Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Here we go again, witnessing a government and a Prime Minister that will do absolutely anything to win an election, whether it's silencing the ABC or silencing anyone who speaks out against its policies. This government now wants charities silenced, and this cannot be good for our democracy. Charities do a lot of good work throughout our nation: helping those who are needy and assisting people with everything from food banks right through to educating the public on important issues. They have an absolute right to campaign—regardless of what colour the government is, whether it's on our side or their side—when they see something that's going wrong in their area. What this government wants to do is silence charities with this bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021, on the eve of a federal election. As I said, we have a government that wants to silence charities. They constantly speak out against the ABC. They want to silence the independent broadcaster, and now they also want to suppress votes through another bill that will be before this House very soon, making it harder for people to vote. This has been the way this government has operated from day one.

If the Prime Minister were serious about electoral integrity and public confidence in our electoral processes, he would support Labor's bill for the real-time disclosure of political donations and lowering the disclosure threshold from the current $14,500 to a fixed $1,000 so political donations are transparent for all to see. That's what they would do if they were serious about disclosures. They would provide more resources to the AEC for it to be able to investigate and also to do a really important thing: to increase the enrolment and turnover of voters. But we've seen no funding to the AEC, no increase in resources to assist them to educate the public about our voting system and getting people on the electoral roll. All we've seen is this government wanting to silence charities through this bill.

This is a dangerous bill. It prevents our charities and not-for-profit organisations from participating in our political process. These aren't people who are seeking high office. These aren't people who are wanting individual positions or to be elected in this parliament on behalf of a political party. They are people who see something very wrong being done through the political process, through democracy, and want to speak out and educate the public. There is nothing wrong with that. We should welcome debate and we should welcome outside groups, especially not-for-profit groups, participating in our democracy and campaigning strongly when they see something that they disagree with, when they see that people on the lower echelon of our economy are basically doing it really tough and when they see a government that make more cuts to those people, affecting those people even more. They have every right to campaign, to raise funds, to advertise and to donate to whatever political party they wish and see as fit for their needs.

As I said, we have seen lots of people speaking out against this. Earlier in the year, a group called Hands Off Our Charities was formed in response to the controversial changes earlier proposed by this government. Hands Off Our Charities comprises 100 leading charities. They have strongly campaigned against the rules, and earlier in the year released modelling that showed it would cost charities $150 million in compliance costs. Hands Off Our Charities spokesperson Ray Yoshida said the regulations were unnecessary, would stifle free speech and would affect vital services. He said:

This [modelling] outlines the extraordinary red-tape burden the Morrison government is imposing on charities that provide vital services to vulnerable people, including emergency food relief, family violence support and mental health assistance.

This is a group of Australian charities, not-for-profit agencies, that got together to form this coalition and this is what they are saying. So in no way will this assist anyone. All it will do is assist in stifling our democracy and free speech.

If the government were serious about this, they would support Labor's bill and lower the threshold to $1,000 so people are donating in real-time and everyone can know exactly who is donating and to what political party. But to make it harder for not-for-profit groups that have an interest in all sorts of areas is wrong. This bill is going to change the system dramatically. Currently, individuals or entities that spend over the disclosure threshold, which is currently $14,500, and up to $500,000 on electoral expenditure are registered as third parties. The government wants anyone who spends over $500,000 a year on electoral expenditure to be registered as a political campaigner. This bill will lower that threshold to $100,000 or one-third of the annual income so the reporting obligations are more onerous for the people in the second group than they are for third parties. It is just wrong that we are stifling democracy through a bill that will do absolutely nothing to assist our parliamentary process, our electoral process and our processes that make it fairer for people to speak out, as we should in a fair democracy. It makes you wonder why this bill is happening on the eve of a federal election which should be held early next year. And we will have another bill coming before the House in a few more days which will make it harder for people to participate and vote—through the voter ID program—when we know that not a single charge was laid against anyone for voting two or more times in the last federal election. The few people who were found to have voted in two to three different places were mainly elderly people who had forgotten that they had already made a postal vote.

I mentioned that the Hands Off Our Charities alliance was formed when the government tried this back in 2018. That was a coalition of many charities and not-for-profits from a range of sectors, including education. With education, we're talking about schools. We're talking about primary schools, secondary schools and universities. That sector, or people who are interested in that sector, has a right to advocate for good policy in this area for the next generation of Australians. What this will do is make it more difficult to spend money. It gives them more red tape which will be bound up in all sorts of forms and make it harder for these people to advocate on issues such as education.

I spoke briefly about the welfare sector but there are other sectors as well—for example, the Conservation Foundation. This is a group of people who have an interest in our environment, who believe that we need a good environment that is sustainable and that we can hand over to the next generation. They have been campaigning long and hard on environmental issues for many, many decades. It is their right to be able to donate where they wish to donate, to a political party that basically fits their policy. It allows that political party to advocate but also implement policies that are best suited to them. They're not seeking a political office. They're not seeking to be elected. They're not seeking to be part of this process that we have in this place. They're a not-for-profit organisation that deals in a particular issue, and they normally have the best advice possible that suits their agenda. There is no reason why we should be afraid of people's agendas. That's what democracy is all about. There are hundreds of agendas out there. It's all about people having the right to support political parties or anyone running for high office or advertising in any way that they want to support that particular idea.

Other charitable groups that are members of this particular organisation that was formed last year include Anglicare Australia, Amnesty International, Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Council of Social Service, Climate Council, Community Legal Centres Australia, Human Rights Law Centre, Oxfam Australia, Pew Charitable Trusts, Uniting Care Australia and Save The Children. These are organisations that do important work in our society and run on the smell of an oily rag. They are constantly under attack by this government because this government doesn't like it when they speak out.

They also made a compelling submission on the recent Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act in relation to the proposal to reduce the electoral expenditure threshold for political campaigners to $100,000. The submission said the members:

… are extremely concerned by this recommendation as many of the aspects of the EFDR Act, including the threshold for becoming a political campaigner, were very thoroughly consulted and considered prior to its enactment.

So lowering the threshold for becoming a political campaigner would introduce a very significant compliance burden for many third parties and would have a chilling effect on public interest advocacy in the lead-up to elections. I will repeat that: it would have a chilling effect on public interest advocacy in the lead-up to elections. Here we are, on the eve of an election, and here is this government trying to shut the voices of charitable organisations.

We've seen a continual war on charities by this government. The ongoing attacks have prompted open letters to successive prime ministers from the charity sector. A great deal of energy from Australia's great charities and not-for-profits has been chewed up in fighting against the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's war on their work. We've seen the coalition go through six different ministers responsible for the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission. From 2011 to 2016, the coalition parties fought against the existence of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission, a one-stop shop for charities which was supported by a dozen reports before its creation but opposed by the coalition tooth and nail. They only backed down on trying to axe the ACNC when they realised they couldn't get the bill through the Senate.

We've had bill after bill attack charities continuously. We want to see the voices of charities as enriching the public debate. We need those voices to have ideas and views. We're not saying everyone has to agree with their voices, but they have an absolute right to participate in the public debate that's taking place. But this government doesn't want people challenging its policies. It doesn't want people challenging its policies or its plans, and that's what this bill is all about. This government believes that social service charities should serve soup in a soup kitchen but shouldn't talk about poverty, that they should take clothes to homeless people who can't buy a jumper or a blanket to wear to keep warm in winter but not speak out against poverty. That's what this bill is all about. Public policy debates are enriched through the voices of charity, and by stifling their voices we're doing democracy a great disfavour. This bill should not be supported. I am pleased to hear the crossbenchers speak out against it. This bill should be dropped immediately by the government because it does nothing for the debate of public policy in Australia.

Instead of attacking charities, the government should be looking at genuine political donation reform. Lower the threshold to $1,000, if you're serious about it. Lower it to $1,000 in real time. Or, if you're even more serious about it, come up with a threshold for every Senate candidate and every House of Representatives candidate. But, of course, we know they're not serious about it. We know that this is all about silencing voices that are not on the same wavelength as this government. That's the history we have seen in the years they have been in government, always. When someone speaks out they don't like it, whether it be the ABC, whether it be charities or whether it be a group of workers, unions et cetera. To have a true democracy and true debate, we need all voices. I would even advocate on behalf of the ones I disagree with to have their voices heard, not to stifle their voices.

See this speech in context