Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The contribution of the member for Goldstein to this debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2010 reeked of political opportunism and was totally directed towards promoting his side of politics. If I was to describe his contribution to this debate, I would describe it as: ‘I hate the unions, I hate the ALP, I particularly hate the ALP’s candidate for Melbourne, Ms Bowtell, and I believe that any legislation that changes electoral law reform should be designed to advantage my side of politics.’ It is not about putting forward an argument for fairness, transparency, openness and accountability. The member for Goldstein does not want that. He does not want transparency, he does not want openness and he does not want accountability. He just wants an advantage for his side of politics. If in any way he can see any fairness, transparency, accountability or openness being brought into law, then he is going to oppose it. He is going to strongly oppose it and he is going to make sure that his side of politics strongly opposes it.

I will just run through some of the things that the member for Goldstein said. When I came into the chamber he was saying that the amendments would disadvantage the Liberal Party. Would a bill that lowers the threshold for disclosure of political donations given by political parties disadvantage the Liberal Party? I do not quite understand that. The way I look at it, both sides of parliament will have to make disclosures. Every member of this parliament will have to make disclosures. What the legislation does is put on record those people who are donating to political parties or candidates. I believe that the Australian people have the right to know who is making donations to the people they are voting for. I do not think it should be a secret. I do not think a person should be able to go along and donate, as they can now, a bit over $10,000 to a party or a candidate without the people that are voting for that candidate, the people of Australia, knowing where that political party is getting its money from.

The member for Goldstein says that the disclosure disadvantages one side of politics. I go back to what I have just said. How can it disadvantage one side of politics? It disadvantages both sides of politics if they seek to hide things. It discourages donations to one side of politics. It would have the same impact on both sides of politics. He talks about our side of politics, but I always thought that when we put laws in place in this parliament it was not about us but about making sure the people of Australia knew what this parliament stood for, what the members of this parliament stand for and making sure they know who and what they are voting for.

The member for Goldstein was very upset about the fact that business splits its donations. He did not like the simple fact that returns would have to be submitted earlier. Anything that brought about change that led to openness, transparency and accountability, the member for Goldstein disliked. He argued against it. In arguing that, he was saying what his party stood for, what his party advocated and how his party would be voting. That is not the way we on this side of the parliament look at it. On this side of the parliament we believe that people have a right to know who is donating to political parties. We believe that people cannot just give anonymous donations without some form of accountability.

This bill bans gifts from overseas, with penalties for breaches. It extends the ban on anonymous gifts to encompass all anonymous gifts, except where the gift is $50 or less. Such gifts can be received in two very limited circumstances. The first is where the gift is received at a general public activity—for example, you are at a school fete and someone gives you a donation—and that has to be done in a proper, accountable way. The second is where a gift is received at a private event, and the definition of ‘private event’ is set out in the legislation.

The bill contains measures that tie election funding to reported and verified electoral expenditure directly incurred by a candidate or a party in an election period, with penalties for fraud. That is very important and it is something that I am sure the Australian people would expect. There are measures dealing with gifts to separate divisions of a party to prohibit donation splitting. I suspect that that is something that the member for Goldstein and his colleagues would strongly oppose, because it is all about accountability, openness, transparency and letting the Australian people know how elections are funded and how candidates are funded, and we know that those on the other side of this parliament seem to really fight against that.

Under this legislation, people who make gifts above the threshold to candidates and members of groups during an election disclosure period are required to furnish a return within eight weeks after polling day. Once again, the member for Goldstein is vehemently opposed to this. It puts too much pressure on people who donate to his side of politics, and I suspect that this is a common theme that members opposite have run through this debate. I think it is right that those returns be submitted as soon as possible. They should be timely. This is a very good change to the legislation. The legislation also introduces a requirement for six-monthly disclosure returns of gifts, where previously there was a 12-month time frame.

This legislation comes to the parliament today with, I would have to say, a history of opposition from the opposition. It was previously debated in the last parliament, in 2008-09. The opposition voted against it in the House. In the Senate the Greens and Senator Xenophon supported the legislation we have before us today and unfortunately the coalition and Senator Fielding, from Family First, voted against it—voted against transparency, voted against letting the people know where we get our political donations from and voted against us submitting our returns in a timely manner. They voted against all the good points this legislation contains.

At the commencement of this parliament the government entered into an agreement with the Greens and the Independents that this legislation would be reintroduced as soon as possible. The Greens and the Independents were concerned about the people of Australia knowing where they got their financial donations from and how their election campaigns were funded. We must remember that this legislation very much arises from a government initiative, with the green paper and much work having been put into getting us to this point. The Greens and the Independents know that this is a very important piece of legislation and they know that it is something that the Australian people want and something the Australian people expect. When it does come into law I think it will do a lot to improve the way in which people in Australia look at politicians. Australians like to know what their politicians stand for, what the people that represent them in this parliament stand for. They want to know where they receive their donations from and they want accountability.

It is proposed that this bill will commence on 1 July 2010. I suggest to the opposition that they rethink their position and maybe have a talk to some of their constituents about it. I encourage Senator Fielding to rethink his position and join with Senator Xenophon and the Greens to pass this law so that it will come into effect on 1 July. It does need his support to get through the Senate. It is such important legislation. Delaying the bill has left us in a situation where at the last election the Australian people were unable to ascertain where a number of gifts that had been given to political parties had come from. I am not ashamed to say where donations to my campaigns come from—I am not ashamed in the least. I do not think that members on the other side should be ashamed either.

The member for Goldstein talked about the fact that small business donates to his side of politics. Small business donates to both sides of politics, and both sides of politics understand—well, one side of politics understands, I should say—that a person chooses to donate to a political party for various reasons and it is not about disadvantaging them if they do give a donation to the member for Goldstein’s side of parliament. Rather, it is about openness and transparency. It is not about doing the types of things that the opposition did when it was in government—trying to totally demolish the union movement. On this side of parliament we stand for accountability. On this side of parliament we stand for openness. On this side of parliament we stand for transparency. On this side of parliament we do not stand for advantaging ourselves. I commend this piece of legislation to the House. (Time expired)

See this speech in context