Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition in respect of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017. It is 729 days today since Senator Farrell introduced opposition legislation in the Senate to ban foreign donations from our political system. Labor believes that political donations from foreign sources are eroding our political system, and urgent attention is required to address this. If you care about foreign cybermeddling in elections, you should care about foreign donations affecting Australian election outcomes.

After the government opposed our bill in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition sought to progress this urgent reform here, in the House. The government again refused to support this change, so Labor made the unilateral step of saying that we would voluntarily refuse foreign donations. More than a year ago we acted to say that we would not take foreign political donations, not because the law banned us from doing so but because it is the right thing to do. I today join with my colleague Senator Farrell in calling on the Prime Minister and every Liberal and National party member of this House to immediately—this moment—stop taking foreign donations. Don't wait for this bill to become law. The member for Mitchell just said that he believes that foreign donations are 'inappropriate', yet if you went to his political party right now as a foreign donor with a cheque to give to the Liberal Party of Australia, they would take that money. I say to the Liberal Party of Australia: Say no to British citizens like Lord Ashcroft. Say no to American political donors like Peter Briger. Say no to foreign political donations from any noncitizen, and say it today. Do not take another dollar in foreign donations. Do not wait for this bill to pass the parliament. Act right now, while you can.

Donations that seek to influence our political system are a threat not just to our electoral system but also to public faith in our democracy, faith which has been eroded, sadly, over recent months through the revolving door in the Prime Minister's office and through what many people see as the increasing pettiness of the way in which this government behaves. Labor believes we have an opportunity to finally stop foreign political money influencing Australian elections. We won't ignore that opportunity.

Two years after we moved to ban foreign donations, the government has finally presented this final version of the ban on foreign donations. The opposition will be supporting this bill, which incorporates the various lengthy amendments we've requested and which were supported by the Senate. I would also note that this bill is not the last word in donations reform. In the other place, Senator Farrell's second reading amendment indicated our commitment to lowering the disclosure threshold for political donations. As Senator Farrell said:

Reducing the disclosure threshold to $1,000 is Labor policy and it has been for a long time. We understand the importance of greater financial accountability and we are going to act on that. If we form government, this is a policy we would look to implement, and we would do so with proper consultative process. We understand that there would be a range of entities that would want to have a say on how best to implement greater transparency around a lower threshold. We have shown throughout our consultation around the current Electoral Act amendments that we value the input of many different voices, and we would undertake that process—

were we to form government—

in exactly the same vein.

Returning to the bill before the House today, the government's approach seeks to define and prohibit a class of foreign donors. It seeks to create an offence within the Commonwealth Electoral Act for anyone seeking to influence our elections through donations or gifts from foreign sources, and extends that offence to those wilfully receiving them. This bill aims to prohibit those who seek to influence Australian voters from doing that with the support of foreign sources of funding, including foreign states or state-owned enterprises.

While I've noted that the opposition is supporting this bill, the process of getting here has been far from easy. The original legislation caused such significant unrest within civil society that our trusted charities and not-for-profits created a new alliance. There we go: the Liberal-National Party bringing charities together against their ham-fisted legislation. The Hands Off Our Charities alliance was formed to combat the pernicious and problematic effects of the first draft of this bill.

The bill was referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters not once but twice—once to review the bill and then to review the proposed changes—and both times the members of that committee worked diligently to engage across the parliament and with civil society to make recommendations for reform. I acknowledge, in particular, the Labor members: Senator Ketter, Senator Brown, the member for Oxley and, particularly, the deputy chair, the member for Scullin, for their vital service on those inquiries. I also acknowledge the members on the Hands Off Our Charities alliance with whom I've worked extensively in my capacity as shadow minister for charities and not-for-profits. I would note that this is the first time that either major party has had a shadow ministry for charities and not-for-profits. This process has reinforced the importance of having that position—not just for us; it's something I would urge for those on the other side of the House.

By working closely with civil society, we've secured two key commitments that give charities and not-for-profits confidence and clarity in interpreting the scope of these reforms. The first is a clearer and more concise definition of what is considered to be an electoral matter. The definition, acting as the gateway to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, won't capture legitimate public policy advocacy and should be reserved for those seeking to influence a voter or the result of an election. The second is a guaranteed review of the practical operation of the bill by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

But, over the course of the last two years, the coalition has not only moved at a snail's pace but managed to stumble in a way in which snails don't. It's a remarkable achievement that they have managed to act with such tardiness and ineptitude. The original bill didn't just ban foreign donations; it hit charities, not-for-profits, advocacy groups and churches. The coalition, it seemed to us, was trying to hijack bipartisan support for banning foreign political donations as an opportunity to shut down their critics. If they'd gotten their way, Australia's charities and not-for-profits would be reeling from yet another coalition attack; yet another front on the war on charities. Initially, when that draft bill was tabled in the Senate, the finance minister maintained that, 'Nothing in this bill prevents charities from expressing their views or advocating for or against political parties, candidates or election issues.' But the sector disagreed, unanimously, loudly and in great detail, with the minister's assessment.

Charities have learnt pretty quickly that, when it looks like an attack on the charitable sector, that's probably because it is. The initial bill had no consultation on exposure drafts. It contained no regulatory impact statement—a little strange from a government that touts its willingness to reduce red tape. It's little wonder that charities saw this as a strategy to marginalise their voices through the process, with the ultimate goal of silencing their vital role in advocacy. The Human Rights Law Centre warned of:

… serious risks that the legislation violates Australia’s constitutional protection of freedom of political communication.

St Vincent De Paul said:

… the ultimate effect for charities will be a set of complex, cumbersome and costly administrative requirements. This will force many charities to divert resources away from frontline services and advocacy. For some charities, it may also have a "chilling" effect, deterring them from speaking out about injustices in order to avoid the onerous administrative costs that such advocacy would incur.

The Australian Conservation Foundation were worried that the law 'poses a significant threat to all charities engaging in issues based advocacy'. The legislation effectively conflates the advocacy activities of independent, non-partisan, civil society groups with the electioneering of political parties. They said:

It's an unprecedented restriction on advocacy and on contributions to election debates …

A spokesperson for Pew Charitable Trusts said the new rules would prevent Pew from using international donations to pay for groups of Indigenous Australians to visit Canberra and Perth to advocate to federal and state parliaments for Indigenous causes. He said:

The government clearly doesn't want to make a distinction between electioneering and advocacy … that conflation is a fundamental challenge to what is a basic function of our democracy …

RESULTS International, which receives 85 per cent of it's funding from international sources, noted that the government's initial approach would have harmed their ability to advocate for improved funding for AIDS screening and tuberculosis immunisation in Australia and our region. Pew also noted the impact on organisations such as the World Wildlife Fund, which, over a number of years, has been a strong advocate for Australia in our role in conserving the Antarctic. That advocacy is, in part, supported by international donors, and so the original version of this bill would have hampered that push.

As a summary of the ACF noted:

Under the proposed bills, ACF would find it much harder to amplify stakeholder voices and support communities in far west NSW in the development and implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

The Burnet Institute, which has lobbied the federal government to include new direct-acting antiviral drugs for the treatment of hepatitis C, said that because the work was considered advocacy, the original version of this bill could have jeopardised the Burnet Institute's efforts to have medicine subsidised for people in need.

I've noted Pew Charitable Trusts' concerns about the original bill impeding their ability to support Ngadju leaders to travel to meet with government officials and media representatives in Perth and Canberra to discuss their work on the Indigenous ranger program. Anglicare Australia network members provide emergency relief and disaster recovery that would have been put at risk by new rules on how charities can collect donations, meaning that they might have struggled to respond to events such as bushfires. WWF Australia receive funding from international philanthropy and uses that, in part, to help penguins in the Antarctic. They were concerned that their work of protecting penguins might have been caught by the initial bill.

The heart of the problem was that the definition of 'political expenditure' was too broad to support the demanding and punitive framework of reporting compliance and enforcement. Constitutional law expert Anne Twomey explained to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters the key definition at the heart of the government's scheme was:

… so extraordinarily badly drafted that it could, frankly, apply to anything.

This is one of our foremost constitutional experts describing the original bill as being 'extraordinarily badly drafted'.

Charities were concerned about the original bill's application to public advocacy work. The Benevolent Society said the definition of 'political purpose':

… is too vague to be meaningful and enforceable … In effect, it could cover comments or views on any issue at all as there is no way to determine what is likely to become an electoral issue in the future.

They also said:

… almost anything that a charity says or does publicly could be captured. Acts such as preparing a submission to a public inquiry, or participating in a public hearing, or even corresponding with a Member of Parliament could be captured by the clause …

It is extraordinary that this parliament would pass a bill that would shut down the ability of charities and not-for-profits to do what we often ask them to, which is to get engaged in the process of scrutinising bills before the House.

Academics argued the bill would effectively prevent meaningful engagement with government and with the parliament. The university sector body, the Group of Eight, said:

This definition is extraordinarily broad in scope, potentially capturing a range of common and legitimate activities routinely performed by universities and academics during the course of their required activities.

They also said:

… any issues significant enough to have become subject to a parliamentary inquiry or departmental consultation process have a strong potential to become election issues at a later date.

Arts organisations raised concerns:

It is not uncommon for works of art … to express views or to communicate and inspire public debate or insight on issues of social importance …

Determining where an artist’s artistic intent ends and political or social intent begins is not clear cut. Introducing a law that requires such a distinction is inappropriate.

Concerns were also raised by Indigenous education groups, regional aid and conservation groups around the sorts of groups which are often encouraged by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to engage in cultural outreach. They were concerned that they might be caught by the draft bill. There was concern that, before handing around the collection platter to support an organisation such as an Anglicare or UnitingCare, the minister might have to tell those in the congregation: 'If you're not a citizen, don't put money in the collection plate.' That's how poorly drafted this original bill was.

So Labor stood up for free speech. We shared the sectors' concerns and fought for their interests. It wasn't the first time we had had to do this. It wasn't the first time the government had brought Australia's charities together against them. There have been two open letters to the Prime Minister complaining about attacks on charities. Indeed, under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, the current Prime Minister is the only one not to have gotten an open letter from charities complaining about the attacks on them by his government. The most recent of these open letters was signed by a plethora of community groups, including Volunteering Australia, Carers Australia, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Community Council of Australia, Justice Connect, Philanthropy Australia and the Starlight Children's Foundation. As the Hands Off Our Charities team put it when expressing their concerns about the original version of this bill:

Most if not all charities seek to change society in some way to improve the circumstances and outcomes for the people, places or issues they represent.

… … …

Under the proposed Bill, the legitimate role of charities as advocates for their charitable purpose is fundamentally changed, with charities that seek policy and other reforms through a public process being recast as political entities engaged in the electoral process.

The problem with foreign money is it amplifies the volume of the voices who are speaking against the interests that charities seek to represent. Foreign political donations are very rarely employed in support of the little guy, in support of causes such as public health, deforestation, climate change, inequality, poverty and disadvantage. So removing foreign influence from our politics will clear the air. But, in their original iterations, these bills were far from doing that. As Hands Off Our Charities said, the proposed bills 'would weaken debate by silencing the voices' of interests that are 'typically represented by charities in the public arena, and by placing onerous restrictions on civil society groups representing the views of large numbers of Australians.' They said that, 'This will result in public debate being further dominated by those who already enjoy access and privilege.'

Whether by negligence or design, that was the coalition's vision for Australia, a place in which immigrants were told that they couldn't put money in the church collection plate, in which environmental charities were told that they couldn't work with overseas partners in dealing with the global challenge of climate change, in which consumer protection agencies told us they weren't sure they would be able to continue their campaigning on product safety, and in which international NGOs were saying, 'There's no way we'd set up our headquarters in Australia when you've got foreign donations laws which stop us working with international partners to get people around the world out of poverty'.

Labor values the work of charities and not-for-profits. For encouraging supermarkets to phase out battery-farmed eggs to demanding a royal commission into misconduct in the financial sector, our charities and not-for-profits have been at the forefront of progressive activism. But under the coalition, they have tried to silence the views of environmental charities and they've tried to prevent legal charities from being involved in law reform debates. Social services charities have been asked to sign government contracts containing gag clauses, an issue that I know my colleagues, Senators Pratt and McAllister, have been speaking about very strongly. And I know that the member for Barton is deeply concerned about it, as was her predecessor as shadow minister for families and social services, the member for Jagajaga.

The coalition crusaded for five full years to shut down the charities commission. From 2011 to 2016, their official stance was that Australia should have no charities commission. And when they were finally unable to get that bill through—it was introduced here and I spoke on the second reading—and pulled that bill, they appointed a charity critic as its head. There has been a survey done by Pro Bono Australia which found that two-thirds of Australian charities find it harder to be heard by the federal government now than they were five years ago. And when we look at how the coalition has spent the last five years, it's hardly surprising.

We've had six ministers over five years responsible for the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission: Kevin Andrews, Scott Morrison, Christian Porter, Michael McCormack, Michael Sukkar and now Zed Seselja.

See this speech in context