Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on and strongly oppose the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2010. Let there be no mistake: this bill is, first and foremost, an attempt by the Labor Party to aid its own political and financial position under the guise of transparency and reform. The reintroduction of this bill by the Labor Party is to fulfil their obligations under the Labor-Greens-Independents alliance—the tail wagging the dog. We are seeing it endlessly and it is already causing enormous confusion across so many policy fronts for those on the other side of the chamber.

This is essentially the third iteration of the same bill. Ironically, it follows coalition calls for a comprehensive inquiry into Australia’s campaign finance laws following the Wollongong sex-and-bribery scandal, a call that was made in good faith and, as we understood at the time, that good faith was to be reciprocated. But what we found is that was opposed by the government. They did give an indication that they were willing to act in good faith for an objective assessment across the board of Australia’s campaign finances. The government subsequently announced the development of a green paper, which we applauded, for electoral reform. Yet ahead of dealing with that green paper, we see a series of cherrypicked amendments, as represented in this bill today, which would essentially advantage the Labor Party: ‘Forget the holistic approach. Forget acting in good faith with each other. Let’s just bring in some grubby amendments to try to disadvantage the coalition parties.’ There was a mad rush to bring these amendments in before the last election. There was no coincidence about that! They tried to get it all passed before we rose last time. The cynicism was exposed, the self-interest was exposed and the crass political nature of these provisions were exposed.

Once again the bill reinforces that electoral reform should not be done in an ad hoc fashion nor cherrypicked for political advantage but needs to be undertaken in a holistic sense as part of a large suite of electoral reforms. This bill contains provisions that primarily discourage business donations. In fact, that is its objective, primarily to discourage donations to one side of politics. We have measures such as that of reducing the disclosure threshold from $11½ thousand, indexed to the consumer price index annually, to $1,000, non-indexed, a measure directed at the heart of small business donations to the coalition parties. We see that the bill requires people who make gifts above the threshold, to candidates or members of groups during the election disclosure period, to furnish a return within eight weeks of the calling of an election. This is a blatant attempt to put the frighteners on small businesses and other businesses who are quite happy to reveal a donation. But to do so and making it public in the context of an election campaign makes it possible for political actions to be taken and makes it possible for intimidation to occur and makes it possible to discourage others who might have the ‘affront’ to make a donation of more than $1,000 to the coalition parties.

It also makes unlawful the receipt of a gift of foreign property by political parties, candidates and members of a Senate group—and we have been quite open-minded about exploring those sorts of issues in a more holistic bill. It prohibits all anonymous gifts above $50 except in two specified situations—again, Labor’s penchant for bureaucracy. This will be unmanageable for so many thousands of volunteers around the country, but in the interests of discouraging donations to my side of politics that does not worry the Labor Party. It also provides that public funding of election campaigning is limited to declared expenditure incurred by the eligible political party, candidate or Senate group or the sum payable calculated on the number of first preference votes received where they have satisfied the four per cent threshold, whichever is the lesser—again a provision that we would be prepared to discuss; we would be prepared to discuss versions of it in the context of a holistic approach.

The new arrangements are set to commence on 1 July 2011. Of course, there is no mention of the privileged and irregular position of the unions in any part of this bill. It is all directed at those people who primarily form part of our support base and who would be keen to see our side of politics sufficiently armed with resources to announce an effective campaign and to put our case for government. But there is no mention of the privileged and irregular position of the unions in regard to political donations and there is no mention of third parties—all the issues that must be addressed if there is to be a balanced approach. These are issues that are fundamental to seeing a balanced approach and for the community to have confidence in the laws that regulate political donations.

What lies at the heart of this bill is Labor’s real agenda to shore up its own fortunes while at the same time severely hampering those of its political opponents. Of course, the significant direct and indirect support provided by the union movement, amounting to over $65 million in the years prior to the 2007 election, is not addressed in this bill. The bill is also silent on the intervention of third parties, such as GetUp!, Greenpeace, the Wilderness Society and the like, in the political process. The historical trend has been that unions continue to provide massive support to the Labor Party while businesses have either split donations on a 50-50 basis or have withdrawn their support for the funding of political parties altogether.

Much of that 50-50 split and/or the withdrawal of funding altogether has resulted after a concerted campaign over the last 15 years by the Labor Party to intimidate so many businesses around this country. There has been a concerted campaign to identify those donors from the electoral rolls and, by other anecdotal advice, to identify smaller donors and for Labor Party heavies to physically meet with the heads of those companies over a period of time, which has had the effect of either forcing a 50-50 split of donations or, in many cases, discouraging any donations at all.

In terms of delegates to the ALP conference, affiliated unions make up 427 voting members and party members make up only 426. Unions also retain their 50 per cent share of selection committees. There is a great funding source. It is a group that largely dictates to the Labor Party, and yet there is no mention of the propriety or the arrangements of many of the donations that are passed through from the union movement. New South Wales ALP members who are members of affiliated unions number fewer than 2,500 people. That is about 0.6 per cent of the total affiliated union membership in New South Wales of 384,000. Thus, the 99.4 per cent of members of affiliated unions in New South Wales who have actively chosen not to join the ALP are still financing the political ambitions of the 0.6 per cent who have.

Also, this connection with the unions and what it means is revealed today in the Herald Sun in a piece by Phillip Hudson. He revealed that earlier this month we saw Labor’s links with the trade unions writ large with the appointment of the failed Labor candidate in the seat of Melbourne, a former ACTU official, to the lucrative position of chief executive of the Australian Government Employees Superannuation Trust. AGEST has over $3.8 billion in assets and over 140,000 members. That is 140,000 people whose retirement funds, their future, is locked up in AGEST. They are predominantly from the Commonwealth, Northern Territory and ACT governments. Many members in this chamber, including me, have funds in AGEST. The board is appointed by the finance minister and the ACTU. Labor needs to demonstrate today that the appointment of Ms Bowtell, the failed candidate for Labor in the seat of Melbourne, was not a consolation prize for her standing in and losing the seat of Melbourne. The minister responsible, Senator Wong, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, made the too-clever-by-half comment when approached by journalists that she played no part in the appointment, that it was nominated by the board members. She made no other comment. She refused to pursue any other investigation of the appointment. But, of course, AGEST Super was created by the Labor government and the ACTU in 1990. They appoint three directors each and jointly select the chair. The federal minister in charge is the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Penny Wong, who took over from Lindsay Tanner, who stood down as the ALP member for Melbourne, and Ms Bowtell was selected to replace him. Ms Bowtell failed to hold the seat for Labor. She is also a former senior ACTU official who missed out on the role of union president.

The 140,000 people with their life savings for their retirement being managed by AGEST need to be given the comfort that Ms Bowtell has the experience to manage such a responsible job. When selling herself recently to the voters in the seat of Melbourne, Ms Bowtell made no reference to any experience in the investment of funds. In fact, she said, ‘My early career was spent representing workers in the education sector.’ She also said, ‘For the past 15 years I worked at the ACTU advocating for ordinary, working Australian people.’ When you go to the website of AGEST, you find one paragraph outlining her professional credentials to oversee a $3.8 billion super fund—a huge sum of money. It says:

Cath has a law degree and has been a superannuation trustee for over ten years, with five years on the board of AGEST … She has been an active member of investment and audit committees and for six years was responsible for superannuation policy at the ACTU.

There is no mention whatsoever of investment experience. I was an independent member of the board of Sinclair Knight Merz, Australia’s biggest consulting engineering group with 6,000 consulting engineers. After five years, I brought a perspective to that board, but I am not an engineer. I was in no way equipped—and it would be laughable to suggest I was in that position—to take over as CEO of that consulting engineering company. In the same way, there is no evidence of investment experience.

This person will be competing against a great deal of experience and expertise in this marketplace. Usually, those running a multibillion dollar investment fund would have at least 20 years of senior investment experience. What hands-on investment experience and what managerial experience has Ms Botwell had? None of this is canvassed on the AGEST website and none of it has been put in the public arena. We have every right to seriously question the appointment, given Labor’s track record of looking after Labor mates. This is a very serious issue and it goes to the heart of this bill. It shows that Labor is not serious about transparency and that Labor is looking to use any piece of legislation to advantage itself or its mates. It is captured again and again in this bill. We see the issue with GetUp, a third-party group which pretends to be non-aligned, yet in the 2007 election where was all of its focus in the last four weeks? In the marginal seats that we were seeking to defend. And what did you see at the last election? The CFMEU giving a significant $1.2 million to GetUp to run ads against the coalition. They are an arms-length party to the Labor Party. They are a wholly owned subsidiary, in my view, of the Labor Party. They are doing their job.

See this speech in context