Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to associate my remarks with some of what the member for Scullin has said, particularly the importance of the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters in this place. I was honoured to join that committee at some point in my first term, and despite a short hiatus I'm really pleased to be back. I share his view about the important need to protect the institution itself and to ensure that Australians have trust and confidence in our electoral system. In that regard, I think we should start from first principles. I personally believe that Australian democracy is a gold standard around the world. I don't think anyone would take issue with that. That's not to say that don't need to stay ever vigilant. We absolutely do. In my view, one of the reasons why the Australian democracy is the gold standard around the world is that it hasn't descended into becoming the plaything of the rich. If you look in other jurisdictions, you will see ultimately that one of the first things you need if you want to run for political office is an extremely healthy bank balance. It has become a question of individuals and their extreme personal wealth. In my view that should never be a prerequisite to running for office, and thankfully it's not in this country. But we need to be clear and careful about how we manage that. In short, those that seek to amend our donation system in this country are running a risk of very serious unintended consequences. Those unintended consequences have been highlighted by a number of political parties and movements who have made submissions in relation to this, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering the Donation Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2019, which the committee was tasked to consider.

Transparency is an important goal, and no-one is running away from the need to maintain transparency around political donations. But we need to balance that with the practical implications. On the one hand, if we were to lower the donation threshold to $1,000—when I say 'donation threshold' I mean the threshold below which disclosure doesn't need to be made—there would be a couple of very real practical limitations in my view, which I will speak to. But it's not just my view; it's a view shared by a number who made submissions to this process, including minor political parties and also the Human Rights Law Centre. The Human Rights Law Centre, in addressing this issue, said that it imposed onerous compliance obligations on community groups and charities and imposed a greater administrative burden on third party community groups and charities that rely on donations.

I don't deny that $1,000 is a reasonably large sum of money, but when you think about it on a per weekly basis—and political parties are moving increasingly to low-value, high-volume donations—then we're talking about less than $20 a week. If we were to move that threshold down from where it currently sits, which is somewhere in the order of $14,000—the figure was increased under John Howard to $10,000 and has been indexed ever since—you would, in my view, deter everyday Australians from engaging in the political process. I myself have come across examples in other jurisdictions where individuals are limited to these lower sums.

I was reflecting on this before and noted that the Labor submission speaks to the threshold being set by the then Prime Minister Bob Hawke in 1983. I thought to myself, 'I was six. I didn't really have a view of what $1,000 bought you in 1983.' So, I thought I'd reflect on some data. In 1983, the average house price in Sydney was $81,400. In 1983, the average house price in Melbourne was $52,500. Today the average house price in Melbourne is a touch under $550,000. In my respectful submission, the thresholds we have today are about on par with the thresholds that Bob Hawke set in 1983. We all know what inflation does to the value of money, but we have a threshold which is more or less based on a 10-times multiplier of the threshold set in 1983 of $1,000. House prices have increased more or less by the same magnitude, so I suggest to you that the thresholds we're currently operating under have the same practical effect as those in 1983.

Suffice to say that that's not the only issue that I and the government take issue with. We also shouldn't underestimate the administrative burden that administering a program of this type would result in. That has been highlighted by, amongst others, the AEC. I appreciate that others will say, 'We'll just give the AEC more resources.' Fair enough. But I'm more concerned about the deleterious administrative burden that will be borne by minor parties. Larger political parties, one of which I'm a member of and represent, will have the architecture, the administrative know-how and the manpower to get this work done. What I don't think you can say is that minor parties—particularly independents, but minor parties as well—would share in that view. Before others in this place jump to their feet and clamour that all will be fine, there are a number of minor political parties, such as the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, who have indicated their objection to this proposal on that very basis.

We need to be clear about this. The administrative burden would effectively impose a barrier to entry. If we were to drop the thresholds to this point, increasing the need for backroom administration, then those of us, particularly from large political parties, would be able to deal with it, and minor political parties would be able to deal with it, if they've got the resources that come with political office. But I'll tell you who will be most disadvantaged: minor political parties with aspiration—those parties out there that don't have a publicly funded office or administration and that don't have the benefit of public resources that come with winning an election and other things. I think we need to be very cognisant of, and the government has been very cognisant of, the unintended consequences. It is important to note that we've got a gold standard democracy. I think everyone would accept that transparency in our democracy, particularly at a federal level, is the envy of the rest of the world. In terms of the donation threshold, in my view, on the quantum, we've got the balance about right and we've had it about right since it was first instituted in 1983. But the benefits of such a scheme do not outweigh the costs of it in terms of the administrative burden and the difficulties that it will impose on minor political parties as well. That is why the government has adopted the position it has.

Finally, I need to make this observation. People in this place who reckon that donations exert political influence or are the best way to exert political influence are perhaps belying the reality and the recent reality. I think if someone were looking to exert political influence or influence over political processes in a way that amounts to malfeasance—and in my view any form of donation for political or policy outcome is an exercise in malfeasance—then there are far easier ways and much more illegal ways to go about that. So, I suggest that the efforts of those in this place who want to maintain the quality, veracity and strength of our democracy should target their guns, if you like, on those other ways that influence is exerted on political actors. In recent times, in this place, we've seen people leave this place and the other place—I'm not going to mention names, but I think they all come to mind—where, for example, personal debts were satisfied and those sorts of things, all of which sit way outside the political donations framework. I think it is to those things that we should turn our attention if we want a healthy, strong and resilient democracy.

See this speech in context