Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. Will the minister outline the importance of the government’s proposed reforms to political donation laws? Are there recent examples of donations that would be affected by the proposed changes?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fowler for her question. The government is seeking to amend the Electoral Act in a number of ways to strengthen scrutiny and probity in Australia’s electoral system. Those reforms include requiring disclosure of any donations above a $1,000 limit and banning donations to political parties by foreigners. Sadly, the Liberal and National parties have been obstructing these very important reforms to political transparency and probity in this country in the Senate, which is very unfortunate. It is very unfortunate for the integrity of our democratic process.

It is worth noting that there are recent examples of particular kinds of donations that would be affected by these changes. I draw members’ attention to an article in the Sunday Age, dated 8 February this year, headed ‘Turnbull takes cash from market ‘vulture’’ and written by Josh Gordon. I would like to quote a couple of sentences from this article:

MALCOLM Turnbull has taken a large campaign donation from an American billionaire closely linked to the predatory lending practices that triggered the subprime lending crisis—

in the United States and the global recession. It goes on:

An investigation … revealed that Peter Briger, chairman and director of controversial “vulture company” Fortress Investment Group, contributed $US50,000—

or A$76,000—

to the Liberal campaign fund for the Opposition leader’s seat of Wentworth last year.

The article then goes on to say that a ‘vulture’ company is a company which preys on the carcass of dead or distressed companies. In fact, this particular vulture company was deemed to be so aggressive that even the Wall Street Journal attacked the company for foreclosing on families who were affected in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. An interesting addendum to this article is that a search of the register of members’ interests revealed that on 14 March 2007 the Leader of the Opposition disclosed that he owned shares in the Fortress Investment Group and that this shareholding remained until 27 July 2007. According to the article he received a donation of $76,000 from this company during 2007 at some point—which does raise the interesting possibility that he was on both sides of the transaction, although it is not clear from the indications as to whether or not that is the case.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

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

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. On the basis of the reaction, the form of words used by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation could be taken as something that would require a substantive motion about motive. He should withdraw.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, Mr Speaker. People who peddle the kinds of accusations that the Leader of the Opposition made against the Prime Minister on Friday, and who then claim to be the great defenders of integrity and probity in public life, should not be blocking the government’s reforms to electoral laws as the opposition are doing in the Senate. These reforms are extremely important for the probity and transparency of our political system. They are very important for ensuring that the electoral system functions in an open and genuine way in the future—

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Ripoll interjecting

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Adams interjecting

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

Order! The member for Oxley will excuse himself from the chamber for one hour. The member for Lyons is lucky.

The member for Oxley then left the chamber.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order going to relevance. The desperate peddling of this desperate distraction really is not relevant to the question.

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

Order! I have been listening very carefully and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation is responding to the question.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will conclude by drawing the attention of the House again to the glaring contradiction in the positions being taken by the opposition in their willingness to accuse the Prime Minister of corruption on the basis of a fake email, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, and at the same time their resisting the government’s attempts to improve the quality, transparency and probity of Australian politics by reforming the Electoral Act and the laws regarding disclosure of political donations and donations by foreigners. So I suggest to the opposition that they clean up their act. They should stand up here and say that they will fully cooperate with the AFP inquiry and disclose all of their computer records to the inquiry, that they will pass the Electoral Act reforms and that the Leader of the Opposition should resign.