Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also thank the member for Lyne for bringing this matter before the House. Can I start my contribution in this debate by briefly talking about my own electorate. One of the best things in the electorate of Fowler is its colour, vibrancy and diversity. I get to celebrate with many people who come from all over the globe. As a matter of fact, two-thirds of the people in my electorate were born overseas. A constant theme with people, and bear in mind that I do have probably one of the largest shares of refugees—people who have fled persecution, sought to flee oppression in search of freedom and democracy—is that they tell me stories about corruption in the countries they come from—the way that power and influence can be bought. They also talk about how elected officials can be influenced inappropriately, either by money, power or the influence of others.

Whilst we have an electoral system and a process of government where, despite the challenges of competing views of government and opposition, I think you would have to say there is integrity in the process, it is not something that we should take for granted. There are many people out there who still have a view of democracy, and it is certainly not just about having a vote. To use the situation in Cambodia at the moment, the opposition leader unfortunately must reside in exile in France and will not actually be in Cambodia to contest the next election. So there are many things that we need to have regard to. One of the constant themes I get advised of in my electorate is the inappropriate influence that wealth and power can buy within an electoral system. Our system is strong, but that does not mean that we should not be looking to make sure that it is more transparent and that its integrity is on display for others and can be monitored and reviewed in terms of its compliance. The bill that will be introduced in the House largely seeks to do that.

I think it is worthwhile having a look at the history of this. In the last five years the government has been trying to look at electoral donation reform. A bill was introduced in the House back in 2008 and a political donations bill passed the House in 2011—but it passed the House by only one vote. You would not actually say that it was a success in terms of bipartisanship. When we are talking about an issue such as political donations, you would think that, within a Westminster system, there should be between the two major competing parties and also the minor parties some consistency of view in terms of approach. But, as I say, it only passed this House by one vote and then stayed in the other place, and is still yet to see the light of day. There have been discussions at senior levels between parties trying to resolve this and get a degree of bipartisanship between the government and those on the other side who would aspire to be the government. That resulted in a number of changes to be brought forward in the bill to be introduced later this week.

I am not sure whether people are aware that the current disclosure threshold for political donations is $12,100. It is not $1,000, $2,000 or $5,000 at the moment; it is $12,100. I am pretty sure that most on my side of the chamber have probably never had a need to disclose that because we have not received those sorts of payments, but the fact is that that is the current level. So, regardless of the fact that we carried a bill in this place by one vote and it goes to the other place and stays there, the legal threshold for disclosure is still $12,100. Between the two parties—and I am not sure of the view of all of the crossbenchers on this—the view is to more than halve that and bring it down to $5,000. Some would say that is a compromise—and perhaps that is right—but it is certainly more rigorous than what currently applies.

Another thing that I think is important in the legislation that will be introduced in this place is the proposal to increase the transparency of donations—making sure that there is a more timely process as to when donations need to be declared and ensuring that that information is freely available to the public. Another thing that is important when talking about transparency is to include the enforcement regime available through the Australian Electoral Commission. Again, that is a good thing. We, in elected office, have the privilege of being here and in terms of how we run our campaigns I think we have an obligation not only to our immediate constituents or those who seek to donate to us but also to the Australian public to be fully transparent in the way we go about receipting donations. And if parties are not transparent in that they should feel the full weight of the AEC.

Political donation reform was originally contemplated back in 2008. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in 2011 brought down a report entitled Inquiry into the funding of political parties and election campaignsand there was another report in 2012, which the member for Mackellar mentioned, entitled Review of the AEC analysis of the FWA report on the HSU. Recommendations were made and those recommendations have largely been picked up in what is being sought to be brought before the House later this week.

Effectively, there are five key areas, which I will recap: increasing the transparency of political donations; the frequency and timing with which those donations and our expenditure need to be reported; reform of the public funding of elections; an infringement notice scheme for people who fail to honour the time line, so that they can actually be reported; and registered political parties and their state branches to be treated as body corporates for the purpose of the Australian Electoral Act. Again, I would have thought that was something that is highly relevant, so funds are not spirited between various parts of organisations and can be treated as one. These things have increased the public scrutiny of political donations. One way of achieving that is to ensure that the expenditures and reports are available on the AEC website.

The member for Lyne is probably of the view that there is an element of compromise in the whole scheme of arrangement. He may be right in that, but you must believe this goes a long way from where we currently stand. Whilst the bill of 2010 had an electoral donation threshold of $1,000, the current legal threshold is $12,100. Efforts have been made to curtail that, to make it reasonable and acceptable in a bipartisan way.

Going back to the people of my electorate, if we are clearly to ensure that we do not take steps to breach electoral reporting and we take positive steps to ensure the integrity of the system and minimise the potential of corruption, what is being proposed goes a long way down the track to achieving that. I commend the member for Lyne for bringing this matter on for debate. We have probably pre-empted many things that we will say when the bill is introduced in to the House.

See this speech in context