Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the government for allowing these to be looked at separately. I just want to be clear that I'm going to speak about amendment (1) and explain to the House exactly what it does and why it appears to be good but in fact doesn't need to be there at all. At the moment, certain people are required to comply with the disclosure thresholds that are there—so if you spend $500,000, if you spend a decent amount. The government wanted to reduce it to $100,000. What the government and Labor have agreed is that they want to cut it from $500,000 to $250,000. What is this going to mean? This is going to mean that a whole new range of groups between the $250,000 and $500,000 mark, which encompasses many charities, organisations, campaigning groups and advocacy groups in this country, are going to be caught now by legislation that is retrospective in part and that ties them up in red tape during an election campaign. It's designed to silence! It's designed to silence during an election campaign.

See this speech in context