Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak in support of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2010. Whilst this bill is specifically about changes to the Electoral Act, it highlights a much more significant issue relating to the integrity of parliament and the people’s confidence in government. Public opinion of and confidence in governments is not high, and there are understandable reasons for that. It is important that the credibility of our parliament and our politicians is restored. Our parliament is seen as a symbol of the democracy which underlies our culture, our values and our way of life. Regrettably, these values are being eroded. Politics is about power, and the centre of power lies in the parliament. The outcome of an election has significant consequences for many people in many places. The stakes are indeed high. So, for many, the end justifies the means. Self-interest, or political survival, is often pursued at any cost, including in some cases the loss of integrity and honesty. Regrettably, the quest for power has resulted in the erosion of the very principles that the institution of parliament represents.

Many of the means used today to secure political power are directly at odds with the very values that we expect parliament to uphold. Not surprisingly, public confidence both in the parliament and in our parliamentary members has deteriorated and continues to do so. That is very clearly reflected in voter participation in Western democracies where voting is not compulsory. Voting is not compulsory in the UK and USA, and in this year’s elections in those countries the voter turnout in the UK was 65 per cent and in the USA it was 42 per cent. One can only conclude that the people who chose not to vote in those elections did so because they have little faith in the system.

In my own state of South Australia we only recently held local government elections. They, too, are not compulsory. In South Australia the local government elections are conducted under a postal voting system, where the ballot papers are posted out to the homes of each and every elector. The voter response was less than 30 per cent.

Political donations are only one of the means used to affect the political system and to destroy confidence, as I just referred to. There are of course other things that contribute to the loss of confidence in public office. Whilst I will not talk in detail about those today, I refer to areas such as the political campaigning tactics being used, the media reporting of the political agenda and the media debates, and a broad range of other strategies—some of which have been referred to by other speakers in this debate—that are used to manipulate a political outcome.

I come back to the question of political donations. There is much that can be learnt about political donations by looking to what has happened in the USA. In this year’s mid-term elections in the USA, my understanding is that the total spend across the nation for TV ads for that campaign was estimated at somewhere between $3 billion and $4.2 billion. The Republican candidate for governor in California spent $140 million on her campaign.

But there are other trends that we should take note of, because it is my view that the trends in the USA are quite often trends that we pick up here in Australia. In the USA there has been an increase in recent years in the amount of what is referred to as third-party political spending. In 2006, something like $223 million was spent by third-party advertisers or supporters. In 2008, the figure was $397 million. In 2010, the figure reached $564 million. What is interesting about this is that in a landmark 2010 US Supreme Court case the court handed down a ruling that third-party organisations can now pay for ads that talk directly about the candidates. No longer is it simply a matter where a third-party organisation can quite legitimately raise a political matter and talk about it in the context of an election campaign. They can now specifically and directly campaign in support of or against a political candidate. In fact, it was on campaigns against candidates that, I understand, most of that money was spent.

The ruling in the USA is and should be of concern to Australia as well, because if political donations continue to go unchecked in this country one can only draw the conclusion that we will end up with similar kinds of uses for those funds. That would further deteriorate the confidence in this very institution.

I have listened to a number of opposition speakers on this bill and I come to the conclusion that their arguments against it are simply unsustainable. The very fact that they are arguing against this bill, in my view, contributes to the concerns the broader public have about the political system. Whilst this bill does not resolve all of the issues that I have alluded to and whilst it may not resolve all of the issues relating to political donations, it is certainly a step in the right direction in terms of making political campaigning through donations more transparent. When the public see a political party oppose these measures, the first question they ask themselves is: why are they opposing the bill; what is really behind their opposition to it? If the bill is inadequate, by all means move additional amendments to it. By all means introduce additional matters that ought to be considered. But do not block the very matters that quite legitimately have been raised in this bill and that, I believe, would have the broad support of the community and that the community would also see as making the process of political donations much more transparent. That is exactly what we all should be endeavouring to do as members of this place.

If members opposite continue to oppose this bill, I suggest that they will be doing so at the expense of their own credibility, because they have put forward no credible arguments. To attack, as some members have done, third party organisations who have contributed to the political process, to attack the unions, is simply a diversionary tactic to cover their real motives for opposing this bill. Their real motive for opposing this bill is that they do not wish to have the people who donate to their campaigns disclosed. As I said a moment ago, if you do not want the people who are contributing to your campaign disclosed, it means that you have something to hide. If you did not you would be supporting this bill.

This bill covers six critical measures. Most speakers have spoken on each of those measures, so I will go through them very quickly. First is reducing the donation disclosure threshold from $11,500 to $1,000. It seems to me that the $1,000 limit is quite reasonable in today’s society. To go any lower than that would make the whole system unworkable. But it would also be fair to say that anyone who contributes above that amount of money would do so because they have an interest in the outcome of the election, and that ought to be disclosed. In fact, even reducing it to $1,000 may not cover all of the loopholes. I am sure that there will be some smart strategists out there who will find ways of getting around this provision as well, but at least it is an attempt to try to ensure that we have the transparency that the public quite rightly deserves.

The second measure relates to the threshold for anonymous donations of $11,500. Again, why is a donation anonymous in the first place? It is in order to ensure that the donor is not identified. There is no sinister reason in why that person or organisation ought to be identified, but I suspect that there might be good political reason why the opposition would not want that to be the case. The second measure talks about how anything less than $50 may be anonymous. Again, for all practical purposes, you could not possibly have a law that could be administered properly if you did not have a minimal amount like the $50 that this bill contains.

The third measure relates to a ban on foreign donations. Whilst I believe that this particular measure is important, I am also conscious that there may be ways around this particular provision that will be used by those who are intent on influencing the political outcome here in Australia. But, again, we should make it as difficult as possible. Nor should we be in any way influenced by donations that come from overseas corporations or, for that matter, possibly even overseas governments, who all have an interest in the policy making of this government. This is a measure that I strongly support and, again, a measure that I am surprised is opposed by those opposite.

The fourth measure relates to the separation of donations where donations are split from one political branch of a political party to another in order to be below the $10,000 threshold. This is one of the tactics that is currently used. Whilst it will still be possible to do that in the future, this measure will make it so much harder. I believe that this measure will help restore some of the credibility that I was referring to.

The more timely reporting of donations is the fifth measure in this bill. It simply relates to the process of reporting the amounts of political donations that are received. I believe that more timely reporting would simply ensure that there is much more transparency and accountability when political donations are made. If they are made honestly and without any ulterior motive, there should be no reason why that particular provision should be opposed and there should be no reason for any of the donors to object to that particular provision.

The last provision is the reforming of the public funding of elections, which ensures that no-one can stand for office purely for the purpose of benefiting by standing for office because they may collect the $2.31 for every vote they get above the four per cent. They have to demonstrate that they expended the amount that they are going to receive before they receive that money. Given that we are talking about public funds, that seems to me to be an appropriate thing to do.

I am perplexed as to why the opposition oppose this bill. I am perplexed because none of their arguments address the real issues here. It seems to me that, once again, they are simply trying to support those who seek to influence the political outcome of our elections. (Time expired)

See this speech in context