Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

That is right. I am always amazed when those opposite call out such things. However, I can understand why some donors to the Liberal Party might be ashamed, given that party’s political legacy. I think I am operating under parliamentary privilege, but I will be certain not to mention anything bad about Clive Palmer—the guy who is suing Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser. I do have two young children I need to support, so I do not want him coming after me for $1 million! Nevertheless, modern political campaigns are an expensive exercise. The United States chewed through more than US$1.5 billion for their presidential campaign and another US$1.3 billion on their house and Senate campaign. I would hate to think that we would ever spend anything like that in Australia, but I have no doubt that political parties will continue to face significant costs to get their message across to voters in this ever more complicated world.

Political donors are, therefore, key participants in the political process. Their contributions, including donations and gifts, should be open and transparent. I, like everyone on this side of the House, have nothing to hide. This bill will also overcome the practice of donation splitting. Under the coalition’s changes, corporations were able to use donation splitting to donate up to $90,000 spread across state and national branches without public disclosure of that funding. This will be removed by ensuring that donations made to related political parties are treated as donations made to the single political party for disclosure purposes.

This bill also reforms the electorate funding entitlements to eliminate the potential for candidates to profit under the current system. When the Hawke Labor government introduced public funding for political parties and candidates way back in 1984, it was never intended that it would be rorted by individuals for profit. Under election funding laws, candidates are reimbursed $2.10 for each vote they earn, provided they get at least four per cent of the vote—this is a fair system. However, unfortunately it is left open to abuse by pseudocelebrity candidates, who spend little actual money on their campaign and muster four per cent of the vote but have no realistic chance of election. In 2007, a failed businesswoman from Ipswich contested a Queensland Senate spot. I recall that her one policy was calling for a ban on Islamic immigration to Australia. It was a familiar line from the former member for Oxley and failed candidate for Blair.

Most Australians are fed up with that kind of intolerance, and that is why Queensland’s Mark Furner was elected to the Senate, and not Queensland’s biggest hypocrite. Senator Furner is someone who cares about all people, regardless of their background, and is someone who is making a great contribution to this country as a senator. This failed businesswoman is lining up again, this time contesting the South-East Queensland seat of Beaudesert, a place where I unfortunately have lots of family connections. One of them even had the joy of meeting her the other day!

Back in 2004 the serial candidate received about $200,000 in electoral funding after getting just over 100,000 votes, yet she spent only $35,000 on her campaign. In 2007 this professional leech came back for more, collecting $213,000. There is something sick about a system that allows candidates or political parties to profit personally from the electoral funding when they have no intention of actually being elected. Our democracy is precious, as I said at the start, and to think that some candidates would choose to rort the system for their own gain is particularly offensive and a slight on the integrity of our electoral process. That is why I am very, very surprised and disappointed that Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals would not agree with such a proposition and instead voted against the bill.

This bill makes no major changes to the amount of funding that candidates can receive for electoral expenses, but, by introducing a claims based approach, it will put an end to candidates exploiting the system. There will be no more blank cheques for candidates. Instead, it will introduce a new electoral funding entitlement for registered political parties, unendorsed candidates, Senate groups and joint Senate groups. The funding rate will be calculated as the electoral expenditure claimed and accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission or $2.1894, CPI indexed, per first preference vote, whichever is the lesser.

Funding will still be conditional on candidates or Senate groups receiving at least four per cent of first preference votes. To receive the funding entitlement, candidates or groups will be required to submit a claim. The types of expenses candidates are able to claim under this bill include advertising—obviously, that is very important—polling, signs and printing. The government amendments also include three further categories: rental of campaign premises, employing campaign staff and the costs of certain equipment used during the election period. This equipment is limited to computer, communication and photocopying equipment. So this amendment bill benefits all parties and all candidates rather than just the bigger parties that will do the lion’s share of advertising. We support a healthy democracy, not just the two major parties.

This bill has teeth and introduces a range of powers and increased penalties for the Australian Electoral Commission to enforce these new policies. These powers cover a range of offences, including failing to lodge, lodging incomplete claims or providing false or misleading claims regarding electoral expenditure. The unlawful receipt of foreign or anonymous donations will have a penalty of 12 months in prison, 240 penalty units or both.

The Rudd Labor government is committed to restoring integrity in our election process. Those opposite can bay all they like about what happened 10 years ago, 20 years ago or 30 years ago; that is irrelevant. The only history that counts is the history that occurred last week when those opposite voted against this bill and the amendments before the House. The Labor Party is attempting to restore public confidence in the system and provide greater accountability for all candidates and political parties. It was an election promise and we are carrying through with it. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context