Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I always welcome the interjections of those opposite in arguing that I live up to the title of 'Freedom Boy'. It is a title I wear with pride—so I encourage you to keep doing so. But let's not get distracted from the substance of this MPI put forward by the member for Fenner, which is of course that we all support the purpose and mission of charities. Everybody in this place—on this side of the House and on that side of the House—does. I imagine even the crossbenchers and even the Marxist member for Melbourne may see some room for the private sector that private citizens or organisations can do charitable works.

We all agree that, when donations are made in this country, they should, of course, go to the people to which they are served, to try to minimise overheads and to make sure that people can get the support and assistance they need and that, even if the money is given in pursuit of helping people overseas, it will see its same destination. Of course, we want people to participate in charities and be constructive and be part of it. But there are some things I would hope we also agree on. I would hope that we agree on the idea that, when people give money to charities, it's used, as I said, for people, and not for some people to get elected to parliament. We also believe that charities should not become siphons to fund political campaigns to distort our democracy. Those things are exactly what many of the bills that have been put before this parliament by this government seek to do.

I am hearing a lot of complaining from the other side. There have been some very entertaining and somewhat hysterical over-reactions, but what I haven't heard is any solutions. What I've heard is a lot of complaints but no solutions. The offer is always there to those opposite to put constructive ideas on the table, but we're not actually hearing that one little bit. In the end, this whole MPI is setting up for one purpose, which is that the member for Fenner was given the task by his whip: 'Can you come up with a matter of public importance today?' He looked around and would have said: 'I've said so many things. I've talked about how you should cut taxes, so I won't do it on that, because that would embarrass me and make a fool of me. I looked around and realised that there was all this research which said I believe in free markets, so I can't attack the government on its economic policy, because that would make me look a fool. So often I've written about why I believe in cutting back red tape'—and he still couldn't find anything! So he thought, 'I know—I'm going to put forward an MPI that says the government is undermining Australia's charities and then come up with a long, purposeless list of confected outrage against a former Labor minister.'

It's not normally my practice to support and defend Labor ministers. You normally would leave that up to those people on the other side, on the opposition benches. But the reality is they're now eating their own young. This is how it works in the modern Labor Party. Once you turn your back on them and accept an appointment from a coalition government to do work, to actually improve the future of this nation, to stand up and support the charities which will enable Australians to continue to donate with confidence, their response is to mock, to ridicule and to undermine. And they have the temerity to talk about the idea that they believe in free speech, while consistently demanding, saying he isn't up to the job, on the basis that he has opinions and has expressed them. This is the reality of the modern Labor Party. It is completely disconnected from reality and isn't focused on what actually needs to be done.

There are laws that need to be introduced in this country to make sure we can have confidence in the charitable sector. We all agree with that. It is important that those laws are targeted and specific to make sure that the money that people donate to charities for pursuit of a cause actually gets delivered and helps the people that they care about. What there is concern about across the general community—and, yes, inside the parliament—is that that is not happening. In some cases, what we're seeing is charities engaging in activity that goes beyond their remit, that goes beyond the purpose of influencing and having a discussion around public debate and to improve the delivery of public services, which improves the lives of Australians, toward a process where you can see the risk where charities can become agents—as it's just been acknowledged by the shadow Attorney-General—for the pursuit of foreign interests. We have to stand up for our country and its interests.

See this speech in context