if you have got money you can peddle influence but if you are an ordinary Australian the government is going to make it harder for you to vote. But, worse still, those that will be most affected will be young people—people we need to get in contact with the political processes—Indigenous Australians and Australians from non-English-speaking backgrounds. The problem is that the Howard government does not believe that their votes are safe. That is what it is really about: how it maximises its vote whilst restricting access to some in the Australian community.

Under these laws the government will close the electoral roll at 8 pm on the day that an election writ is issued, except in two cases. Those are where a person turns 18 years old or where people are granted citizenship between the day on which the writ is issued and polling day. These people will be the only ones to get the right to enrol. People updating their details on the electoral roll will only be given three days to do so. The current laws allow a seven-day grace period for people enrolling to vote or updating their details on the electoral roll. Based on a figure from the last election, this will affect about 280,000 people. These people either enrolled to vote or changed their enrolment in a substantive way in the five working days between the issue of the writ and close of the roll. That is what happened last time with the close of the roll. The government will also require identification when a person is enrolling to vote, when a voter changes their details and with provisional voting.

These changes are based on the government’s argument that they prevent electoral fraud. I simply remind the House of the consensus in Australia that our country’s electoral system is one of great integrity. I agree with that view. The Australian Electoral Commission is an organisation of integrity and it has upheld this consensus. Indeed, it has raised concerns about the impact on nondisclosure of political donations. The Australian National Audit Office reported in 2002 that the electoral roll is one of ‘high integrity’. Even the experts are therefore baffled by the necessity for these laws. As Professor Brian Costar has argued:

If there is a fault in the current Australian electoral procedures it is not in rampant enrolment fraud but the very real perception of secretive influence peddling produced by the excessively free flow of political money.

And unlike the American system, where a constitution and bill of rights is intended to act as a protection on individual rights, the Australian system only provides limited access to judicial protection in electoral matters. This makes the bill all the more abhorrent.

The opposition, the Labor Party, is particularly concerned about the impact of these changes on young people and their right to exercise a vote. The changes could affect up to 80,000 young Australians. They reflect the fact that the Howard government is out of touch with young Australians. Everybody understands the importance of trying to go out of our way to get people to vote, to actually participate in the Australian political system.

It is about time that the Howard government realised that there is an error in the way it is proceeding with the electoral changes before the House this evening. Young people should be encouraged to participate in the system, not prevented from doing so. Obviously they are very busy and have to go out of their way in a very tough environment with respect to the pressure of work or study. We have to make sure that they are given the right to enrol, to participate in the Australian electoral system.

To add to this long list of negative impacts, we have also recently learnt that the laws will seriously affect the operations of charities and community groups. A Senate inquiry heard recently that the proposed electoral changes could see charities and community groups gagged. Legal advice from the National Roundtable of Nonprofit Organisations said that changes to the definition of electoral matters in the bill would mean that charities and community groups would be unable to make even passing reference to past or present public policy issues. Under the law, such groups could be labelled as partisan political players, scaring away potential private donors and the public. The fact that the government has moved to fix this problem reflects the fact that these laws were simply poorly thought out and drafted in haste.

In concluding, I believe that it is plainly obvious to all in the Australian community, on reflection and examination of this bill, that increasing the threshold for undisclosed political donations is dangerous for any democracy. It can corrupt a system that has been respected throughout the world. At the same time, the concerns these laws pose for the young, the disadvantaged, Indigenous communities, charities and community groups simply far outweigh any perceived benefit claimed by this government. The Howard government should step back. We as a nation have long invested in an electoral system that is respected and regarded as being honest. There is no good reason why the threshold for nondisclosure of political donations should be increased. It is a recipe for corruption and unaccountability, and the Howard government should know better. (Time expired)

See this speech in context