Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask leave of the House to move amendments (1) to (5) as circulated in my name together.

Leave not granted.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member understands she needs to go through one amendment at a time? I give the call to the member for Warringah.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 19 and 20), omit the definition of federal purpose in subsection 287(1).

Amendment No. 1 is an amendment to schedule 1, item 2, to omit the definition of 'federal purpose' in subsection 287(1) which is in relation to gifts for federal purposes and is consequential to the bulk of the amendments that will be moved. Amendment (1) amends the definition of 'federal purpose' and 'regulated entity' in relation to the substantive legislation.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who were in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Dr Haines, Ms Sharkie, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name:

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 31) to page 4 (line 4), omit the definition of regulated entity in subsection 287(1).

This is a consequential amendment to the bill and relates to some of the amendments that I will move later. It amends the definitions of 'federal purpose' and 'regulated entity' and makes it that they are no longer required.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Dr Haines, Ms Sharkie, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (3) as circulated in my name:

(3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 5), after item 24, insert:

24A Section 302CA

Repeal the section.

24B Section 314B

Repeal the section.

The main focus of this amendment is that it repeals section 302CA and 314B from the act. Amendment No. 4 will omit the replacement provisions from this bill. This is consistent with the recommendations of the Centre for Public Integrity and the Human Rights Law Centre in their submissions to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

The effect of this amendment is that donations to federal parties would need to be disclosed in accordance with state and territory regulations. These amendments moved by the government and supported by the opposition are a direct attempt to circumvent a ruling by the High Court and stronger state donation laws. This is contrary to what the Australian people want to see in this place, and we finally have people here to actually acknowledge what this is about.

The consequential amendments to the bill, in relation to amendments (3) and (4), are really important when it comes to definitions of 'federal purpose' and 'regulated entity' under the legislation. This goes to the intent of section 302CA, gifts made for federal purposes. The Commonwealth has the weakest political finance laws in Australia in relation to donations. The proposed amendments mean that stronger state bills would be overwritten by weaker Commonwealth laws, thereby limiting their effectiveness.

Professor Anne Twomey, in her submission, questioned the intent of the amendments. She asked:

Given that the provisions seem to be quite deliberately drafted to achieve this end, it does make one wonder why. Are political parties aware of the existence of large amounts of donations that are unlawful under State laws, which they want to ensure they can keep? Is this a means of also avoiding any State laws that would not only require the return of unlawfully received donations but also penalise the party that adopts them (such as the NSW provision that requires a party to return double the value of the donation if it knew the donation was unlawful)? Are political parties hoping to be able to attract and retain such donations in the future, despite the application of State law, perhaps gambling on a State failing properly to police or enforce its laws, while still protecting the recipient parties if the donors are caught?

Professor Twomey argues:

It is apparent that the drafters of this Bill were not only conscious of this problem, but also concerned that it might be unconstitutional, given that the purpose of the donation is not required to be ‘earmarked from the outset’.

These clauses show deliberate effort from the government and the opposition to work around state and territory electoral laws and any constitutional challenge. They clarify that a political party can still use a political donation for federal purposes, even though a state law has validly prohibited it. In addition to the ability to connive to get around state laws, there are also questions about the ability to launder political donations through this new regime, and concerns about additional administrative complexity in policing the law.

This amendment to the bill calls for the existing section 302CA of the act to be repealed, as it was deemed unconstitutional. This is important legislation, and it is only in the interests of obfuscating where donations are coming from—whether that be from private companies or unions—that people are supporting this rubbish.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the member for Warringah's amendment (3) be disagreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Dr Haines, Ms Sharkie, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (4) as circulated in my name:

(4) Schedule 1, items 25 to 27, page 8 (line 6) to page 13 (line 3), omit the items.

This is an amendment to schedule 1 items 25 to 27, page 8, and it moves the omission of the items. This is in relation to gifts for federal purposes, which, again, seek to diminish the effectiveness of state donation laws and circumvent the ruling by the High Court. Those supporting the bill are supporting the obfuscation of where political donations are coming from and standing against what 80 per cent of Australian people want, which is greater clarity and more accountability in political donations.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the member for Warringah's amendment (4) be disagreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Dr Haines, Ms Sharkie, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (5) circulated in my name:

(5) Schedule 1, item 34, page 14 (line 27) to page 15 (line 6), omit subitems (2) and (3).

This is an amendment to schedule 1, item 34, and is in relation to gifts for federal purposes. This is consequential to the other amendments but clearly goes to the intent of this miscellaneous measures bill introduced by the government and supported by Labor. This seeks to undermine any kind of transparency in political donations and accountability that is at least introduced at state level but is simply non-existent at the federal level. The High Court has made it clear that the previous attempt by the government was unconstitutional, and this is simply an attempt to get around the High Court ruling. Members supporting this bill should be held accountable for the fact that they are going directly against the wishes of the Australian people. Eighty per cent want more transparency in political donations, and these amendments I have moved seek to do that, in contrast to the miscellaneous measures of the bill, which seek to obfuscate where donations are coming from.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very briefly, can we be absolutely clear about what is going on in this place this afternoon? This is state-sanctioned money laundering.

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that's exactly what it is! This is state-sanctioned money laundering. It is the House of Representatives in the Australian parliament ensuring that banned donors in some jurisdictions can wash their money through the federal party. It is every bit as much money laundering as any other form of money laundering that goes on in this country. Frankly, if no-one else will look at it, AUSTRAC should have a look at it, because that's what it is. I can't believe the government and the opposition are conspiring—they're both party to this—to pass a law to have state-sanctioned money laundering.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the member for Warringah's amendment (5) be disagreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those member who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Dr Haines, Ms Sharkie, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no.

The question is that this bill be agreed to. As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Dr Haines, Ms Sharkie, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no.

Bill agreed to.