Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on this matter of public importance motion moved by the member for Lyne on the urgent need for real political donation reform. This is a complex area and I think we can all agree that there are a range of important legal and ethical principles. I will come to those in a moment. What we also see in this area, though, is arguments which are made which purport to be from a position of high principle but in fact go to a calculation of the political advantage or disadvantage of the people making them.

On that point I want to turn briefly to the substance of the remarks made by the member for New England. It is not surprising that as a candidate you would view with some disquiet the fact that a candidate who is going to be opposing you in a forthcoming election is attracting political donations. But that is really not a policy argument or criticism of the donation system that a rival candidate is raising donations. Nor I think is it a substantive policy argument to say, 'I have a suspicion that these donations are being raised because this candidate takes a particular position.' I have no idea, as it happens, as to the particular claim that the member for New England makes as to the basis on which donations may or may not be being received. But it is surely an unsurprising proposition that candidates for political office put positions to electors which they say, should they be elected, they would seek to give effect to.

It is not a good policy argument against the existence of political donations that persons who are candidates seeking political donations put forward particular policy positions that they are advancing, nor is it a good policy argument that those providing donations are in support of particular policy outcomes. Indeed, the very purpose of our democratic political system is to arrive at outcomes on particular issues based upon a political process, and a key element of the political process is the campaign process. During campaigns, citizens should be informed about the policies of the particular parties and the particular candidates who are seeking election, and it is of particular importance that parties which have a realistic prospect of forming government are able to inform citizens of the positions that they intend to take should they come to government. Our very democracy depends on that.

But there is no getting around the fact that the process of communicating to electors is an expensive one. The process of communicating to even the 95,000 constituents in a mainland House of Representatives seat is an expensive one. Multiply that by 150 seats, add the Senate candidates as well and you have a large and expensive communications process. In turn that must necessarily be paid for. On the coalition side we do not think it would be a good system that the only people who are effectively able to politically campaign were those who had sufficient personal means to be able to afford that exercise, nor do we think it is a good idea that the totality of the funding for that should come from the public purse. On the contrary, we think it is desirable that those who are motivated to support particular candidates or particular positions are in a position to donate to candidates whose positions they support. We think that is something that should be encouraged.

We also note that there is a strong strand of voluntary activity in the work certainly of the Liberal and National parties but also, it must be agreed, of the Labor Party. Where you have voluntary organisations, organisations of concerned members of the community coming together to advance particular positions which they think are important, it is natural and proper and desirable that those organisations and their members would wish to raise money towards campaign activities. That is work that is often done by volunteers and, yes, there must be disclosure, and I will come to that important ethical principle in a moment. But it is also important that we have a recognition of considerations of practicability. It is important that we recognise the sheer mechanics of disclosing, for example, the name of every person who bought a raffle ticket. The point I am making is that we need to properly weigh up the relevant considerations. One consideration is disclosure, another one is practicability. There is a real danger if we impose disclosure obligations which in their practical effect work to discourage citizens from making donations, work to discourage citizens from being voluntary members of parties and being involved in fundraising activities, and that is absolutely a legitimate and proper consideration for this parliament as we consider the appropriate regime that ought to apply to the raising of political donations.

It is an entirely uncontentious proposition that there are vital safeguards that must be in place against those who make donations obtaining undue or improper influence by reason of that fact. The principle of disclosure is certainly one that on this side of the House we support. It is also important that all parliamentarians understand the ethical principles and duties to which they are subject and the importance of considering issues on their merits uninfluenced by considerations of donations. But I think there is one other important point, which is that those who speak most loudly in this area, those who so often make the argument that political donations are inherently problematic and who demand the most detailed and prescriptive reform, often do so with decidedly mixed motives. I cannot help remarking that it was the New South Wales Labor Party which introduced very restrictive conditions on the disclosure and collection of donations in New South Wales political affairs after its own decidedly inglorious conduct over a number of years. Nor can I help noting that the Greens claim to have substantial objections to the existing system of political donations, but in the 2010 federal election the largest single political donation ever received was received by the Greens party, $1.68 million from Graeme Wood. Extraordinary but true. Indeed, on the very day the donations figures were released by the Australian Electoral Commission, Greens party Senator Lee Rhiannon issued a press release criticising the two major parties for accepting large donations.

Dr Norman Thompson, who is described on the relevant website as 'Director of the Democracy4sale project', responded to some questions from the well-known journalist Paul Barry about this. In a statement he said that Lee Rhiannon 'queried the value of accepting this donation', that none of the money was spent on her campaign in New South Wales, and that 'many members and supporters are disturbed accepting this cheque'. Well, I think that, as we approach this issue seriously, we ought to be disturbed about a political party, the Greens party, which claims to stand for one set of principles but behaves according to another. What we need to have is clear, consistent rules about political donations which are followed by all political parties and parliamentarians.

Of course it is not just the Greens who say one thing and do another. Let me refer you to GetUp! In its annual report in 2008-09, it noted that, on 3 August 2009, GetUp! members signed a petition to call for a ban on corporate and third-party political donations. Yet, according to its disclosures made to the Australian Electoral Commission, over the last few years GetUp! has received numerous donations, including $1.12 million from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and numerous donations from individuals exceeding $10,000.

Let me just make the point: there is nothing wrong with being a political organisation. There is nothing wrong with accepting political donations which comply with the law. But, as we consider what the law should say about political donations, as we apply the ethical principles that we all agree are appropriate and need proper recognition, we must do so in a clear and consistent way, and I suggest that we need to be a little bit sceptical about the motives of some of those who speak most loudly on this particular topic.

See this speech in context