Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

At my last opportunity to make remarks on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2010, I was referring to the various reforms which are being considered in the bill. I had remarked on the new lower threshold for disclosure of donations, which I had observed was a fairly innocuous reform but a significant reform from the point of view of the electoral system and the transparency of the system in the public’s eyes. I found it remarkable that those opposite were taking issue with such a relatively innocuous reform.

Simultaneously, a key reform to the capacity to make anonymous donations will be made under the bill. The current Commonwealth Electoral Act provides that registered political parties and their branches, candidates, Senate groups and those who act on behalf of persons within each of these categories may receive anonymous donations below a specified indexed threshold. The indexed threshold is currently set at $11,500, and anonymous donations which exceed that threshold are not permitted. But at present a donor who wishes to make anonymous donations could do so by making multiple donations slightly below the threshold to various divisions of the same political party. The bill before us would remove that donation-splitting loophole by using an existing definition of ‘related political parties’ found elsewhere in the Commonwealth Electoral Act to ensure that donations to different divisions of a political party are treated as aggregated, as they should be. This again is what one might regard as a fairly innocuous reform, and yet again we are seeing considerable resistance to it from those opposite.

The reforms proposed under this bill will have the effect of banning all anonymous donations except those which are less than or equal to $50 and which are received at a general public activity or at a private event. These activities and events are defined in the bill and specified records must be kept in order for the anonymous donations to be retained.

All of these reforms will apply equally to all political parties and all candidates. Once again, it is most surprising that those opposite seek to resist these changes so strenuously. Unfortunately, while I have articulated the merits and factual circumstances of this bill, those opposite have maligned union officials and union generally. I have not, as the member for Mackellar flagged in her remarks, sought to malign any individual donor or categories of donor and I do not propose to do so in the remaining time available to me.

Anonymous donations by third parties for political expenditure will now also be prohibited. This will apply to third parties that are required to lodge annual returns of their political expenditure above the current threshold, which will hopefully—assuming that this bill is passed—be lowered to a threshold of $1,000. The bill also provides for the recovery by the Commonwealth of any unlawful anonymous donations. Both of these reforms will improve substantially the transparency of political donations and the confidence that the public can have in our political processes. It is pleasing to note in particular that these reforms are supported by the Greens and the Independents.

Both of these reforms, along with the balance of reforms in the proposed bill, will have a very significant role to play in terms of the public scrutiny of political donations and expenditure by making information more swiftly available to the public. The bill before us will require more regular disclosure of political donations and expenditure. It will also reduce the current time periods for the lodgement of returns from the existing periods of between 15 and 20 weeks down to eight weeks. The requirement to lodge returns will now apply once every six months rather than once every 12 months as is currently the case.

My time has been somewhat interrupted this evening, unfortunately. I will leave it to my colleagues remaining to speak in this debate to remark on the other merits of the bill. In closing, the changes that I have discussed and a substantial number of additional measures proposed in the bill that I have not had an opportunity to discuss this evening will have a very significant and positive impact on public perceptions of campaign finances and electoral transparency.

One of the remarks of the member for Mackellar this evening was, ‘What motivation other than rank self interest makes any sense?’ I put it back to the opposition, because I simply cannot understand what motivation other than rank self interest makes any sense. (Time expired)

See this speech in context