Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Melbourne Ports should understand that it is relevant because there are no expenditure cap limits in the bill. If the Labor Party was serious about making sure that we had electoral reform, it would put expenditure cap limits in the bill. But the Labor Party is not doing it, because the union movement, between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2009, contributed direct and indirect funding of $76.6 million to the ALP. That is $76.6 million directly and indirectly from the trade union movement over three years to help the ALP. Of that, there were direct payments to the ALP from the unions amounting to just under $20 million during that period of time. So $76.6 million came straight out of the pockets of workers in the union movement, straight out of mysterious funds that employers are intimidated into supporting—registered training funds and these kinds of things. We on this side know how it works. We have seen the leaked documents and we know about the compromises that party officials have to make because that is how they go about collecting $76.6 million over three years to fund the Australian Labor Party. And, lo and behold, the bill is silent on expenditure caps. There is no reference to expenditure caps and yet those opposite say they are concerned about the corrupting influence of big money.

As a coalition MP, let me say that we could only dream of access to resources like this. We do not even come close. No wonder Australian Labor Party members sit over there with big grins on their faces, laughing about the fact that they are looking at implementing a bill that is cloaked in the cloth of transparency but which does nothing other than entrench the massive machine of the union movement behind the Labor Party. The Labor Party makes zero attempts to introduce expenditure caps.

I suggest that those members on the crossbenches—who include now for example the Greens member for Melbourne; a man who got direct funding from the union movement as well, lo and behold—ought to be making sure that we put in place expenditure cuts; ought to be making sure that organisations like GetUp!, a front for the Australian Labor Party and funded to the tune of a million dollars by the trade union movement, are not contributing to the political debate. Put expenditure caps on them too. Let us be serious about genuine political reform and not simply cloak it by saying we are about transparency and do nothing except entrench the massive windfall advantage that the trade union movement provides to the Australian Labor Party over the coalition.

That is really what is at the core of this bill, and that is why the coalition makes no apologies for saying we will not support this sham of a bill; we will not support a bill that is pretending to be one thing but in reality is the exact opposite. When the Labor Party is serious about third party expenditure, when the Labor Party is serious about tackling big-money-corrupting donations by the trade union movement to the Labor Party, that is when we will support the bill. Introduce expenditure cuts; introduce limits on third parties taking part in political donations; stop organisations like GetUp! from ripping millions of dollars from offshore and then spending it on political campaigns in Australia. That is what you should do if you are genuine about making sure that we have political reform in this country; that is what this bill is missing. The coalition will not support something that does nothing except entrench the union movement’s power over those Labor members who sit in this chamber and pretend to govern for all of us. Those in the Labor Party do not govern for all of us; they govern for those who fund their campaigns to the tune of $76 million over three years.

This bill is a long way from being the pure white cloth that those opposite claim it to be. It is not about transparency; it is about providing an opportunity for them to have more ability to see who it is that is donating to the coalition parties so that their union men can go around and say to them, ‘Give us a little bit of money as well, or don’t donate.’ That is their track record; that is their form. There are many examples of that having occurred, and it is a great shame that a true opportunity for material reform is now being missed.

See this speech in context