Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I will be supporting the amendment and voting against the debate management as well. It is clear that neither of these matters is actually urgent, and putting these two issues together, I think, goes against the good faith that the crossbench has engaged in in accepting the debate management approach. The first issue on Nauru is possibly a bureaucratic oversight. It may be symbolic, and it is unknown whether it has any legal impact, but we've not been given enough time to actually form a decent view on those issues. Managing the debate is contrary to the spirit of transparency that the community wants, especially on issues relating to refugees.

The second issue also relates to transparency. There has been a great desire from communities to have increased transparency when it comes to political donations. Limiting this goes in the face of that community expectation. My community certainly wants to know where parties' funding comes from, and that applies to superannuation funds just as it does to other donors. These are issues on which we need to be able to have an open discussion so that our communities understand why, and if, there is a good argument for putting any limits on the transparency of political donations. I side with my crossbench colleagues and the opposition here on saying this is not an appropriate use of debate management.

See this speech in context