Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009 this morning, there are several general comments that I wish to begin with. The coalition strongly support comprehensive reform of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and, in our time in government, introduced many reforms to the Commonwealth Electoral Act which improved its operation and which tightened up issues to do with transparency, accountability and deductibility. But we do not support piecemeal reforms which only serve to entrench Labor’s strong position with regard to donations. It is a sad day when I have to rise in the House to say that the coalition cannot vote for this bill, even though we do believe in reform of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, because of its content and because we can see that it is simply another measure that the Labor Party has introduced to try and entrench its political dominance. It is not a genuine attempt by the Labor Party to address any of the issues that the public are concerned about involving electoral transparency and the potential for fraud under the Electoral Act—a matter of which I have intimate knowledge given that I handled the inquiry into the Queensland Labor Party and New South Wales Labor Party rorting of the Electoral Act in the last government. It is not an attempt to address third-party donations, particularly from groups like the union movement or through the activities of third-party organisations such as GetUp! which support one particular side of politics. It is not an attempt to genuinely trace down and find the sources of donations that are given in bulk rather than separately. It does not address in a comprehensive way the issue of overseas donations, from which the Labor Party has received great benefit and advantage over the years—famously, from the Philippines when it received donations from people who had been charged with murder or, going right back to the time of the Whitlam government, when it received donations from the Ba’ath party in Iraq.

This bill represents a partisan and piecemeal approach to a serious issue. If the government were serious about electoral reform, they would have done a great deal more than simply cherry-picking the ideas that serve Labor’s own political advantage. Of course, I do not expect any better from the Labor Party, because they usually mouth platitudes and rhetoric about what they think the Australian public want to hear but, when it actually comes to delivering on the ground in the area of real reforms that would create a level playing field for political parties, they are short on substance and long on spin. Where are the provisions in this bill that deal, for example, with the way the unions operate—with the donations that come from the union movement—or with the control of third-party politicking for one party at the expense of the other? Where are the provisions that deal with the operations of an organisation like GetUp!, which very effectively campaigned against the Howard government? I certainly give them full marks for political effectiveness, but there is no provision in this piecemeal act for dealing with the transparent and open operation of third-party activity. Such activity is much more regulated in a country like the United States than it is in Australia. I am sure that the Labor Party have many criticisms of the United States’ model of government, yet the reforms that they have proposed are not nearly as strict as those that already operate in the United States with respect to third-party activity.

The process for coming to this bill has been counterintuitive and politically driven. The coalition have consistently maintained our position that we will await the outcomes of the government’s electoral reform green paper before committing to specific electoral reforms. The government have only just in the last fortnight even released the public submissions to their green paper, yet this bill is allegedly so urgent that they felt the need to rush it back into the House last Thursday and to bring on for debate today. On the one hand we have a process of public consultation with a view to implementing serious and considered reform, which the coalition supports. But that is not important or urgent for the government; what is urgent for the government is to bring in a piecemeal piece of legislation that suits one party’s interests over those of another—and that does not represent an addition to the process of comprehensive reform. Yet apparently this piece of partisan legislation is the No. 1 priority of the House of Representatives today. In fact, it is such a priority that it has forced other aspects of the government’s legislative agenda out of the way for this partisan, piecemeal piece of legislation. We regard that as ridiculous and farcical. We are not forced, required or obligated to vote for pieces of legislation that entrench partisan politics in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Commonwealth Electoral Act should be above such partisan attempts by political parties to entrench their dominance in a political world where they are already dominant. We all know that the Labor Party are dominant in Australia at the state and federal level in terms of electoral success, yet there is an attempt in this act to crush even more the democratic freedoms that we, at least on this side of the House, hold dear.

In March last year it was the coalition which initiated comprehensive terms of reference to go to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. This was supported by the Democrats, the Greens, Family First and the coalition and was opposed by the Labor Party. This reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which I used to chair, was opposed by the Labor Party because it was a comprehensive reference about long-term reform of the Electoral Act which did not entrench partisan politics but in fact opened the act to more accountability, more transparency and greater fairness. As my colleague and friend Senator Ronaldson said in the other place:

… it was a comprehensive proposal which addressed all the matters which we believe need to be included in a comprehensive campaign finance reform.

As I said, the coalition are committed to electoral and campaign finance reform, and that is why the coalition parties initiated this process by reference to the joint standing committee in the first place. We are happy to take the government at face value when they say that they are also committed to campaign finance reform, but the real question is: where is the beef in the Labor Party’s commitment—because it appears on the face of this bill that their commitment goes only so far as to entrench their dominant political position? There is no commitment to campaign finance reform that actually creates a level playing field and gives all political parties a fair chance to win an election. There is no beef in the Labor Party’s attempt to don the clothes of the party that represent campaign finance reform; they simply mouth the words, the platitudes and the rhetoric. At the end of the day they cannot come to real campaign finance reform.

This bill is partisan. It is cherry-picking those aspects that suit the Labor Party. This bill is not the answer to campaign finance reform. For example, the tax deductibility part of the bill was introduced as part of another package and then withdrawn and introduced on its own. The tax deductibility question and the disclosure question are two issues that the government has chosen to pull out of comprehensive campaign finance reform simply for its own purposes. If the government were genuinely committed to comprehensive electoral finance reform then why were we debating the tax deductibility bill previously and why would we be debating this bill today? These measures should clearly be part of a comprehensive bill that deals with campaign finance reform rather than a piecemeal approach.

Again, as Senator Ronaldson pointed out:

… it begs the question, when every commentator in this country has talked about the level of influence of unions, third parties and large corporate donors, of why those issues were not also a part of these measures. The reason that was not done was that the Labor Party views these two isolated pieces of campaign finance reform as good for them and bad for everyone else in the political process—

that is, bad for the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Australian Democrats—or what is left of the Australian Democrats—the Australian Greens, Family First and all those other political parties that might not be represented in legislatures federally or around the country but which are still an important part of our democratic process and give people a choice on election day about who they wish to place their preference with on their ballot. He also said:

We also believe that there should be stronger penalties for infringements of the Commonwealth Electoral Act but we note that most of these electoral abuses are actually committed by the Australian Labor Party itself—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Perrett interjecting

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that the member interjecting actually comes from the great state of Queensland, which has produced most of the—

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would not be saying ‘hear, hear’ too quickly, because unfortunately Queensland has produced the majority of cases of electoral fraud that have been investigated by this House; for example, the Shepherdson inquiry, in which we are talking about electoral fraud which cost the Deputy Premier of Queensland his job. It cost that rising star of the Queensland parliament—who now, I think, works for the federal secretariat of the Labor Party in Canberra—his job. It cost Mike Kaiser his job. It saw members of the Queensland Labor Party put in jail. I will not name them, because the poor woman, Karen Ehrmann, was the victim of bullying and thuggish behaviour by her factional warlords in Queensland—which we investigated in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I am not surprised that members of the Queensland Labor Party in this House have gone silent and hang their heads in shame. The sad thing was that members of the Australian Labor Party were jailed for electoral fraud in the 1990s and the 2000s, and unfortunately I had to go through the tawdry, messy, dirty and ugly business on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters of investigating those matters arising out of the Shepherdson inquiry.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Perrett interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Moreton will remain silent if he wishes to contribute to the debate.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, we found in fact that all the cases that were investigated were on the Labor Party ledger of electoral fraud. Whether it was in New South Wales or in Queensland, whether it was the activities of members of the Australian Labor Party parliamentary party or, indeed, members of the organisation, they were almost all on the side of the Labor Party. I will tell you why—members of the Queensland Labor Party might be interested to know. To have a vote in your internal preselections you needed to be on the electoral roll in the seat in which you were voting, so there was a tremendous motivation amongst the warlords in Brisbane to insist that their minions throughout Queensland rent flats and houses and, in doing so, be able to enrol in the seats in which they were voting. And when you were dealing with a place like Townsville—

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They had them enrolled at vacant pieces of land.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

‘Vacant pieces of land,’ my honourable friend the member for Herbert points out. When you had small numbers of people in the Labor Party itself in Townsville, you could actually have five or six enrolments at the same address and, in doing so, dominate the preselection process, and unfortunately that is why Queensland wears the crown as the state that has been investigated the most in this House for electoral fraud. Of course, it does not just stop in Queensland, with the Shepherdson inquiry and with my own inquiry. Unfortunately, it spread to New South Wales. The most recent case has been the Wollongong council sex and bribery scandal, which has dogged the Wollongong council and the Australian Labor Party in that state in recent months.

The Liberal Party want to work with the government to make sure that we get something decent out of this reform process. Some members of the Labor Party might not think so after my excoriation of the Queensland Labor Party for electoral fraud, but I can tell you that we are prepared to put that aside and work with the Australian Labor Party for real reform of the Electoral Act. If only they were as genuine as the coalition! This is the chance to make real improvements to our system of electoral funding, to improve transparency and credibility and to improve the public perception of politics and politicians in general. If this were a serious and comprehensive campaign finance reform bill, it would do something to account for or limit the influence of trade unions and other rich third parties, which provide overwhelming support for the Labor Party. The Electoral Act should be politically blind and nonpartisan, open and neutral. The coalition say, ‘Let’s tackle campaign reform seriously and with consideration of the whole process, not just those parts that assist the Labor Party.’ So, while we can see the need for the content of this bill, we do not support a piecemeal approach to campaign finance reform. We believe that the report of the green paper into campaign finance reform should be awaited, and so should the reports being done by those committees of the parliament that are meeting to discuss this very important issue. I thank the House.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I need a little bit of indulgence on your part or, more importantly, on the Clerk’s part because I am going to refer to an article by Harry Evans, the Clerk of the Senate, in this chamber. I hope you will be tolerant, Mr Speaker. It is an article called ‘The life of a state: Australia’s longevity’, in which he talks about democracy around the world. Basically, he refers to the fact that Australia is the country that has functioned continuously under the same constitution for the sixth longest amount of time. That is quite amazing when you think of the countries and nationstates that have operated around the world for the last 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000 years. We are the country that has functioned continuously under the same constitution for the sixth longest amount of time. The United States is the first; then come the United Kingdom, Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada and Australia. It is quite amazing to think that our democracy ranks up there with the rest of the world in terms of being continuous.

I move from that to the fact that this chamber is all about democracy. I am a relatively new member of parliament. My first day in this House was the day when the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, made the apology. That was an incredible way to start my political life, and I thought: ‘This is fantastic. It’s so wonderful to be here in this chamber.’ When I became a lawyer I thought law would be all about being someone like Atticus Finch; well, politics started like that for me. Obviously, not every moment in the chamber since then has been quite as lofty. All sorts of debates about legislation take place, and we certainly saw that in the previous speech from the member for Sturt. I have never heard anything like it. Metaphorically speaking, the whole way through that speech he was wiping his shoe as if he had stepped in something. That is what it was like. We have a great piece of legislation before the House that is all about protecting democracy, and he stood up there with a hollow voice—a hollow man—making a hollow speech. As I said, the whole way through his speech it sounded as if he had stepped in something and was trying to wipe it off his foot.

I rise to support the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009 before the House. The bill is about ensuring greater transparency and accountability in our political process. It delivers on a Rudd Labor government election commitment to do away with John Howard’s and Peter Costello’s ideological assault on open government. The previous government arrogantly used their control of the Senate to increase the declarable limit for disclosure of political donations, which was at a low of $1,500. They ramped it up to $10,000—and, with the CPI, it is equivalent to $10,900 today. This represented a huge jump in the limit required before donation details must be made public and ensured that massive sums of money had gone into party coffers without the public knowing. So, whilst the member for Sturt gave a historical rant about what might have gone on in Queensland—mistakes that have been long remedied—he could have gone back only a few years to see how people in his own party had abused things. Instead, he stood behind the facade of voting against this piece of legislation in the other house because it might have been better. That is, as I said, incredibly hollow.

The Howard government created a system that was much more open to corruption and allowed the possibility for conflicts of interest to go unnoticed. The Labor Party opposed these measures in opposition, and we are now following through with our election commitment to repeal these laws in government. It was wrong law when John Howard and Peter Costello controlled the public purse, and it remains wrong now when they do not. As a Queenslander, I remember the Fitzgerald inquiry; I remember the horrible years, and I can go back beyond that as well—back to the Bjelke-Petersen government and those horrible times when old National Party politics consisted of secret backroom deals, nods and winks, and money passing under the table in brown paper bags. That is right. That was used to influence political process.

Thankfully, I learnt about my political views from my grandfather. One of his proudest stories was standing up to a National Party politician, Russ Hinze, who was called the ‘Colossus of Roads’. My grandfather was able to say: ‘Look, I took a shovel to him because he was trying to rort a road-making process.’ I remember Russ Hinze well and those bad old days of the way political processes were carried out. Thankfully, now we are in a more modern Australia, where Australians want and deserve to know where the money is coming from that is used to fund political parties and candidates. But the opposition are opposed to this bill and they should hang their heads in shame.

The Liberals say they want transparency in the process but, every chance they get, they move to block this bill. It is the old Turnbull three-step: initially you say you support it, then as the next step you undermine it, and the third step is that you oppose it—you vote against it. They have already delayed this bill in the Senate by referring it to the parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry, and then they voted against it last week in the Senate. Apparently the opposition are not interested in political accountability. This bill will amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to reduce the current threshold of donations from the current $10,900 down to $1,000. It will also remove the CPI indexation and prohibit foreign and anonymous donations below $50. I assure people that this does not mean that, when they buy a couple of raffle tickets at their local branch, they will have to disclose their donations—it is only below $50.

This will bring Australia into line with other countries, including the United States, which is the longest continuous democracy under the one constitution. I cannot speak for those opposite, but I do know that we on this side of the House have nothing to fear from greater transparency in the process. In my experience, donors to the Labor Party are not ashamed of their association, are not trying to hide and would be proud to have their details recorded. The Labor Party, as the political arm of the trade union movement, know about our connections. I am always amazed when those opposite suddenly say, ‘You are connected with the union movement,’ like it is a great discovery. I am not sure why they are so scared of the collective. We have had some significant political leaders from the Right that have been of the trade union movement. Ronald Reagan was a trade union representative for the equivalent of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. I think even Brendan Nelson was head of a collective—I am not sure if you would call it a union movement—at one stage.

Sharryn Jackson (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The oldest union in Australia.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right. I am always amazed when those opposite call out such things. However, I can understand why some donors to the Liberal Party might be ashamed, given that party’s political legacy. I think I am operating under parliamentary privilege, but I will be certain not to mention anything bad about Clive Palmer—the guy who is suing Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser. I do have two young children I need to support, so I do not want him coming after me for $1 million! Nevertheless, modern political campaigns are an expensive exercise. The United States chewed through more than US$1.5 billion for their presidential campaign and another US$1.3 billion on their house and Senate campaign. I would hate to think that we would ever spend anything like that in Australia, but I have no doubt that political parties will continue to face significant costs to get their message across to voters in this ever more complicated world.

Political donors are, therefore, key participants in the political process. Their contributions, including donations and gifts, should be open and transparent. I, like everyone on this side of the House, have nothing to hide. This bill will also overcome the practice of donation splitting. Under the coalition’s changes, corporations were able to use donation splitting to donate up to $90,000 spread across state and national branches without public disclosure of that funding. This will be removed by ensuring that donations made to related political parties are treated as donations made to the single political party for disclosure purposes.

This bill also reforms the electorate funding entitlements to eliminate the potential for candidates to profit under the current system. When the Hawke Labor government introduced public funding for political parties and candidates way back in 1984, it was never intended that it would be rorted by individuals for profit. Under election funding laws, candidates are reimbursed $2.10 for each vote they earn, provided they get at least four per cent of the vote—this is a fair system. However, unfortunately it is left open to abuse by pseudocelebrity candidates, who spend little actual money on their campaign and muster four per cent of the vote but have no realistic chance of election. In 2007, a failed businesswoman from Ipswich contested a Queensland Senate spot. I recall that her one policy was calling for a ban on Islamic immigration to Australia. It was a familiar line from the former member for Oxley and failed candidate for Blair.

Most Australians are fed up with that kind of intolerance, and that is why Queensland’s Mark Furner was elected to the Senate, and not Queensland’s biggest hypocrite. Senator Furner is someone who cares about all people, regardless of their background, and is someone who is making a great contribution to this country as a senator. This failed businesswoman is lining up again, this time contesting the South-East Queensland seat of Beaudesert, a place where I unfortunately have lots of family connections. One of them even had the joy of meeting her the other day!

Back in 2004 the serial candidate received about $200,000 in electoral funding after getting just over 100,000 votes, yet she spent only $35,000 on her campaign. In 2007 this professional leech came back for more, collecting $213,000. There is something sick about a system that allows candidates or political parties to profit personally from the electoral funding when they have no intention of actually being elected. Our democracy is precious, as I said at the start, and to think that some candidates would choose to rort the system for their own gain is particularly offensive and a slight on the integrity of our electoral process. That is why I am very, very surprised and disappointed that Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals would not agree with such a proposition and instead voted against the bill.

This bill makes no major changes to the amount of funding that candidates can receive for electoral expenses, but, by introducing a claims based approach, it will put an end to candidates exploiting the system. There will be no more blank cheques for candidates. Instead, it will introduce a new electoral funding entitlement for registered political parties, unendorsed candidates, Senate groups and joint Senate groups. The funding rate will be calculated as the electoral expenditure claimed and accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission or $2.1894, CPI indexed, per first preference vote, whichever is the lesser.

Funding will still be conditional on candidates or Senate groups receiving at least four per cent of first preference votes. To receive the funding entitlement, candidates or groups will be required to submit a claim. The types of expenses candidates are able to claim under this bill include advertising—obviously, that is very important—polling, signs and printing. The government amendments also include three further categories: rental of campaign premises, employing campaign staff and the costs of certain equipment used during the election period. This equipment is limited to computer, communication and photocopying equipment. So this amendment bill benefits all parties and all candidates rather than just the bigger parties that will do the lion’s share of advertising. We support a healthy democracy, not just the two major parties.

This bill has teeth and introduces a range of powers and increased penalties for the Australian Electoral Commission to enforce these new policies. These powers cover a range of offences, including failing to lodge, lodging incomplete claims or providing false or misleading claims regarding electoral expenditure. The unlawful receipt of foreign or anonymous donations will have a penalty of 12 months in prison, 240 penalty units or both.

The Rudd Labor government is committed to restoring integrity in our election process. Those opposite can bay all they like about what happened 10 years ago, 20 years ago or 30 years ago; that is irrelevant. The only history that counts is the history that occurred last week when those opposite voted against this bill and the amendments before the House. The Labor Party is attempting to restore public confidence in the system and provide greater accountability for all candidates and political parties. It was an election promise and we are carrying through with it. I commend the bill to the House.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very serious issue. As the deputy chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and as someone who has spent an enormous amount of time working in party organisations and dealing with the matters that the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009 addresses, I think I come to this debate with some experience of the things that are on the table. It is an incredibly serious issue, because right now, as I look around the country, I would say that the politics of money either has overtaken or is at serious risk of overtaking our democracy at both state and local levels. We have seen, I think, all the worst abuses and all the worst examples of the sorts of issues that this bill touches on come to bear. We have seen the events in Wollongong. They have been spoken of many times in this place and they have been the subject of many reviews. When we see things like what happened in Wollongong, I think our first thoughts must be for those who actually live in Wollongong and have had to put up with this nonsense. They are now seeking support for their current administrator, and hopefully they will have another elected council sometime in the future—the sooner the better, I would say. It is our constituents, the people who live in our electorates, who are the ones who ultimately pay the price for these issues that are the subject of this bill—and more generally that are the subject of this broader debate—when they are not addressed. But address them we must, because this is getting out of control.

I often make reference to this in speaking on these matters in this place, but we do have a political arms race which is now well and truly out of control. In New South Wales, my home state, the spending by the Labor Party at the last three elections went from $6 million to $12 million to $15 million. And the next one in 2011 is anyone’s guess. It is an absolutely absurd situation, because the demand for so much money is, at the end of the day, what prompts the collection of so much of it. When we get our democracy so significantly affected by elections effectively being bought at a state level, as we have seen in New South Wales, then I think that sounds the bell for some serious reform of political donations in this country.

Equally, we see the level of support from particular groups within our community increasing. Where there is no restraint on what can be done, we see that particular sections of the community can really have an enormous influence. Even though they represent a diminishing level of the workforce, they can have an enormous influence on electoral outcomes. The most recent figures released by the Australian Electoral Commission, released back in February, showed that in the year in the lead-up to the election the union movement across Australia gave $9.2 million in cash to the Labor Party. That was $9.2 million in cold, hard cash straight from the union movement into the coffers of the ALP to fund their orange-placard-fuelled campaign all around the country. But, in addition to that, if $9.2 million in cash were not enough, you could not move around most of Australia without being run over by a Your Rights at Work truck. These were provided to Labor Party candidates in the field and on the ground—these were seconded resources from the union movement. It was also people, resources, fax machines, office equipment, paper—you name it, this was provided to the ALP by the union movement. If you think $9.2 million is a lot for one part of the community to shout with their voice at an election through the provision of funding then the in-kind contribution was $26.8 million. So, all up, well over $35 million was spent by the union movement—the largest ever from any one constituency group in the country spent on one election, I would argue.

It was from a range of unions: the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, $1.5 million; the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, $1.3 million; the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union, $1 million; the famous liquor, hospitality and ‘miscos’ union, $765,000 in direct cash; the Electrical Trades Union—the member for Deakin started in the Electrical Trades Union, and our friend Dean Mighell is there—$674,000; the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, $650,000; the Maritime Union of Australia, $581,000; the Australian Workers Union, $568,000; the Health Services Union, $366,000; the Transport Workers Union, $304,000; the Australian Services Union, $244,000; and the National Union of Workers, $236,000. We had an avalanche of money being poured into an election campaign from one specific section of our community.

In addition, beyond that, there has been a campaign from the ALP over many years to intimidate the business sector with its own views on political donations. There are the AGMs where the ALP moves people into various meetings and places to ask questions of directors to create some sense of guilt in a company that would clearly be more advantaged by a process, a set of laws and a set of economic policies that would grow our economy as opposed to contracting it, as is occurring under this government, and to intimidate them about where they will be putting their money.

At the state level, it is even worse. At the state level the level of intimidation and bullying that goes on is much worse for small businesses and for others in the business community who know what is best to create jobs, what is best for the economy and what policies are best going to suit these things. Yet they are intimidated by those who now, under the workplace changes which are being looked at in the other place at the moment, will provide an unfettered right of entry to those unions to come in and parade themselves around these small business enterprises and look at people’s individual records. That is what $36 million gets you in this country: $36 million gets you a package of laws that go beyond what the now government said before the election. That is what $36 million gets you. This is a very serious issue when we have spending, donations and levels of influence, I would stress, which are emerging and creeping up. This has, sadly, always been a fairly unpleasant feature of state governments, as we have seen writ large in local governments. We now see it emerging on the federal scene.

This is a major opportunity for change. There should be some major changes. They should not be piecemeal changes. They should not be changes that have trickled down through this place in no context and that suit the political persuasion of those on the other side of this House yet fail to confront the big ticket items that are relevant to the issue of political donations reform. This is a major opportunity for change. I fear that if this parliament does not grasp the nettle on this and take the opportunity to make major changes systematically and holistically across the board—not piecemeal and trickle-down changes but a complete and unified package—then in years to come we will see the damage that inflicts on how this place operates and the pressures put on members in this place in their ability to do their jobs for their constituents. It will seriously compromise and undermine our electoral process in this country, as we have seen it do at a state and local level. This is our opportunity to get this right.

How do we do that? I refer to an article by the former federal secretary of the Labor Party, Mr Tim Gartrell. He makes mention of a number of types of reforms, which I will touch on in a minute. He says:

A limit on campaign spending is the best option—

something I tend to agree with him on, but that is not my point—

but it too requires a lot of work.

It would need a watchdog with real teeth and resources. It would need a similar cap on third parties—so the funds aren’t redirected to front campaigns …

But he says:

Most importantly, it requires the major parties to take a long-term view of the problem and the consequences of letting the arms race continue at the next election.

The former federal secretary of the ALP is arguing, like those on this side of the House, for comprehensive reform—not piecemeal or trickle-down reform and not saying, ‘This is what suits us at the moment, so we’ll ram it through.’ He is arguing for comprehensive reform, and I think those on the other side of the House should take a careful interest in what the former federal secretary of the Labor Party is saying, because I think he has a better idea of its direction than those currently driving the boat, who are trying to force this bill on this parliament at this time.

This actually requires a genuine bipartisan approach. I pay tribute to the member for Banks, who is in the chamber and who I work with on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. That process, I must say, has been a genuine, consultative and engaging bipartisan process. There are no surprises in that process. It is a very open process, as joint committees of this House and the other place should be. When we gathered together at our first meeting at the start of this year, there were Senate terms of reference for the electoral matters committee that were provided and put forward by the coalition. Those terms of reference were rejected by the Labor Party in the other place. The terms of reference proposed a comprehensive review of donation reform measures by the joint standing committee in addition to the normal inquiry that the committee undertakes each year. After an election the committee normally undertakes a review of that election, and we have been doing that. Later today in this place the first interim report of that committee on some of those matters will be tabled and we will touch on it at that time. But the coalition thought that, after the last election, one of the most important things that the electoral matters committee should be addressing was this matter of donations reform. I can only go by the way the Labor Party voted in the other place as to what their view was, but they opposed these terms of reference:

That the following matter be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry and report:All aspects of the 2007 Federal Election and matters related thereto, with particular reference to:(a) the level of donations, income and expenditure received by political parties, associated entities and third parties at recent local, state and federal elections;(b) the extent to which political fundraising and expenditure by third parties is conducted in concert with registered political parties is;(c) the take up, by whom and by what groups, of current provisions for tax deductibility for political donations as well as other groups with tax deductibility that involve themselves in the political process without disclosing that tax deductible funds are being used;(d) the provisions of the Act that relate to disclosure and the activities of associated entities, and third parties not covered by the disclosure provisions;(e) the appropriateness of current levels of public funding provided for political parties and candidates contesting federal elections;(f) the availability and efficacy of ‘free time’ provided to political parties in relation to federal elections in print and electronic media at local, state and national levels;(g) the public funding of candidates whose eligibility is questionable before, during and after an election with the view to ensuring public confidence in the public funding system;(h) the relationship between public funding and campaign expenditure; and(i) the harmonisation of state and federal laws that relate to political donations, gifts and expenditure.

That is a comprehensive list of things that need to be addressed as part of this debate—and there are other things, as our committee is learning. But the government has not taken this view. Once again, when it comes to bipartisanship, what is put to us is a take it or leave it proposition. Whether it is workplace laws, ETS laws or any other laws that are before this parliament at the moment, the government says: ‘Our way or the highway. There is no room for any real engagement. We are just going to sing the song of bipartisanship.’ But, when it comes to the practicalities, we have a bill that is pushing a Labor Party agenda ahead of what should be a comprehensive reform package.

So the coalition has said: ‘No. If you want to have a genuine discussion about this then let’s have a genuine discussion. But enough of these high jinks, enough of this bringing bills into this place which seek a partisan advantage.’ You cannot bring a bill into this place seeking partisan advantage and then pretend to be engaging in a bipartisan approach to this problem. It is a complete joke. You cannot do both. You are either going to have a genuine bipartisan conversation, and put aside your partisan advantage positions, or you are not. What we have here is a bill that seeks partisan advantage. We are going to say no because we want the bigger deal of reform and because we believe the people of Australia want the bigger deal of political reform in this area. They do not want something piecemeal. They do not want something hashed together to advantage one political party over another—or other candidates, for that matter. They want a deal that is going to see the political funding arms race come to an end. They want to see sense reign and they want measured propositions put on the table that stand aside from partisan interests and genuinely improve our democracy.

A range of things have been talked about, and I am happy to touch on a few of them. The issue of expenditure caps has received a lot of treatment. There are many different views on it. Our committee, the parliament and others will continue to look at these things in detail, as they will do through the green paper process. But, from my experience, this is a demand problem. So long as the sky is the limit on how much you can spend at an election then so will be the appetite for funds through political fundraising. That is the bottom line. You can craft all sorts of definitions of those whom you do not like or whom you do not want to be providing funds to political parties, but the fact is that they just do not work; the definitions can always be got around. Frankly, who are we to be saying, ‘You’re worthy, you can donate, but you can’t’? That seems to be somewhat undemocratic, in my view. If it is a legal business and it is legally undertaking its affairs in this country, then how could it be viewed differently from anyone else in this country as an actor in the economic process in this country—and the individuals, more specifically, whose livelihoods depend on the operation of that business? We cannot go around picking and choosing winners and losers in this process in terms of who is fit to donate and who is not. What we can do, though, is say something about how much we think is a realistic amount that can be spent on elections, and thereby realistically quench the appetite for so much money.

Then there is the issue of thresholds. Thresholds have been around for some time now. There will always be a debate about the level at which they should be set. I think thresholds present a far more democratic way of addressing the issue of disclosure and transparency. The idea of capping—saying how much one individual can contribute—runs contrary to the principle of people’s freedom to participate. I note how much support the union movement gave the government at the last election. They have every right to do that, but the point I am making about that level of contribution is that, because there is the opportunity to spend so much money, that is where these areas can be abused. By limiting the amount we can spend, I think we can have a much more sensible discussion about disclosure thresholds.

There is the issue of third parties. It is simply not sustainable, I think, in this debate to apply different rules to businesses and unions. You cannot say that unions can continue to contribute but business donations should be banned. There are some who make that argument, but it is a ridiculous argument. If we are going to limit donations to individuals then it should apply to individuals directly donating. If we are going to broaden it out then unions and businesses sit in the same camp—and anyone who seeks to provide a special deal for union donations, as opposed to business donations, is clearly seeking a ridiculous partisan advantage.

The last two points I would make relate to compliance and harmonisation. This bill, in particular, raises the issue of additional penalties. The vast majority of people who are involved in politics in this country, as we all know, are those who are not involved in it on a day to day professional basis as we are in this place. They are ordinary members of branches of political parties and supporters of candidates all around the country. We have to make the job of compliance as amenable for them as possible. We want to achieve the goals of transparency and all of these sorts of things, but at the same time we must be careful not to impose such a burden that the only people we are catching in the net are those who cannot do paperwork, as opposed to those who are seriously seeking some form of improper advantage. So we need to be careful when it comes to compliance. We need to make sure it is simple and easy for people to comply with.

The final point I would make is on harmonisation. We have significant variations in state and federal laws, particularly when it comes to donations. Ensuring that we have some harmonisation of those laws is another part of the big picture reforms which this bill should be addressing but does not.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009. This is a bill that is worthy of support by both sides of the House and worthy of support now. This is a reintroduced bill, so it is not the first time it has been in the House. It is a bill that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, of which I am chair, examined. The committee made certain recommendations for amendments that should take place, and the government picked up most of those recommendations.

The member for Cook, who preceded me in the debate, is the Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. He talks about bipartisanship. Words are cheap. Actions speak louder than words. I want to go to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and read the two recommendations of the dissenting members, of whom the member for Cook was one. Recommendation 1 was:

Coalition Members believe that further debate in the Senate on this Bill should be deferred until proper public scrutiny and discussion of the Green Paper and the report of the Joint Standing Committee into Electoral Matters into the reference made by the Senate on 11 March 2008.

That has been the mantra of the opposition: ‘Do them all together; do not do them a little bit at a time.’ That is something that I think can be dismantled with very little debate. Let us have a look at the merits of each of the propositions. The second recommendation of the minority report was to amend clause 40—proposed section 306AE of the bill—in relation to anonymous donations, to increase the threshold from $50, which we recommended, to $250. So when it came to making recommendations in relation to the substantive provisions of the bill, the only difference between the government and the opposition is that the government members of the committee recommended $50—because it was at a $0 level—and opposition members recommended $250.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Read the first one again!

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have read the first one, but the first one was in general terms. In relation to specific provisions, we have nothing from the opposition.

The sad fact of the matter is that we have a modern-day Albert Field in the parliament, in the Senate. People might remember Albert Patrick Field from the seventies. He was put into the Senate by Joh Bjelke-Petersen to, in effect, frustrate the then Labor government. In the Senate now we have Senator Steve Fielding. I think it is worthwhile quoting a few statistics in relation to him. He is well intentioned but not consistent. The last time this sort of legislation was before the parliament, when thresholds were increased, Senator Fielding opposed the lack of transparency and accountability. He voted against the measure that the coalition was introducing. But the coalition had a majority in the Senate and it passed into law. But now his vote counts and the whole measure that is before the House—and will go back before the Senate—is about transparency and accountability. In effect, it says: ‘If you want to buy a politician, we want to see how much you are paying to buy him.’ The coalition increased the thresholds for donations so that much less is now disclosed.

What mandate does Senator Fielding have? Senator Fielding in 2004 got 55,551 votes out of a state-wide vote in Victoria of 2,996,594 votes. He had 1.8 per cent of the vote. He got himself elected on the back of the Labor Party’s preferences. The remaining three candidates were from Family First, the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party. Senator Fielding was sitting on 309,740 votes, or 0.7236 of a quota. He got 219,934 preferences from the Labor Party and, overall, 230,272 preferences. The Greens got 9,647. So he got elected off the back of the Labor Party. I am using those figures to show that 219,000 of his final 540,000 votes came from the Labor Party. I am saying to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that he does not have a mandate to frustrate the Labor Party at every opportunity in relation to every piece of legislation. A large percentage of the vote that he got elected on came from the Labor Party. He should look at these matters on their merits.

I understand that he has a problem in relation to the amount of money that goes to political parties and he wants to have a serious cap on what the major political parties can get—which was all he talked about when he voted against this legislation in the Senate. But I say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that is a separate issue. Let us deal with that. We propose to deal with it. It is on the political agenda, through the green paper. The green paper has been released. Submissions have been made in relation to the green paper. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters proposes to have a roundtable conference in relation to those submissions. So it is not as if Senator Fielding’s objections to the system as it currently operates are in the ether and are not going to have an opportunity to be aired. But what do we have? We have the opposition siding with Senator Fielding to block this legislation once, and probably twice, again. What is it all about? They do not want a start-up date of 1 July this year and they do not want a lead-in time so that the Electoral Commission can start implementing the new systems. We have already missed one deadline in relation to this bill.

I repeat that the only objection—and it addressed a substantive matter—was to say, ‘We don’t like a $50 cap on anonymous donations; we want a $250 cap.’ So that actually went into the substantive nature of the bill. Indeed, we picked up some suggestions within the committee that opposition members wanted—as did Senator Bob Brown. I do take the view that you look at these matters on the merits. If something has merit, you pick it up. This is the second committee I have chaired. I chaired one in the former Keating government—the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I have always believed in committees acting on material in front of them, acting in good faith and trying to achieve consensus. Notwithstanding the first recommendation of the minority members, which is let us do it altogether, I say that is not practical. We would then get the criticism, ‘We have got an omnibus bill that is too big; we cannot look at it in a discrete manner.’ The question is, where do they stand on each of the matters that are currently before the House? We have had no objection from them even though they did change the law.

That is where I get a little annoyed when I hear the words, ‘We want bipartisanship, we want to do this and we want to do that when it comes to electoral matters.’ On the 24th of this month I will have been in this place for 19 years. For over 11 years I have been on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I have yet to see proposals brought forward by the Liberal and National parties that have involved decent transparency and a cleaning-up of the electoral act. It has all been about hiding money that went to them through the Millennium Foundation and it has all been about disenfranchisement, running fear agendas about multiple voting, proof of identity and a whole range of things, knocking out votes where there was a safety net previously for people who made a mistake on their ballot paper. It has cost hundreds of thousands of voters their vote. I appreciate the comments of the member for Cook because I think actions speak louder than words. I want to work with members of the opposition on these matters because I actually take the view, and I know the minister takes the view, that we need the opposition as part of the reforms so that we can have long-term reforms. The time for partisanship is over.

But what I do not agree with is having a gun held to my head or the government’s head in saying, ‘Unless we deal with everything at the one time, we are going to keep rejecting these proposals.’ Tell us about each of the particular proposals in the legislation that you do not agree with, that you think you can improve in terms of caps, in terms of transparency. We have not heard any of those arguments. Sadly, we got a letter as a submission from the Liberal Party national secretariat to the green paper with the same mantra, in effect not making any contributions or suggestions as to the way forward other than, ‘We don’t want to talk about this unless we deal with everything together.’ Forgive me for being a cynic, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think it is an attempt by the opposition to frustrate electoral reform, electoral transparency, and to not in effect be fair dinkum in relation to this matter. That is the only conclusion I can draw. If they want to get up and say: ‘This is bad. We have this proposal,’ they should do it in relation to each of these matters, because they are discrete. What we are putting to you is not reliant on the green paper. The way the minister has progressed his proposals is in a discrete way that can be dealt with on the merits.

So that is why I get a bit frustrated by Senator Fielding. I think he is well-intentioned. He has got a lot on his plate. But I do not cop the argument, ‘Just because we are not going to put a cap in this legislation,’ which I think would be wrong, ‘I am going to bomb your legislation, and I am going to allow another year or another two years till I get defeated at the next election to go by before we have lower thresholds, before we have shorter reporting periods.’ I say to the opposition: if you are fair dinkum about bipartisanship, if you are fair dinkum about being involved in this process in a genuine way, abandon this fanciful argument that we have to deal with everything together and let us sit down and deal with each of these matters on their merits. As I say, on the merits, the only objection that the minority report has is that they thought that an anonymous donation should have a cap of $250, not $50. And I applaud them for putting that in there as their view.

I do not want to speak the full length of time because I know there are a few speakers. This is the second time the matter has been before the House, because it is a reintroduced bill. But I say in all sincerity that I do not think that the government should be left in a situation where it has to necessarily haggle with one Independent senator on very important legislation. The Liberal and National parties should come to the table in relation to some of this, as a sign of good faith that they actually want to engage in the process and in the debate on political reform. This is an opportunity to put up further substantive amendments, if they have any, or to support the legislation as has been brought before the House, which has been amended by the government, taking into account a lot of the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. That says something about the minister, Senator Faulkner. He is prepared to sit down and look at stuff on the merits and take on board the work of the committee.

I do commend the bill to the House and I ask the opposition to rethink what I think is a wrong attitude, a wrong stance that they are taking at the moment. I understand the problems within the coalition at this point in time but particularly in the Liberal Party. I do not think it relates to this. It might relate more to other pieces of legislation. The matters in relation to this have actually been throughout the life of this parliament, but I think it is a nonsense they are arguing.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we all agree that what is needed is comprehensive electoral reform. Unfortunately, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2008 does not deliver it. It does not come anywhere close to delivering it. I hear the member for Banks and his impassioned plea for us to take the government, the Labor Party, on good faith—that this bill is one step in the journey, one piece of the jigsaw puzzle—and that we should not seek to solve the whole issue of electoral reform in one bold bill but should take one giant step for man, perhaps one leap for mankind. That argument would be understandable if the Labor Party and the government could be taken on good faith. We took this government on good faith that its $10 billion cash splash would be well targeted and that economic modelling was in place—Heaven forbid that the Reserve Bank Governor was actually in the same room as Prime Minister and Cabinet when it was discussed—and we took it on good faith that it had sought advice on the bank guarantee and the unlimited guarantee. Every time we have taken this government on good faith, it has fallen into an abyss. To the member for Banks: my good faith has run out—and, I suggest, outside of politics the good-faith barrel is somewhat empty.

There is enormous goodwill on our side for electoral reform. If this government had the courage of its convictions and put up a bill that actually addressed comprehensive electoral reform, we would gladly sit down and work towards a unanimous decision and vote on the bill. If this government had the courage of its convictions—if it truly believed in the merits of electoral reform, including addressing the federal system; looking at public funding, donation amounts and disclosure; addressing caps on donations from individuals and business entities; looking at caps on third-party donations in kind, dollars and advertising; and addressing threshold disclosures and appropriate enforcements—and sought a bill of that magnitude and that depth of reform, I think the nation would applaud, and we would join with the government to negotiate it through.

This bill is partisan—it cherry-picks the bits and pieces that the Labor government wants. It has nothing to do with ‘one step forward on the journey towards electoral reform’. In March last year, it was the coalition which initiated comprehensive terms of reference to go to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. This was supported by the Greens, the then Democrats and Family First but unilaterally opposed by the Labor Party. So spare me your mantra on good faith. Our proposal was comprehensive and addressed all matters which we believed needed to be included in any comprehensive campaign finance reform bill. We are strongly supportive of comprehensive reform. We are not supportive of the partisan approach this government is taking to cherry-pick the bits that will aid and abet them.

I would like to take the government at face value. I would like to say that they are committed to campaign finance reform—and I assume they are. I assume that they will acknowledge that we, on the other side, are also committed. But as the minister knows—and as we know—we have objected over the last 12 months to the government’s cherry-picking campaign on finance reform. This bill seeks to simply address the tax deductibility and disclosure question primarily, which the government have chosen to pull out for their own political purposes. Every campaigner and commentator in the country has talked about the significant levels of interest of the union movement, other third parties, large corporate donors and industry groups, yet none of this is touched on in this bill. The member for Banks and the government would have us believe that this is because the bill is ‘the first step on the journey towards reform’ and that, in good faith, we should trust the Labor government that the subsequent steps will follow in short succession. May I suggest an alternative view, and forgive me for my degree of cynicism: this is all about the Labor Party’s views, and these two isolated pieces of campaign finance reform are good for them and bad for everyone else.

The opposition further believe that there should be stronger penalties for infringements under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. But we note—out of interest and out of historical fact—that the majority of electoral abuses are actually committed by the Australian Labor Party itself: the multiple cases of fraud in Queensland resulting in the Shepherdson inquiry, the Gino Mandarino fraudulent enrolment, the Christian Zahra fraudulent enrolment, and the Wollongong Council sex and bribery scandal. There is no doubt, when you look at the facts, as to where the majority of cases of electoral fraud have come from. We see the frenetic media attention to this long overdue requirement for campaign finance reform as being driven out of that Wollongong sex and bribery scandal—one of the most perverse abuses of responsibility, of principles and of values that have been witnessed. The Wollongong sex and bribery scandal is certainly up there with all that is wrong with the current system and all that needs to be changed, yet this government comes in here with two cherry-picked pieces of reform rather than addressing reform in totality. Even though the government’s green paper specifies the very areas of reform that are needed, the bill hand-picks a few. That is the response we get following on from the Wollongong sex and bribery scandal. The Australian public can be excused for thinking that perhaps the Labor Party does not take it seriously.

Do we see anything in this bill with respect to the excessive influence of the trade union movement on the political process? No, we do not. It is common knowledge that the Australian Labor Party received in excess of $30 million from the trade union movement in the run-up to the last election. One could be forgiven for thinking that the elements of the Fair Work Bill that are now allowing trade unions unfettered access to businesses, even though there are no union members in that business, to demand and review all records—all pay slips, all medical records; anything with respect to employees—is a simple payback, a $30 million worth of thanks.

Interestingly, when looking at the impact of the union movement and its dominance and sway over the Australian Labor Party, Senator Ronaldson outlined some details that he had received from the financial statements of the New South Wales branch of the AMWU. He said that under the heading ‘National Council Political Fund’, on page 3, it had affiliation fees of $401,846.  I think we can safely assume that the fees were not for the Liberal Party but were for the Labor Party, being affiliated with the union. It had donations of $209,591. I think we can assume that the money was not donated to the Liberal Party. And there was election advertising of $8,120. That brings in total, for one year, for one union, overtly political expenditure to the Australian Labor Party of $620,000. And this government does not believe that is worthy of some attention within the political process!

There is also a specific line in these accounts of the AMWU which says ‘marginal seat campaign, $150,352’. That is $150,352, from the AMWU, for marginal seat campaigning, on top of their $620,000. And this government does not believe we should be addressing, at the first instance, the rampant influence of the trade union movement and indeed their $30 million influence on the last election! It is so overt in such an admission as to be unimaginable.

The question is: why is this not part of the cherry-picking legislation before the House today. Why, in addressing comprehensive campaign finance reform were some of these issues not front and centre? No-one believes that the status quo is appropriate. Everyone believes something needs to be done. But I think the Australian people know that the argument of one short step on the journey towards reform is not entirely the truth. The fact that this matter was sparked by an incident, such as the Wollongong sex and bribery scandal, needs to be understood. We have an unprecedented opportunity this time, this day, to make significant improvements to the electoral funding system in this country. There is enormous goodwill for comprehensive reform on this side of the House. There is broad consensus across the political spectrum that our electoral finance system requires serious reform. It requires enhancements to transparency and improvements to the credibility of the entire system. Yet the great sadness is that this bill does very little to address anything. It does not limit the influence of trade unions or indeed third-party associations, advocacy groups or other well-funded third-party entities. It does nothing to limit their influence. Regardless of who is in power and who is in opposition, who sits on which side of the benches, the Electoral Act must be fair and it must be neutral. It must be open and it must outlast governments and indeed outlast our time in political office. It must be above political process. It should serve the nation; it should respond to the requirements and needs of people. It should be better than us all. This issue is too serious to be debased by this piece of cherry-picked legislation.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just comment on some of the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Fadden.  Apart from the hyperbole that he specialises in in this place, I would remind him of something before he leaves the chamber. There you go, he walks out, because he can never discuss an argument. First and foremost, people talk about electoral reform, particularly the political donations side of it, and we just heard 15 minutes of it. But we are asked to walk the journey to do something about it and, as the member for Banks rightly pointed out, this bill was not meant to be, nor is it, a comprehensive reform of the system. It is part reform and sensible reform of that system. There was an opportunity for bipartisanship—as the member for Cook well knew; he is personally, no doubt, somewhat embarrassed by his stance—and it is a sense of bipartisanship on which I think we should have been able to arrive at some consensus.

I would also point out that the other side bang on about the union movement’s contribution to the election of a Labor government, or certainly the change of government in 2007, and rightly so. It is not news. Of course, the coalition go on to say that the union are trying to influence policy, for instance, on industrial relations from this side of the House. Well, there is news! But what they do not point out is that the business lobby groups made such a substantial contribution to those on the other side during the last election and still do. And you do not think they are trying to influence industrial relations policy of this government or the position on the other side or have any influence on the climate change debate and the introduction of an emissions trading scheme? So let us not have this silliness that the member for Fadden specialises in, this hyperbole that he constantly spits out so that he can be the leading speech maker on the other side. Indeed, he boasts at his barbecues that he will make the most speeches on the other side.

I rise to speak in support of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009. While some on the other side discount its importance, the integrity of the funding of our electoral system cannot be underestimated. This legislation is a fundamental part of restoring the trust of the Australian people in our electoral system, which I believe was undermined when the former government increased the levels of donations and failed to tighten the loopholes that exist. This lack of action allowed more questions over where the money was coming from.

The bill is about taking the Australian system of electoral funding to best practice and making sure people, lobby groups and corporations cannot dance around the regulations to achieve their own aims or seek to influence the system just from the sheer depth of their pockets rather than with their arguments. Almost daily we hear about the lack of trust in politicians. Here we have a chance to restore some of the trust by making the majority of political donations open and upfront—as simple as that. Perhaps the most significant change proposes to reverse the massive increase in the level of disclosure which was allowed by the previous government. To reduce this from the current indexed level of $10,900 to a fixed level of $1,000 will be an important first step on that journey—as the member for Banks so rightly pointed out in his very good contribution to this debate. This will be coupled with a secondary move to eliminate the practice of splitting these gifts between related branches and divisions of political parties to avoid the necessary disclosure. There is a simple way to fix this, and it is something there should be bipartisan support on, but there is no comment at all from the other side. I am sure some people out there will be frantically looking for a loophole and a way around this, which is why we need to head down this path. But, if the donations were made in an upfront way, there should be no need to spread them around branches in a way that avoids reporting and disclosure to the Australian people.

The bill will also outlaw overseas donations, bringing Australia into line with other countries, such as the United States. One may ask why this should be prohibited. But such donations are outside the jurisdiction of the Australian Electoral Commission and again allow another avenue for those who do not want to be part of an open, upfront and transparent system to find another way around the current regulations. Another important move is to reduce the time frame for reporting on donations. Prompt reporting will allow a quick response to any problems or patterns which are emerging in donations and funding and give the proper authorities a chance to investigate before it is too late—before the rats and the rat food head down the rat holes. This will reduce what I call major delays between reporting and the actual donations being received. At present, reports can be made 20 weeks after the end of the annual reporting period. That means that a donation in January is not required to be reported until June the following year. Surely, in these days of electronic records and up-to-the-second communications, we can do better than this.

Let us look a little more closely at why we need to improve the scrutiny and regulations surrounding political donations and, importantly, election funding—and I hope we go a lot further with this in the future as well. I think we can learn a lot from others, particularly from the Canadian system, and I hope that is where we will be heading into the future. But, anyway, we can deal with this now, and I would like those opposite and those following to say why they disagree with this bill, in terms of the points that we are making in it. Just this year, we heard of questions surrounding the well-known former MP Pauline Hanson—still in the news, for a variety of reasons—and her treatment of funds from the last election, following her ill-fated tilt at the Senate. It is not the first time Ms Hanson has been under speculation for the amount of funds which her political activities and others have generated. While this does not directly relate to a political donation—but more to funding received from the Australian Electoral Commission—it serves to highlight the level of public concern about our system. Ms Hanson was accused of siphoning off more than $200,000 in taxpayers’ money, just through a bid for a seat in parliament. The ability to receive significant and multiple undisclosed donations and then benefit to this extent from the public purse is something we need to be wary of in any respect.

A question mark hanging over the funding of a candidate or party, regardless of the result, reflects badly on every one of us in this House and in our state parliaments around the country. It reinforces why we need to leave no shadow of a doubt that every cent which goes into the electoral system, at either end, is free from any question mark, free from taint. The change will not disadvantage candidates who are making genuine claims for electoral expenditure. Provided a party or candidate has incurred sufficient electoral expenditure and submits their claim, there is no substantial change to the amount of, or time frame for receiving, public funding. And that is the point: it is public funding. Taxpayers of this country pay for this, so it must be treated and administered with the highest of standards.

Closer to the bone for some, particularly those from my own state, will be the continuing questions about the influence of the group known as the Exclusive Brethren. While I would never seek to suggest any group—religious, business or otherwise—be restricted from making a donation or having its say in an open forum, it must all be above board and leave no room for questions. And questions still surround the actions of this church group and its affiliates—the belief that it was part of a planned campaign to influence the outcome of an election. While an AEC investigation concluded that the activities under scrutiny during the 2004 federal election were made by a third party, and not by the church or its leaders, the suspicion remains with some that it was not all above board. And we are not talking about a few dollars here and there. The figure in question was some $370,000, which is a significant amount in anybody’s language. This money funded a series of pro-Liberal and anti-Green advertising material and pamphlets. Again, I repeat, I am making no claims against this group. I am trying to highlight the fact that an unclear and ambiguous system can lead to confusion. It can leave room for a legitimate donation to become shrouded in mystery and controversy—lost down the rat hole. It is better that we remove any room for such suggestion and clear up the questions that may remain.

Our opponents opposite would say that this bill is about restricting their ability to fundraise. If they are serious about being open and honest, what concerns would they have about openly reporting significant donations to their parties and campaigns? To say that donors to any party could be intimidated if they are disclosed is a furphy and absolute nonsense. Oh, dear; they might find out! Oh, dear; recrimination! Oh, dear, intimidation! I would also note that other participants in this parliament, particularly in the Senate, are more supportive of the proposed reforms. The Greens have been calling for changes for many years, and a fellow Tasmanian, Senator Bob Brown, has been particularly active in relation to donations by groups and their influence on the political process. This is part of an election commitment from the Rudd government. Surely anyone who thinks about this seriously would realise that the opposition from the other side is just a smokescreen.

This is part of an election commitment from the Rudd government. It will form the basis of a broader package of reform of election funding, and I support it and commend it to the House. I will listen with interest to those who follow in this debate to see if they will explain, point by point, why they do not support the reforms in this legislation and why, instead, they dream about some comprehensive legislation that we were supposed to have brought forward to completely reform the system. If you want to talk about it, begin the walk on that journey.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I follow the member for Braddon, who spoke before me on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009. The member for Braddon made some points with which I agree, but the fact is that this country is in dire need of electoral funding reform. I think that one of the great shames of the previous government is that it did not undertake this reform. It did not undertake a holistic reform agenda on political donations and, to quote the member for Cook, we are now in a situation where we are headed down a funding arms race—which is not good for democracy and is not good for either side of this House.

It is in the best interests of both sides of this House and the people that we seek to represent that we reform the system of donations that operates now. The sums of money are becoming so large that the integrity of what we do in this place and what happens in the Senate can be called into question. That is why I think that this bill is a very big disappointment. It is the same as we saw last week with Senator Wong on the flawed ETS. It is saying: ‘You can’t have a Ferrari, but you can have a Datsun. If you want the best model, we are not going to be able to give you the best model. We can give you a very poor second choice instead.’ That is the same excuse that the government is using on this bill. It disappoints me that the member for Braddon has said: ‘We’ve got to do a little bit. We can’t do it all.’ I am not sure why we cannot do it all. There is a process going on at the moment through parliamentary committees to look at holistic reform, and I support it, many on this side of the House support it, and many on the other side support it as well. We can do this with a holistic approach, and we should.

I think this bill is a cop-out, because it favours those on the other side of the House. That is the disappointment about this bill. Rather than taking a holistic approach and looking at the benefit for both sides of the House, for the benefit of our democracy, we have a bill which seeks to benefit one side of the House over the other. That is why we are opposed to it. We do have a political arms race going on, and it poses a grave danger to our democracy.

The reason that this bill seeks to assist those on the other side of the House rather than to fix the system is that it gives the Labor Party a great opportunity to continue the great fiscal advantage they have in political campaigns. In the last election campaign they had a $37.6 million head start over any other party—$37.6 million given to them by the trade union movement, and these are direct donations. There was $9 million in cash and in kind from the union movement to the Labor Party. The only reason we know this is because of the Howard government reforms. There was $26 million in a completely dishonest political campaign. The parliamentary secretary at the table, Mr Shorten, knows it, because he was part of it. Of course, he was a beneficiary as well. That is why the Labor Party do not want to reform this system in a real hurry. They get a $37 million head start in every election campaign, and that adds up to the difference in what the party raised in the last election. If you look at the total campaign funding for both sides of parliament, you had $110 million for the Labor Party and $89 million for the coalition. These are enormous sums, and I am sure that most people out there in the electorates do not actually understand how much money it takes now to run an election campaign. To run TV ads alone—as the parliamentary secretary at the table knows—you are talking many tens of millions of dollars. This is a danger for our democracy.

The problem with this bill is that it favours those who benefit from a $37 million head start. In the last campaign we saw completely fictional examples on a piece of public policy to make a political point. That is what the Labor Party and the union movement did in the last campaign: they ran ads which were not true. They ran ads which sought to mislead the Australian people, and they spent $37 million doing it—for the benefit of those who sit on the other side.

We know that most of those who sit on the other side come from the union movement. The parliamentary secretary at the table does, and he did a fine job as the National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union. I was always a fan of the job that the parliamentary secretary was doing—certainly in comparison with some of his contemporaries in other unions. The AWU is a much better union than the CFMEU, and the parliamentary secretary would agree with me on that matter.

If we look at the unions that gave the most money, consistently at the top of the list is the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, which gave $1.5 million. Of course, they run the Labor Party in South Australia; they run the government. In recent times we have seen their factional war lord in the state parliament, Tom Koutsantonis, promoted to the state cabinet far and above his ability and against the wishes of the Premier. The Premier has seen the writing on the wall or the money in the bank, and Tom has been promoted. This is a man who welshes on bets, as my state colleagues will tell you. The SDA is an organisation run by the Labor Party in South Australia, controlled by Senator Farrell, whom the Advertiser calls—and these are not my words—the ‘godfather of the Right’ in South Australia. He runs the efficient operation of the machine. They pay a lot of money to operate this machine, and they run the government in South Australia.

We have a big problem with donations in Australia. We have an enormous problem with the system and it needs to be fixed, and the parliamentary secretary at the table knows it. But, of course, those on the other side do not want the system fixed because they benefit under the current system. The old saying ‘those who pay the piper pick the tune’ operates in the Australian Labor Party every day, and the money they receive—their $37 million advance on every other party in elections—is the reason you do not see a genuine attempt at reform with this bill; you see a half-baked attempt which seeks to give the Labor Party more advantage. Why does it give it more advantage? It seeks to reduce the disclosure limit from $10,000 to around $1,500. The reason they seek that is not for transparency. Rather, when they find the list of those small businesses who dare to donate to the Liberal Party, they visit those small businesses, through their affiliates, and make sure that those small businesses or individuals know—particularly at the state level where they control government—that, if they think the state government will ever deal with them again, they are kidding themselves.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Collins interjecting

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is true; it happened in the Queensland election. In recent days there have been reports of this behaviour. It is a system which the Labor Party have benefited from for a long time and it is a system that needs to be changed. We do have a problem in this area. This bill is disappointing. It sells the government short. They should wait for the parliamentary committee to finish its work. They should look at all the options.

I am on the record as saying that the Canadian option is well and truly worth considering. In fact, I made some comments about this over Christmas when a hardworking reporter called me on Christmas Day. The story appeared in the Age on the day after Christmas, in which I dared to raise the issue about how much trade unions give and how much GetUp! spent on campaigns. I think the parliamentary secretary used to be on the board of GetUp!, from memory—not that they are a political association but, you know. The hate-filled emails that I received from some of the parliamentary secretary’s former colleagues were quite astounding.

We do have a problem and the figures from the last federal election campaign indicate that about $110 million was spent by the Australian Labor Party and around $89 million was spent by the coalition, or fundraised by the coalition and by Labor. That is a lot of money but it takes a lot of money to run election campaigns. Television advertising alone costs so much. The problem is that voters see this as dangerous and as raising integrity issues. In all fairness, I think this is a reasonable thing to be concerned about. I do not think anyone comes here seeking to misuse the system. However, the problem with the amount of money that we now have to raise is that questions will be asked on bills that we vote for, depending on who has donated.

A very good example of that happened in South Australia not long ago. For those familiar with North Adelaide, there has been a piece of land not developed for a long time because of disputes with getting approvals from councils and so forth. It is on the main street in North Adelaide—O’Connell Street —and it is called the Le Cornu site. It has sat there for many years not developed. In recent times, the state government moved legislation to give them powers to approve developments for what they call ‘specific need’. The state government has given approval to develop this site to the Makris Group, a well-known developer who has done much good for South Australia and for Adelaide. However, in the time leading up to the decision by the state government to give this major approval status, the Makris Group gave the Labor Party $180,000. This issue has been raised in South Australia by my good friend and colleague Rob Lucas. He has asked whether there is an issue with this donation. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Makris Group sought favour. However, is it right for people in the community to have to ask whether someone got a better deal from the state government because they donated this amount of money? It is a question well worth asking because it brings into question how we operate our electoral system and how we make public decisions, particularly when it comes to development. We have seen the problem with Wollongong council in New South Wales. It is a problem which has occurred in South Australia and it is still occurring in South Australia and across the states. Thankfully, the federal parliament does not make development decisions, because I think they do raise significant issues.

What it gets back to is that there is a problem with our donation system. It is something about which we will be attacked from the Left and the Right. You are attacked from the Right on the basis of free speech and that people should be able to do and say what they like. You are attacked from the Left because allegedly major corporations fund the Liberal Party. That is simply not true in modern politics. What happens is that major corporations give to both sides of politics equally, which left a funding gap between us and the other side of $37 million in the last campaign due to union donations. Unions give only to one side of politics. A couple of the rogue unions, the ETU for instance, I think gave some money to the Greens. But, in large part, the trade union movement in Australia give a large proportion of their money to the Labor Party, and alongside that they run political campaigns to benefit the Labor Party.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why would they donate to you?

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They would donate to us on the basis that we created 2.2 million jobs for their workers in the last government, Parliamentary Secretary. We gave them more opportunities than this government seeks to give them. We hear much from the other side about protection from redundancy at the moment—‘We are going to protect people from redundancy.’ I hope so because there are a lot more Australians now who are going to need it than there were previously.

We also see an IR bill that seeks to reward the trade union movement for their loyal service, and the parliamentary secretary knows it. Good faith bargaining is a step back into the workplace for the unions, to give them control of the workplace again and to increase their membership. It is as pure and simple as that. And it will destroy jobs. Those opposite know that they are moving a terrible economic policy, but it is payback for the $26 million that the unions spent on their own campaign and the $9 million in cash donations to the Labor Party.

We have a problem with perceptions about donations in this country and, in some instances, we have a problem in reality. The member for Braddon referred to the candidate for Beaudesert in the Queensland state election and what she did previously in this place and in other campaigns. He makes a very good point. I notice that last week her former chief adviser gave some of us on this side a free character assessment in the Australian newspaper. He included me, which I take in good humour as it was delivered by the man who formerly advised Pauline Hanson, with the reputation that that brings with it. We do have a problem with donations, but this bill is a cop-out because it seeks to benefit those on the other side at our expense and because, rather than having a holistic approach to reform, it is limited to issues that benefit the Labor Party.

I will finish on this note: some of those on the other side—not so much the parliamentary secretary at the table, because he is above this sort of behaviour—seek to question the motives of members on this side of the House when we raise issues on this bill. They say we do it because we benefit from the current system and that it is all a stitch-up—and I noticed the member for Banks attacking Senator Fielding earlier, which I thought was an interesting approach to diplomacy given that the Labor Party are trying to get him to agree to bills this week. If the Labor Party want to raise inappropriate behaviour with regard to donations, we are happy to step back through the absolute scandal and disgrace that was Centenary House and the $4 million in above-market rents from which those on the other side benefited and which was the subject of two royal commissions. They were fleecing Australian taxpayers through a dodgy deal by—you guessed it—the very minister responsible for these reforms.

If the Labor Party—though not, as I said, the parliamentary secretary at the table—want to come into this House and bully and threaten over unions and workplace relations, as they generally do, they can go right ahead. We are more than happy to step back through the $4 million that you people fleeced from Australian taxpayers with the rort over Centenary House, that nondescript piece of real estate in Barton that had a higher rental value than real estate in Manhattan. Can you imagine the rent in Barton in the ACT being the same as that in Manhattan? It is quite extraordinary. Hong Kong, Seoul, Washington, Geneva, Barton—the names just roll off the tongue, don’t they? We are not going to sit here and listen to the high priests of hypocrisy on the other side telling us that we are all about trying to benefit from donations and that is why we are standing in the way of reform. We agree that the donation system needs reform because it is sick and broken, but we want holistic reform, not the piecemeal approach that those on the other side seek to implement for their own electoral benefit.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the last few days I have had a look at what the coalition have said about the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009, including what the shadow special minister of state, Senator Ronaldson, had to say about it in his speech on 11 March. I wanted to see what ideas the coalition might have with respect to the comprehensive reform they so eloquently talk about. I went through his speech in detail. He put on record their very, very strong support for comprehensive reform. We heard the member for Mayo say the same thing today. But where are their ideas for the kind of reform they are talking about? You cannot find them in the speech, you cannot find them in the two pages the Liberal Party submitted to the green paper and you cannot find them in anything that the member for Mayo had to say. Those opposite mouth the words but do not offer ideas.

I grew up in Queensland, so do not come into this place and talk about electoral reform and political donations. In Queensland, where we had a National Party government, they delivered brown paper bags to the executive building in George Street. We had an inquiry into it—the Fitzgerald inquiry. We had a gerrymander electoral system through which Joh Bjelke-Petersen was voted in with 18 per cent of the vote. Do not come to this place and give us lectures about electoral reform and political donations, because the Queensland LNP, or the National Party—whatever political characterisation it wants to use these days—has form. For years we had a Queensland Premier who did not have a clue about conflict of interest, did not have a clue about the separation of powers. One of his most disgraceful performances was his testimony before the Fitzgerald inquiry in relation to that. So do not come in here and give us lectures about electoral reform and political donations as if you are the high priests of virtue, because you have form too. There is vice over there, not just virtue. Do not come here and talk to us as if somehow you are lily white and pure.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Blair might restrain himself from referring to the Deputy Speaker as ‘you’ in those comments. I would not like to be associated in that way. You might refer to the people on the other side of the House.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Speaker would know that I hold him in high regard. It is quite sad that he happens to be a member of the National Party, but that is another matter entirely.

We strongly support public transparency, we strongly support integrity in the electoral system and we strongly support change and reform. So we introduced legislation to amend the electoral system to improve the situation, and it was voted down in the Senate. Senator Faulkner, point by point, characterised what we sought to do. We responded to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters by making a number of amendments. We listened to what the committee had to say, took on board what they suggested, spoke to the minor parties and made changes. But the coalition has entirely vacated the field. It has left it to us entirely to do this.

I would like to see a bipartisan approach because I think that reform to political donations should be like constitutional reform—we should have a bipartisan approach to it because that improves the confidence of the Australian people in the integrity of the system. But we cannot get it when those opposite criticise, do not offer any ideas and then just defend their position.

We had the member for Mayo in here defending Work Choices again—he just cannot help himself. He says it is dead, but he wants to keep defending it all the time—defending, now, the advertising campaign as if it were some public information thing that was divorced from political reality.

They did not do that advertising just because they happen to like putting ads on Channel 9 or Channel 10 or Channel 7. It was not just because they want to line the pockets of the producers. They were in there advertising their political agenda. They were spending tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ funds on a political campaign to convince the Australian public of the virtues of Work Choices. So do not give us lectures about that particular point in time and that particular campaign.

A strong and healthy democracy means that we must support the integrity of the Australian electoral system. One of the great things about this legislation is that it introduces a claims-based system for electoral funding. It ties funding to electoral expenditure.

I happened to live in the federal electorate of Oxley. I lived in that area until it became Blair when my residence was redistributed to the federal seat of Blair before the 2004 federal election campaign. I also happened to be the Labor Party’s campaign director at the height of Hansonism, so I know something about campaigning against Ms Hanson. I have been doing it for most of the last couple of weeks—trying to defeat this woman in Beaudesert. I have been doorknocking and working as hard as I can to ensure that a Labor candidate gets up for the people of Beaudesert so we can have jobs in the area and protect our rural lifestyle.

You are the people that, all that time, allowed the likes of Ms Hanson to rort the system when standing for the Senate but doing nothing—doing nothing! I know because she lives in my area and I saw her great contribution in the 2007 campaign: a few signs up in a few trees; no real campaigning in the electorate. Then she stands there at Silkstone State School and hands out one how-to-vote card, walks away, and that is it. She was there just in time for the QT—the Queensland Timesto take a picture of it. That is her contribution. Then she pockets the money—‘Thank you very much on and off I go.’

That is why we need to change the law in this area, and that is why the reforms in this particular legislation will do that. It is a disgrace that the coalition is opposing reform in this area. We support public transparency. We opposed the Howard government’s 2006 changes where they raised the disclosure threshold for political donations from $1,500 to more than $10,000—CPI indexed—and raised the limit for anonymous donations from $1,000 to donations exceeding $10,000. We opposed that. We stood against it when we were in opposition. We fought against it. We put our position in our national platform in Constitution 2007. I was a national conference delegate and proudly voted for it.

It was our pre-election policy that we intended to make further changes to the electoral system. These included reversing the increase in the donation threshold established by the Howard government and removing its tax deductibility for donations. I would contend that we have a mandate to do this. We took this to the Australian public. They voted on 24 November 2007 to oust the coalition government and Mr Howard and to bring in a Labor government which campaigned on this platform. I campaigned on it with every person on this side of the House and all our candidates.

We sought reform. We put it to the Australian public and they voted for it. They voted for it, just like they voted to get rid of Work Choices. We supported changes. A simple fact is those opposite do not want to be embarrassed. They claim that somehow the legislation that we have before the House today favours our side of politics.

I have gone through it. Show me a provision in there that supports the Australian Labor Party. It does not support the Labor Party. It does not. There are no pro-Labor Party provisions in the legislation. It is just a fiction. It is a myth. It is an urban myth from those opposite. They claim that is the case because they are worried.

They are not genuinely in favour of political donation and electoral reform. They will not do it. They have never supported it. They did not support it all through my infancy and my adolescence. After I became a voter, back in 1979, and I got on the electoral roll and voted, all through that time, we never saw it from the National Party of Queensland and we do not see it from those opposite.

When they had the chance in 2006 to bring about electoral reform, they made it more difficult. They made it more secretive and more furtive and made it in such a way that transparency was not there. They made it so that big donors could rort the system. They could give bits and pieces, get up close to $100,000 across different states and territories and in that way effectively suppress what contribution they were making to the various state and territory parties—or branches of the Australian Labor Party, Liberal Party or whatever. The coalition claim that, somehow, they are in favour of transparency and openness. But in my submission, I do not believe they are credible at all on this particular matter—because they have form. For a starter, donors could split the donations, and we have seen it happen time and time again.

We are the ones who brought forward legislation to improve the integrity of the system and these amendments do that. They do that for a variety of reasons. But the reforms reducing the disclosure threshold to $1,000—a flat rate—are good reforms, because I think that the Australian public thinks that those people who put more than $1,000 in should have their names disclosed.

The reduction in the current time frames for lodging returns—from 15, 16 and 20 weeks to a period of eight weeks—is, again, appropriate. You should be able to organise your affairs to do this. The obligation to lodge every six months returns that were prev-iously required to be provided to the Aust-ralian Electoral Commission once every 12 months is good, because the Australian public can then get access to that information.

Requiring donors to disclose total amounts above $1,000 related to political entities is again a good way to avoid the kinds of arrangements that the coalition, for one, have used in the past. And I do not think that the Australian public believes that we should have overseas donations given to political parties here in Australia. So a ban on the acceptance of overseas donations is, again, a worthy reform in these circumstances.

Extending the ban on the acceptance of anonymous donations to include other key players in the political process is, again, an important reform. Preventing attempts to obtain a windfall payment of election funding—as Ms Hanson achieved in two Senate campaigns, which I can hardly call campaigns at all—is another important reform. Updating current offences and introducing additional penalties are also worthy reforms.

I submit that what we should be doing is bringing forward this legislation and having it passed through this place and then through the Senate as well. If those opposite had any integrity on this particular issue—any credibility, any fortitude and any common sense—they would support it. This is an important reform. It has been supported by the Democratic Audit of Australia. They have supported the kind of reforms we are talking about. It has the support of the Greens as well, and it is important legislative reform.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.