Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received letters from the honourable member for Lyne and the honourable member for Cook proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d), I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Lyne, namely:

The urgent need for real political donation reform.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I am actually seeking leave to move a motion concerning the recognition and acceptance of the science of climate change.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies: can I ask the member for Lyne to do that after the MPI?

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can, yes.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will go to that other matter later.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The fix is in on political donation reform. In a week of racing scandals—in fact, a month of racing scandals—the only ones 'More Joyous' about this failed donation reform that looks to be coming before the House today, looks to be the cosy relationship between the head offices of the Australia Labor Party and the Liberal National Party. This arrangement over a one-dollar administration fee per vote, without what the joint select committee actually recommended for further funding reform of donations down to $1,000 being declared, is wrong.

Likewise, what is increasingly obvious is the increase in the amount of public funding that comes in political donations that is not reducing private or corporate donations, as is the model that everyone recommends. Rather, what we are continuing to see is the rise and rise of public funding as we also see the rise and rise of private and corporate funding.

I refer the government in particular to a certain agreement they reached three years ago with a few of us. In section 3 called 'Promoting open and accountable government' it states:

3.1   The Parties will work together and with other parliamentarians to:

a) Establish a Leaders' Debate Commission—

well, that is going along swimmingly, and—

b) Seek immediate reform of funding of political parties and election campaigns by legislating to lower the donation disclosure threshold from an indexed $11,500 to $1,000; to prevent donation splitting between different branches of political parties; to ban foreign donations; to ban anonymous donations over $50; to increase timeliness and frequency of donation disclosure; to tie public funding to genuine campaign expenditure and to create a 'truth in advertising' offence in the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Madam Speaker, you would have to agree from what has been presented to the House today that we are a long way from achieving those principles. They are principles that work for all. The arms race of corporate donations does not help any single representative in this chamber. It is an influence that should be unwelcome for those who truly believe in their role as a representative first and foremost. The power of the dollar has an influence over policy positions taken. That cannot be denied. So it is in all of our interests that the agreements reached place as many boundaries as possible over that influence that can come from the corporate dollar and the vested interests that we all know are alive and kicking in the corridors of this building and will do what they have to do and are allowed to do to influence the policy direction of this nation. If we are truly the representatives we all like to say we are, we should not be supporting some sort of watered down, washed out, head office cosy deal as political donation reform; we should be supporting genuine reform that protects our roles as representatives in this place and builds a better nation as a consequence.

I agree with John Faulkner. Some say I am wedded to the Labor Party. I do not actually walk into their caucus meetings but, if the report is true, he stated that he is beyond being disappointed, he is beyond being angry and he is now just ashamed. I think they are words that should ring true for all MPs in this chamber. This is a deal that should not stand and both sets of MPs should be rattling the cage on their leadership, on their head offices, and saying: 'How on earth could you have cut this deal that sees $58 million extra into the kitty? What for? For reporting one extra time per year?' If that, as reported, is true, if this is some sort of deal done across the chamber in the bipartisanship that we have been seeking on so many other issues, if this is what it has come to, then this definitely is one of those sad days and is beyond disappointment, as John Faulkner referred to.

We all have our adversaries in politics. Some may like John Faulkner and some may not, but he has been around awhile. He is a bit of a doyen on one side. If the roles were reversed, then I imagine it would be a senior figure on the coalition side lamenting the same about the ongoing arms race that no-one is really wanting to substantially address. When do we say, 'Enough'? When do we say, 'Let's really have a go at putting representation first'?

I compare that with Clive Palmer running around in Queensland. I do not know Clive Palmer from a bar of soap. I know colleagues have been seen in Glen Innes having beers with him, but I do not know him from a bar of soap. This quote should really make us wonder what we are doing. This is Clive Palmer's view: 'It's a battle of ideas, not money.' Here we have a billionaire coming into the system with all that corporate wealth behind him trying to hide behind the fig leaf of an argument that it is not about the money; it is a battle of ideas. If this truly is a battle of ideas, whatever this head office arrangement is and whatever this leadership agreement is, it has to stop, it has to be broken. We have to do much more if we are serious about genuine political donation reform.

Do you know how bad this is? Funding is attached to the party members who lose as candidates. It is not only about those who win at the ballot box; there is a dollar per vote for losing candidates. What sort of fix is this? What sort of joke of a policy in the nation's interest is this? All we should want in this chamber is, as much as possible, a fair and level contest at the ballot box. Everyone gets their one vote. Sure, there are going to be advantages leading into the ballot of being part of an organised political party, but when written into our laws is a weighting of undue advantage we really are starting to distort the very principles of our democratic process.

Colleagues, this is a huge opportunity for reform that we can grab or we can lose. I know there are 15 sitting days left and everyone is focused on the next four months, but I urge my colleagues in this House to do what they can in whatever capacities they serve to try to break open this cosy arrangement that seems to have been reached that is not in the interests of anyone in this chamber. It is a huge opportunity missed to end the arms race between the major parties over private sector donations that are now tipping into the half millions and millions of dollars. If we are going to follow the precedent of other jurisdictions, like the US, it is only going to get worse and the corporate dollar will run this joint, if it does not already.

I hope that is not the sentiment contained in the bill before the House today. I hope there are enough people who still believe in Australian representation and local member representation to do something about this. But it is a deal that should not have been done. It is a deal that has been done for the wrong reasons. It is a deal that does not uphold the recommendations from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters from 2011 for the very reason that you are taking the good bits of extra cash in the kitty but not lowering the threshold to $1,000. You are stopping at $5,000—why? What sort of evidence is there to back up $5,000 as the threshold?

And I say this collectively, we are not dealing with this real issue of increasing the amount of money from taxpayers that is going into the kitty of major parties and attaching it to the votes so that everyone gets a bit of a lick of the lolly. We are not dealing with a lowering of private sector donations coming in as well. It is all just going up and up. Where is that conversation? Where is the evidence of that conversation? Where is the evidence of the effort that we are trying to deal with that very real issue that we face?

The range of issues here is great and of course I have only had a couple of hours to have a look at this. Another issue that jumps out is the 28 days to report single donations over $100,000. That is, arguably one month before an election anyone can receive a very large sum of money and not report it. It does not influence the ballot box at all. I would have thought that the pub test would say that $100,000 is worth voters having a look at and having a consideration at the ballot box as to why. There are the few little gems like that one in there.

Another one concerns candidates who lose at the ballot box. If they are a member of a political party they get a dollar a vote. This does not apply to Independents—and I am not sure whether minor parties are involved. We have got another issue of $300,000 for compliance funding for parties with at least five MPs or five senators. There are all these little sleepers. They are not examples of reform; they are just examples of being on the teat. That is where we have got this place today: it is just public sector money going out for no clear purpose other than dealing with what seems to be, on the surface anyway, some low donations. It is a chance for both sides to get a bit more money in. Where is the validity explained for this actually happening?

I do not need to speak for my full time. The donations declared should tell the story from all sides. We are seeing corporate donations now in the multiples of millions of dollars going to both sides, and that is not going to stop any time soon if this is our so-called 'best effort' at political donation reform. We can do better. For future generations in this place we must do better. I would certainly encourage both sides to have a deeper look at this and a bit of a think and reflection and come back with something that has some substance and some meaning behind it, rather than just what looks on the surface to be a grab for some more coin with four months to go before an election.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak today on this MPI because it is an important matter for the governance of our political parties and of our nation. For nigh on 30 years, Australia has been a great example to the democratic world for the way in which our donation disclosure laws operate at the federal level. I do not believe that at any time in the past three decades has there ever been a substantial allegation, and certainly never an allegation upheld, of corruption in our federal political system. It is an outstanding beacon both of decency and of transparency, and one that stands as testament to the hard work done over the years by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, by our political parties themselves and by the leadership in this chamber.

I am so pleased that during my time as Special Minister of State I was able to work across the political divide to establish this range of reforms to our donation and funding system. The reasons I am proud about that are because what we have achieved here is a set of reforms that creates a sustainable and transparent funding system for parties of government and which also supports Independent members of parliament too and members of minor and very minor parties.

The consideration that has gone into this bill grows not only from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters reports over the course of the past decade, but also from a tough set of learnings to this place from the Fair Work Australia investigation into the Health Services Union, a report which was presented to the Australian Electoral Commission and then resulted in a number of recommendations that, frankly, were embraced by the government and driven hard by the opposition. I do not believe there would have been another way or another time in which the compliance requirements in this act could have been achieved, and achieved in such a seamless manner. They were achieved both with goodwill and with good intention. Why? Because we in this place take seriously the need for an electoral system in which transparency works and a system which itself works.

What do I mean by that? I have been a fundraiser for my party during my time as the General Secretary of the Australian Labor Party. At that time I often sought contributions simply on the basis that moderate contributions to both sides of politics make our system stronger. They make it better. They make our system responsive and they make our system capable. They make our system professional and recognisable in the world as a clean and transparent electoral donations management system supporting great political parties, parties of government, while also creating room both for Independents and minor parties to grow and thrive.

The measures in this bill are measures that grow from years of hard work. Recommendation No. 1 grows from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report from 2011. In that report, consideration was given to reducing the donation threshold. The way in which we interpreted that debate was to say, 'Let us have that threshold lowered to $5,000 but without indexation.' All members would know that the removal of indexation means that the efflux of time will ensure that that threshold itself is both meaningful and operable. Reducing the disclosure period to six months, ending 31 December and 30 June respectively, creates a situation of regular financial returns from political parties. That again is a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. These are bipartisan recommendations carefully thought through.

Independent candidates, associated entities and third parties will be banned from receiving foreign gifts. That is again a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommendation from 2011. Anonymous donations over $1,000 to political parties and associated entities will be banned. Why $1,000? I have heard people say it should be a lower number. It is simply because political parties run at multiple levels when it comes to fundraising. At the most basic level it is chook raffles. At the most basic level it is a $5 or $10 raffle ticket. Sometimes if you are really lucky it might be $20 or $50. But when you are running raffle ticket contributions of that level, to have an anonymous donation below $1,000 simply makes it impractical for ordinary branch members or for the secretary of a branch of a political party in Gulargambone, Port Augusta, Boulder, Kambalda or Darwin to run their books, to make sure that documentation is properly kept.

I advise the House that this measure is far more likely to be generous, benign and facilitating for Independent members of parliament who do not have party structures, who do not have cultures of organisations, who do not have experience as small business operators or, on my side of politics, being trade union officials who can support candidates and campaigns. That is a good measure for Independents and for minor parties.

We also took tough decisions to ensure that, as part of the Health Services Union inquiry carried out by Fair Work Australia, we carried forward the issues around compliance. I firmly believe that our electoral system is a good system and, in managing donations and in accounting for the money that goes to political parties, second to none in the world. It is pragmatic. It is understandable. It is not complex and yet at the same time it allows the variety of funding sources that drives our great political parties. You see our parties do need to have the chook raffle to support local branch activities. Our parties also need to have the $1,000 dinner. Our parties also need to be able to say to corporations, to high net worth individuals and to trade unions, 'Make a donation and it will be disclosed. Please, make your donations.'

Donations are appreciated by our system. Donations assist our system to work and a donation well given and well intended is a genuine contribution to the strength of our political system, a contribution to our democracy. It is not a grubby underhand act by a person seeking an advantage. This parliament and our parties have, to their eternal credit, put in place not just a donations disclosure system but a whole culture of behaviour and of codes of conduct that govern how we behave as individuals and each of our parties has these codes of conduct.

More importantly, through the Australian Electoral Commission we have a process that manages, as best as it possibly can, the laws that we have to ensure transparency and disclosure. Then we do more. We say after every election we will have a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters consideration of how that election went. That is what we have done here in election after election, looking at how our elections were run and how disclosure worked. Over the years we have had many recommendations and very, very few of them carried forward into law.

This particular set of recommendations does make a very substantial contribution to the administration of our parties. That contribution is made via a dollar contribution from the Australian taxpayer to each political party on the basis of its primary vote. That contribution helps ensure our political parties are funded by the chook raffles, as I said, by the higher level fundraising activities of events and by donations. It is also funded by the internal resources of political parties. On my side of politics, traditionally that has meant John Curtin House. On the coalition side of the fence, that has often meant organisations such as Vapold. But it has also meant that with the creation of this additional pillar—and it is a pillar of support for the integrity of our system—we have a substantial contribution from the taxpayer. What that does is ensures our political system will at no point become beholden to any individual donor. That is important. It is important on my side of politics because increasingly the donations come from a smaller and smaller number of very, very big trade unions. What it means when you have this broad base of support, as I have just described, is that our party structures can operate with greater integrity, not less. And the disclosure measures themselves introduce procedures that have more integrity and not less at all levels.

I am particularly pleased that we were able to meet, as a party of government and a party of the opposition aspiring to be the government, and ensure that what we have done here is create a sustainable funding process for our political parties. A sustainable, transparent funding process that will ensure not only the professionalism of our parties but also ensure that our parties themselves can function regardless of what high net worth individuals or willing contributors from trade unions want to do. That is a good thing, and that has never happened before.

It also requires proper disclosure of expenditure by political parties on the administrative side of the equation. That has never happened to the detail that we are doing it here today. It has been speculated upon by many over the years as, 'Wouldn't it be nice to know exactly how political parties operate'. There are academics who have written PhDs on this subject; there are political operatives who just wished that it were possible to have political parties who, through their own support mechanisms, were able to ensure that they could operate with great certainty. I believe what these changes do is not only live out the letter of the agreement between the government and those Independents, but it also does it even better. It does it because the processes involved participants from all sides, and it does it because what eventually was determined as this package is a balance between pragmatism, necessary reform and transparency—ensuring at all times that the highest measure of transparency is in place for these reforms.

Now transparency in the context of donations walks a fine line between the voyeurism of who pays what to whom and a real need for our voters to know. I understand, because the member for Lyne has expressed it with great clarity, the concern of knowing when donations are made during the final 28 days of an election campaign. The fact of it is this: the final 28 days of an election campaign, should disclosures occur publicly during that period, would become entirely around the voyeuristic side of who is paying what to whom. We have that transparency; those donations are already disclosed. We in this place have parties that are made of people who work hard selling chook raffle tickets, supporting us as members of parliament, and they expect and they assume that we aspire to the highest standard of lawmaking when it comes to making our political parties as effective as they can be and for the public knowing where our money comes from, and this bill does just that.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak to this matter of public importance, I do so supporting the motion of the member for Lyne saying that there is a need for political donation reform. I absolutely concur on that need. And because I am the shadow special minister of state and I also sit on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and have taken part in both inquiries that have resulted in the reforms that are proposed—that is, the inquiry into the review of the AEC report on HSU and the earlier report into the funding of political parties in election campaigns—I feel that it is necessary to look at the complexity of the area in order to expand on the case that was put forward by the former Special Minister of State and now Minister for Resources and Energy, the member for Brand.

In the course of the creation of these reports, of course we had many public hearings. In those public hearings we took evidence from a variety of people—some who obviously did not mind coming along and were quite prepared to put in submissions and then be questioned upon them, and others who were obviously more reluctant about giving evidence. I think it is fair to cite a couple of examples that I think highlight the need for this sort of reform. I want to preface my remarks by saying that I believe, and the coalition believes, that it is not only the right and entitlement of individuals and corporations to participate in the political process by raising money, which is used to fight election campaigns, but indeed there is also a moral obligation for those people who benefit from the democratic system and seek the great rewards of being in an open and free society to make a contribution towards its continuance. In our view nothing could be worse than having all political activity funded out of the public purse. That would make us like some of the totalitarian regimes that we have seen in other countries.

The fact that people participate freely and willingly and take part in the fundraising efforts to sustain a political campaign and a political party—as the former Special Minister of State in his speech outlined very simply—although we do not have chook raffles, I don't think, we certainly do have raffles of a different sort and other fund-raising activities, as indeed do Independents and minority parties.

I know that the Greens have been making a great to-do about the fact that the reforms that are coming forward may not be what they have dictated. But I think it is worthwhile going through the evidence that was given to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters regarding the Greens and the fact that they were calling for a $1,000 cap on donations whilst at the same time they accepted a donation of $1.6 million from the founder of Wotif and, against their own internal policies, failed to disclose that donation until after the election. You could be forgiven for thinking that that would be a hypocritical position to take.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No! Never!

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do think that some people might think that that was the case. It is quite instructional if we go to the actual quotes that were given by Mr Brett Constable, National Manager of the Australian Greens.

Senator RYAN: Thank you, Mr Constable. Senator Brown, I understand, was involved in discussions—and I am using as less inflammatory language as I can—with Mr Wood about the donation, was he not?

Mr Constable: At the time of making the donation?

Senator RYAN: Yes.

…   …   …

Senator RYAN: Whose decision was it not to disclose it prior to the election?

Mr Constable: That was really out of respect to the donor. Yes, we have an aim to improve the disclosure regime. We have an internal policy within the party which looks at how to review as best we can within the resources we have available the capacity of the donor and the alignment of the donor with the aims of the party, and then we have a rule about disclosing donations well in advance of what is currently required.

Later it was reported into The AustralianFinancial Review, when Dr Wood gave an interview, he said:

Wood has certainly forged a unique path and his donation to the Greens is hardly typical of Australian corporate philanthropy, but it is not woolly do-gooding either. He saw the $1.6 million donation as a defensive move that saved him many millions of dollars.

‘I was a bit concerned that if the Coalition got in a lot of my investments in environmental causes would have been down the plughole,’ he says. ‘It will hopefully save me a whole lot of money in fighting other environmental wars or battles.’

I asked Mr Constable a further question:

… could you tell me what influence he has exerted as a result of his donation? You would, like others, assert that we have to restrain donations because they influence political parties. Could you tell me how Mr Wood has influenced your party and what gain he has had from that?

Mr Constable: I would say that he has not exerted any influence on the party.

Yet this is the sole basis on which the Greens are criticising the need for reform, which, as the former Special Minister of State has said, is needed to have a fair and transparent system of disclosure in order that we can bring about reform that improves the fairness of the system and allows our free and open democracy to continue.

I think it was important, too, that when we took evidence concerning Mr Thomson, the member for Dobell, we saw that the use of credit cards had enabled him to circumvent the electoral laws as they exist, and this certainly made out a need for reform.

The case for further reform was made out with regard to the timing of disclosure. Further need for reform was identified when I questioned the Electoral Commission as to what their form of, I will use the term, 'auditing'—people will understand that better, but it was an appraisal of various third parties known as associates—had filed. I found that in 256 so-called audits done between 2007 and November 2011 not one trade union had had such an investigation. On further investigation the AEC said, 'Well, we didn't get any extra resources to do that sort of thing. They were much bigger entities and therefore we didn't do it.' Clearly there is a need for reform in this area.

Another area for reform that was disclosed was that the HSU itself had put in three returns which showed, in the first one, from within a very short space of time, that their political expenditure had been minimal but ultimately the third return showed that in fact the expenditure had been $25 million. Clearly there was need for reform.

So when you looked at the evidence that was before the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and you saw the evidence that was taken, a case for reform was very clearly made out. It was quite proper that there be discussions about the best way in which this could be effected to enable the disclosure, to enable the fair working of the parties, to enable all participants in the political system to be able to continue to put their case forward but in a way that the public could feel confident that there was no corruption in the system. As I said, there was no evidence given that there had been any distortion of political decisions made because of donations made. The closest we came was the donation to the Greens themselves, who are one of the loudest voices of criticism.

I would simply say, as we are bringing forward debate on a bill we are yet to have presented to the House, that there will be opportunity to elaborate further on why these reforms are needed and why I suggest they will be adequate to warrant support.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also thank the member for Lyne for bringing this matter before the House. Can I start my contribution in this debate by briefly talking about my own electorate. One of the best things in the electorate of Fowler is its colour, vibrancy and diversity. I get to celebrate with many people who come from all over the globe. As a matter of fact, two-thirds of the people in my electorate were born overseas. A constant theme with people, and bear in mind that I do have probably one of the largest shares of refugees—people who have fled persecution, sought to flee oppression in search of freedom and democracy—is that they tell me stories about corruption in the countries they come from—the way that power and influence can be bought. They also talk about how elected officials can be influenced inappropriately, either by money, power or the influence of others.

Whilst we have an electoral system and a process of government where, despite the challenges of competing views of government and opposition, I think you would have to say there is integrity in the process, it is not something that we should take for granted. There are many people out there who still have a view of democracy, and it is certainly not just about having a vote. To use the situation in Cambodia at the moment, the opposition leader unfortunately must reside in exile in France and will not actually be in Cambodia to contest the next election. So there are many things that we need to have regard to. One of the constant themes I get advised of in my electorate is the inappropriate influence that wealth and power can buy within an electoral system. Our system is strong, but that does not mean that we should not be looking to make sure that it is more transparent and that its integrity is on display for others and can be monitored and reviewed in terms of its compliance. The bill that will be introduced in the House largely seeks to do that.

I think it is worthwhile having a look at the history of this. In the last five years the government has been trying to look at electoral donation reform. A bill was introduced in the House back in 2008 and a political donations bill passed the House in 2011—but it passed the House by only one vote. You would not actually say that it was a success in terms of bipartisanship. When we are talking about an issue such as political donations, you would think that, within a Westminster system, there should be between the two major competing parties and also the minor parties some consistency of view in terms of approach. But, as I say, it only passed this House by one vote and then stayed in the other place, and is still yet to see the light of day. There have been discussions at senior levels between parties trying to resolve this and get a degree of bipartisanship between the government and those on the other side who would aspire to be the government. That resulted in a number of changes to be brought forward in the bill to be introduced later this week.

I am not sure whether people are aware that the current disclosure threshold for political donations is $12,100. It is not $1,000, $2,000 or $5,000 at the moment; it is $12,100. I am pretty sure that most on my side of the chamber have probably never had a need to disclose that because we have not received those sorts of payments, but the fact is that that is the current level. So, regardless of the fact that we carried a bill in this place by one vote and it goes to the other place and stays there, the legal threshold for disclosure is still $12,100. Between the two parties—and I am not sure of the view of all of the crossbenchers on this—the view is to more than halve that and bring it down to $5,000. Some would say that is a compromise—and perhaps that is right—but it is certainly more rigorous than what currently applies.

Another thing that I think is important in the legislation that will be introduced in this place is the proposal to increase the transparency of donations—making sure that there is a more timely process as to when donations need to be declared and ensuring that that information is freely available to the public. Another thing that is important when talking about transparency is to include the enforcement regime available through the Australian Electoral Commission. Again, that is a good thing. We, in elected office, have the privilege of being here and in terms of how we run our campaigns I think we have an obligation not only to our immediate constituents or those who seek to donate to us but also to the Australian public to be fully transparent in the way we go about receipting donations. And if parties are not transparent in that they should feel the full weight of the AEC.

Political donation reform was originally contemplated back in 2008. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in 2011 brought down a report entitled Inquiry into the funding of political parties and election campaignsand there was another report in 2012, which the member for Mackellar mentioned, entitled Review of the AEC analysis of the FWA report on the HSU. Recommendations were made and those recommendations have largely been picked up in what is being sought to be brought before the House later this week.

Effectively, there are five key areas, which I will recap: increasing the transparency of political donations; the frequency and timing with which those donations and our expenditure need to be reported; reform of the public funding of elections; an infringement notice scheme for people who fail to honour the time line, so that they can actually be reported; and registered political parties and their state branches to be treated as body corporates for the purpose of the Australian Electoral Act. Again, I would have thought that was something that is highly relevant, so funds are not spirited between various parts of organisations and can be treated as one. These things have increased the public scrutiny of political donations. One way of achieving that is to ensure that the expenditures and reports are available on the AEC website.

The member for Lyne is probably of the view that there is an element of compromise in the whole scheme of arrangement. He may be right in that, but you must believe this goes a long way from where we currently stand. Whilst the bill of 2010 had an electoral donation threshold of $1,000, the current legal threshold is $12,100. Efforts have been made to curtail that, to make it reasonable and acceptable in a bipartisan way.

Going back to the people of my electorate, if we are clearly to ensure that we do not take steps to breach electoral reporting and we take positive steps to ensure the integrity of the system and minimise the potential of corruption, what is being proposed goes a long way down the track to achieving that. I commend the member for Lyne for bringing this matter on for debate. We have probably pre-empted many things that we will say when the bill is introduced in to the House.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the member for Lyne in relation to the issues that he raised, particularly the dollar per vote for the administration of the major political parties. That is an issue that we should have a very serious look at. Rather than go back through the various issues that have been raised, I support everything that the member for Lyne raised. Political donations are raised in this parliament from time to time. I would like to raise a couple of issues that a number of people who currently reside in the parliament may be able to cast some light on.

In the seat of New England, there are significant rumours that the National Party candidate for New England, who is currently a senator in Queensland, is to receive a quite substantial donation—some hundreds, perhaps even $700,000—from mining magnate Gina Rinehart. That is an easy statement to make, but I would like Ms Rinehart to clarify her position on how many hundreds of thousands she is giving to a candidate in New England. She does not reside in New England and I do not think she has any interest in New England. One has to ask why she is providing that sort of funding to a candidate in New England.

The issue I particularly want to raise is associated entities that the major political parties have. If a mining magnate does want to relay money to a particular political party because of some favour that might be granted at some future date, they can do that without being traced through a whole range of funds and associated entities that the major political parties currently have. This is an issue that needs to be explored very closely, because we could be moving towards an American system where money does buy favour and where money does lobby for particular policy changes. We have seen this quite blatantly in recent years in New South Wales with one of the political persuasions, and now the ICAC and others are dealing with some of those issues. I raise the issue of associated entities again. I do so with some memory of former Independent Peter Andren. Most of us in this place would remember that Peter Andren constantly raised this issue. Even though various members have said that restricting reporting declarations from $12½ thousand to $5,000 would help, there is a whole range of other ways that these major donations can be headed through associated entities and other organisational groups.

I would suggest to Ms Rinehart that she clarify her interest in the seat of New England. Does it have anything to do with coal seam gas on the Liverpool Plains? Does it have something to do with the water trigger, the amendment to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act that is currently before the Senate? Senator Joyce, who is a candidate in New England, was part of the delaying tactics to prevent that amendment getting through the parliament the week before last. We know that the Senate does not sit again until 17 June. Are any of these things related?

Another issue I would like to raise in the context of political donations relates to the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition was in Tamworth recently. I met him in the street and we discussed the university's department of rural health and some of the initiatives put in place when he was Minister for Health and Ageing. I congratulate him for those initiatives, as those programs have been most successful. I also thank the former Labor Minister for Health and Ageing, the member for Gellibrand, for the university's department of rural health work and other medical school work that both she and the Leader of the Opposition, when he was minister for health, were involved in at different times. Whilst the Leader of the Opposition was in Tamworth he did attend a dinner. That dinner was held at the home of local businessman Greg Upton. There were a number of people at that dinner. That dinner, I am told, was about fundraising for the campaign in New England and whether businessmen would put money into a fund—presumably to be disclosed, but maybe not—to fight the campaign in New England. That is fine; the Leader of the Opposition has that right, as do businesspeople, to get together.

But there is a curious thread through all of this that the person who organised that dinner was a fellow called Greg Maguire. He has two names: Gregory Kenneth and Gregory Kevin. He has 43 companies. He was with the former member for the Northern Tablelands Richard Torbay the day before he resigned. He was a contributor to Richard Torbay, who was to be the candidate for New England. Greg Maguire, in fact, organised that function at Greg Upton's home.

The Leader of the Opposition needs to explain a couple of things here as to what role Greg Maguire is playing in this campaign. Many would remember—and the member for Gellibrand would well remember because she was the one who referred this matter to the Australian Federal Police many years ago—that this was the same Greg Maguire who was involved with John Anderson and Sandy Macdonald. John Anderson stayed at his motel when Greg Maguire was an intermediary about me in terms of some suggestions that I should, in fact, leave the party. He made some suggestions as to how that could happen.

Now, another strange thing has happened in relation to the seat of New England. That very person, John Anderson, has been associated with Greg Maguire; the Leader of the Opposition has been associated with Greg Maguire not only at that dinner but also staying with him on Hamilton Island some years back. Now John Anderson has come out of the woodpile and is going to head up Senator Joyce's campaign for the seat of New England.

Mr John Cobb interjecting—

I am glad the frontbencher has risen from his sleep. What do all these things have in common? What do Gina Rinehart, John Anderson, Greg Maguire and these other people have in common? There are a number of issues, but in terms of the seat of New England I think they have in common the attempts to block the people from having their say in relation to water issues on the Liverpool Plains. What has happened in the Senate in the last few weeks? Delay tactics were put forward to make sure that the so-called water trigger did not get through the Senate. Hopefully, that will occur on the 17th. I think it is of concern not only to the people of New England but also to many others that if money is allowed to buy favour in that regard, and if there is a change of government, all of those things will suddenly disappear. The legislative framework for water and objective science et cetera in terms of the termination of those processes will suddenly disappear. Electoral funding is something we should have a very close look at, and we should be looking at it now.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the other contributors to this debate on the matter of public importance regarding political donation reform. Obviously, it is an important issue. When you talk about money and politics and the way that they combine there are many contentious issues that people want to have clarified. What has been interesting in this discussion is a realisation and acceptance from everybody that there is a need for reform, but perhaps some disagreement about how it is that we go about that reform. I have said many times before that my view of politics is that you have to be prepared to be an incrementalist or else you will never get anything done; you do not always get everything that everybody wants at any one time.

What I think is important in this discussion is to acknowledge that the proposals that the government is announcing and that have been discussed—and I understand that they have been substantially agreed by the Liberal Party—are important improvements on the system that we have in place now. When complaints are made, rightly, by both the member for New England and the member for Lyne about the way that money can be donated without being disclosed we can all say it would be better if the thresholds were lower, but the proposals the government is putting forward intend to lower by more than half the thresholds that currently exist.

I, and many other people, in a perfect world would like what the Labor Party has been arguing for for a long time—for those thresholds to return to $1,000. I understand that, despite the law having changed many years ago, the federal ALP continues to disclose according to those rules. I think we are living isolated from the current practice, saying it would be better to end up here, when, actually, we will have shortly before us a bill in parliament that, with the support of both major parties, may get through this parliament in the remaining sitting weeks. This bill will mean there will be a system in place that has many advantages compared to the current one, and I think that is worth considering.

Many committees have looked at this work and most of the members who have spoken have been those committees in various capacities—they know that there are certain changes that will be very beneficial. One of them is the lowering of the threshold from over $12,000 now. The member for New England particularly mentioned some individuals: I will not comment on those particular individuals, but the concern is that individuals can own a certain number of companies and related entities, and donate from all of those companies. Of course, that rule currently applies and, every time their figure is bigger, the more that problem is exacerbated. When you reduce it you still have that as a core problem, but you actually reduce the scale of that problem. I think we need to acknowledge all of those important steps. They are maybe not as great as everyone would like, nevertheless, it is important progress.

Another thing that has not really been mentioned in the debate in much detail, which I think is a huge improvement and which I think we should be spending a little bit of time on, is the timeliness with which declarations will have to be made. If the concerns raised by both the member for Lyne and the member for New England are circulating about the way people might make donations to affect the outcome of an electionor even to affect the outcome of a particular policy issue, it is a concern that the public always has, that money might be donated at a particular time when certain debates are on. The member for New England used the example of coal seam gas and water issues. Of course, in the time of my political life here we have had issues of tobacco reform. We have had many issues where people have asked: exactly what are companies donating for? The proposed change that those donations need to be declared every six months rather than every year means that the opportunity to have a timely reference and disclosure of donations is a very important advance.

From our political party's perspective, we are very clear about the rules that apply, that people do not buy influence by making donations and, as Minister Gray said in his comments, in his time as the national secretary many businesses actually donated to both major parties and sometimes also to minor parties as a way of supporting democracy generally and not necessarily favouring particular parties. I think the pattern is more often that particular parties are chosen by particular organisations and that is something that people are free to do. The reason for my interest in this matter and why the government is announcing a new proposal is that we want there to be a maximum level of disclosure. We want there to be timely disclosure and we want the changes to be workable through this parliament, which is why negotiations have been conducted with the other major party, potentially the government, to ensure that if changes are there they will be enduring changes. I think that that is an important consideration.

I am also concerned that some of the other benefits of the proposed changes that the government is putting forward have not been mentioned that much. One change is that there would be a restriction and a declaration process for anonymous donations that are made. I have not been in the situation where people have anonymously wanted to donate large or small amounts of money to my campaign. But I think the fact that that has been possible and that proper processes have not been in place would also raise questions that people are legitimately worried about, if they are concerned about ensuring that there is integrity in our politics.

From all speakers so far, I think there is screaming agreement in the terms of the motion, because everyone agrees that there is an urgent need for real political donation reform. When these proposed changes are put before the House, I hope that people will equally be enthusiastic about the need for change. We need to have a continued discussion into the future about how we might improve, at each stage of the way, processes that are workable for political parties and for those who want to donate to political parties. Our concern has been a consistent and long-held one.

When the previous government changed the threshold, we did not agree to it. That has increased over time. It is now at the very significant figure of $12,100, being a threshold under which people can donate without making any disclosure. I think that, to the vast majority of the public, it is a very large sum of money to be the threshold. We are proposing to cut that by more than half and believe that that is a very significant step in the right direction. It will restore some common sense. In the same way that making more regular disclosures touches upon something that people have been concerned about, while contentious debates might be in the parliament and donations might come in at particular times, there will be much higher visibility of those donations. Indeed, changes to the way information will be able to be accessed on the Electoral Commission's website is interesting.

I am also surprised that no-one has touched upon the fact that MPs actually have a much more rigorous regime of any contributions that are made directly to us or any hospitality or any gifts that we receive. Obviously, there is a difference between donations and gifts or hospitality that might be provided directly to an MP and a large donation to a particular campaign. But for those who are concerned that these rules might be strict, I would just draw their attention to the fact that we have far more restrictive rules that already apply that, by and large, members have no difficulty complying with. Sometimes there are problems and of course they are usually rectified very quickly when they are drawn to people's attention. It is always a contentious issue, but sometimes looking across the spectrum would help our perspective, because we already have regimes that we are quite comfortable with and are used to and that have been longstanding.

I want to speak on this matter simply to say that I share the concern of the member for Lyne, who moved this motion, that it is important for us to reform these processes. I am pleased that the member for Melbourne Ports is here because he has been a very passionate advocate for electoral reform for a long time and a number of the issues that have been part of his passion will be, if not completely resolved, partially resolved by these proposals. We are keen to see them go through parliament and be supported in this parliament.

We are pleased that the opposition is indicating its general agreement to that. We hope that if there are others in the chamber who would like them to go further, that does not stop support for important changes. It just leads to further debate into the future about how we can continue to ensure not only that money and politics do not entwine in a way that is damaging to democracy but that it can be used in a way that is transparent and open for public scrutiny and which therefore strengthens our democracy rather than weakens it.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on this matter of public importance motion moved by the member for Lyne on the urgent need for real political donation reform. This is a complex area and I think we can all agree that there are a range of important legal and ethical principles. I will come to those in a moment. What we also see in this area, though, is arguments which are made which purport to be from a position of high principle but in fact go to a calculation of the political advantage or disadvantage of the people making them.

On that point I want to turn briefly to the substance of the remarks made by the member for New England. It is not surprising that as a candidate you would view with some disquiet the fact that a candidate who is going to be opposing you in a forthcoming election is attracting political donations. But that is really not a policy argument or criticism of the donation system that a rival candidate is raising donations. Nor I think is it a substantive policy argument to say, 'I have a suspicion that these donations are being raised because this candidate takes a particular position.' I have no idea, as it happens, as to the particular claim that the member for New England makes as to the basis on which donations may or may not be being received. But it is surely an unsurprising proposition that candidates for political office put positions to electors which they say, should they be elected, they would seek to give effect to.

It is not a good policy argument against the existence of political donations that persons who are candidates seeking political donations put forward particular policy positions that they are advancing, nor is it a good policy argument that those providing donations are in support of particular policy outcomes. Indeed, the very purpose of our democratic political system is to arrive at outcomes on particular issues based upon a political process, and a key element of the political process is the campaign process. During campaigns, citizens should be informed about the policies of the particular parties and the particular candidates who are seeking election, and it is of particular importance that parties which have a realistic prospect of forming government are able to inform citizens of the positions that they intend to take should they come to government. Our very democracy depends on that.

But there is no getting around the fact that the process of communicating to electors is an expensive one. The process of communicating to even the 95,000 constituents in a mainland House of Representatives seat is an expensive one. Multiply that by 150 seats, add the Senate candidates as well and you have a large and expensive communications process. In turn that must necessarily be paid for. On the coalition side we do not think it would be a good system that the only people who are effectively able to politically campaign were those who had sufficient personal means to be able to afford that exercise, nor do we think it is a good idea that the totality of the funding for that should come from the public purse. On the contrary, we think it is desirable that those who are motivated to support particular candidates or particular positions are in a position to donate to candidates whose positions they support. We think that is something that should be encouraged.

We also note that there is a strong strand of voluntary activity in the work certainly of the Liberal and National parties but also, it must be agreed, of the Labor Party. Where you have voluntary organisations, organisations of concerned members of the community coming together to advance particular positions which they think are important, it is natural and proper and desirable that those organisations and their members would wish to raise money towards campaign activities. That is work that is often done by volunteers and, yes, there must be disclosure, and I will come to that important ethical principle in a moment. But it is also important that we have a recognition of considerations of practicability. It is important that we recognise the sheer mechanics of disclosing, for example, the name of every person who bought a raffle ticket. The point I am making is that we need to properly weigh up the relevant considerations. One consideration is disclosure, another one is practicability. There is a real danger if we impose disclosure obligations which in their practical effect work to discourage citizens from making donations, work to discourage citizens from being voluntary members of parties and being involved in fundraising activities, and that is absolutely a legitimate and proper consideration for this parliament as we consider the appropriate regime that ought to apply to the raising of political donations.

It is an entirely uncontentious proposition that there are vital safeguards that must be in place against those who make donations obtaining undue or improper influence by reason of that fact. The principle of disclosure is certainly one that on this side of the House we support. It is also important that all parliamentarians understand the ethical principles and duties to which they are subject and the importance of considering issues on their merits uninfluenced by considerations of donations. But I think there is one other important point, which is that those who speak most loudly in this area, those who so often make the argument that political donations are inherently problematic and who demand the most detailed and prescriptive reform, often do so with decidedly mixed motives. I cannot help remarking that it was the New South Wales Labor Party which introduced very restrictive conditions on the disclosure and collection of donations in New South Wales political affairs after its own decidedly inglorious conduct over a number of years. Nor can I help noting that the Greens claim to have substantial objections to the existing system of political donations, but in the 2010 federal election the largest single political donation ever received was received by the Greens party, $1.68 million from Graeme Wood. Extraordinary but true. Indeed, on the very day the donations figures were released by the Australian Electoral Commission, Greens party Senator Lee Rhiannon issued a press release criticising the two major parties for accepting large donations.

Dr Norman Thompson, who is described on the relevant website as 'Director of the Democracy4sale project', responded to some questions from the well-known journalist Paul Barry about this. In a statement he said that Lee Rhiannon 'queried the value of accepting this donation', that none of the money was spent on her campaign in New South Wales, and that 'many members and supporters are disturbed accepting this cheque'. Well, I think that, as we approach this issue seriously, we ought to be disturbed about a political party, the Greens party, which claims to stand for one set of principles but behaves according to another. What we need to have is clear, consistent rules about political donations which are followed by all political parties and parliamentarians.

Of course it is not just the Greens who say one thing and do another. Let me refer you to GetUp! In its annual report in 2008-09, it noted that, on 3 August 2009, GetUp! members signed a petition to call for a ban on corporate and third-party political donations. Yet, according to its disclosures made to the Australian Electoral Commission, over the last few years GetUp! has received numerous donations, including $1.12 million from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and numerous donations from individuals exceeding $10,000.

Let me just make the point: there is nothing wrong with being a political organisation. There is nothing wrong with accepting political donations which comply with the law. But, as we consider what the law should say about political donations, as we apply the ethical principles that we all agree are appropriate and need proper recognition, we must do so in a clear and consistent way, and I suggest that we need to be a little bit sceptical about the motives of some of those who speak most loudly on this particular topic.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is concluded.