Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

Hawker Britton will be filling out the claims now in their massive accounts departments as their business has grown with the influence of this government.

The other matter I wish to draw the House’s attention to is that Treasury also confirmed that, while the bill will deny business tax deductibility for donations, non-taxpaying entities such as unions and charitable organisations will be permitted to secure contributions from taxpayers on a deductible basis and pass these resources on to a political party, non-capped and tax free, in the form of a donation. So they still get the money from their mates through their lunches, they still get their money from the unions and they are able to procure that money in a way that does not offend the tax act, but we are going to clamp down on those who are simply trying to make a donation to the political party or candidate of their choice.

These issues are incredibly serious and I am, frankly, offended by the way that the executive of the government is bringing these matters into this House without allowing a proper assessment really to be done to look at all of the measures that need to be on the table. We need to deal with the real problems in our campaign finance system, and this bill does not address them. One of the most fundamental truths in modern politics—and I would be surprised if any member disagreed with this statement—is that political parties enjoy raising money to fund their campaigns about as much as the public enjoys being subjected to them. Being able to provide support in our political process is a democratic right, whether it is through voting, volunteering or donating. This is far better than the alternative—just ask anyone living in Zimbabwe; however, no such rights are ever absolute, especially when they compromise the broader liberty of our system. While some believe the answer is just in greater transparency and banning certain donations from people they do not like, I believe that these measures simply do not go far enough. On their own, they fail to deal with the real problem: the need for so much money. They are part of a solution, arguably, but they are certainly not the solution.

A former Federal Director of the Liberal Party and a person of great standing in the Australian community, Lynton Crosby, once told me that money alone can never buy you an election, but not having enough money can certainly lose you one, in the context of campaigning. That used to be true in Australia, because in New South Wales I have seen the most comprehensively incompetent government re-elected on so many occasions it defies belief. They did it on the back of a $12 million fund in 2003 and a $16 million fund in 2007. The Labor Party of New South Wales have demonstrated you can buy any election you want if you can raise enough money. Labor’s big money club in New South Wales certainly does that. Then there was the $30 million war chest delivered by the unions to the current Prime Minister and the ALP at the last federal election. These experiences demonstrate a very unhealthy thirst for funds in our political process.

It is important that we consider real measures to address these campaign finance reforms. Foremost amongst those is the idea of a cap on election expenditure, as applies in Canada, and the registering of third parties to ensure that they are similarly involved in a cap and have to disclose where they get their money from. It is not good enough for just a political party to disclose donations; those channelling funds into the parties, particularly the union movement, need to disclose where they are getting their money from also. We cannot afford to go down the American road. This bill does nothing to stop us from going down that road. I call on the government to put some serious reform on the table.

See this speech in context