Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Schools) Share this | Hansard source

Yes! It's unfortunate that there isn't more time for us to explore the confusion in government ranks on every aspect to do with charities regulation, bar their insistence of preventing any meaningful scrutiny or advocacy on issues that may affect Australian politics. But there are a few aspects of the member for Deakin's contribution that deserve examination, given his responsibilities. Firstly, and this is really troubling—I know he's a former lawyer and we should stick together in this club—he described the legislation as 'carefully drafted'. I cannot wait for Senator Cormann to find out about that, because he has said, quite rightly, that the legislation will need very significant amendment, which, of course, it does. So, bad luck, member for Deakin. Back to the drawing board.

He also said, 'It doesn't take many charities doing the wrong thing to muddy all of their names,' or words to that effect. That's probably true. But he should reflect on what this means. What we have seen in opinion polling is that Australians have a very high, and increasing, level of trust in charities. The same cannot be said of this place, or indeed of political parties. The contrast is striking. I think this explains why this rudderless, 'agendaless' government is so determined to continue its crackdown on charities and any dissenting voices in civil society. Governments members know in their heart of hearts that not only is their agenda unpopular but any discussion of the issues it is prosecuting in the community through this place—when it can get its agenda through this place—is only going to drag it down further. It is a shameful, cowardly response to not having an agenda that resonates with Australians, because, frankly, this government's agenda says very little to the concerns of Australians.

The member for Fenner has gone through the litany of attacks on the charities sector the government has engaged in from day one. They've also made a couple of comments in this debate that, I think, require examination. They talked about our unwillingness to offer solutions. Well, I say this to government members: since 2008 the Labor Party, as part of a wide-ranging reform to clean up our politics, has put forward proposals to ban foreign donations to political parties—10 years! Unlike this crazy bit of legislation that landed almost literally at one minute to midnight at the end of last year, without a proper regulatory impact statement and without any public consultation, the Labor proposals were generated through a proper green paper, white paper process. That's why they have stood the test of time and that's why this parliament should bring on the private member's bill in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and get to work on it. If they were serious about it, that's what they would do. If government members have concerns with particular elements of our proposal, let's have the debate. Let's bring that on and get on with removing foreign influence from our politics.

In doing so, let's recognise a fundamental truth: that there is a big difference between those of us who seek to hold public office in the legislature and the executive and those who seek to hold us to account. Government members don't recognise that. They refuse to recognise that. But this side of politics welcomes a strong civil society. I know that the Shorten Labor government will welcome our engagement with critical voices not only in building an agenda to change Australia but in strengthening Australian democracy. It is such a pity government members have no faith in their cause.

See this speech in context