Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Cities and Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021. I want to advise the House that Labor will be supporting this bill, which will align the donations disclosure obligations of serving parliamentarians with those that apply to candidates and political parties. It will also extend the ban on foreign donations that applies to parties, candidates and political campaigners to senators and to members of the House of Representatives. Currently there is an inconsistency in the way the funding and disclosure framework operates with respect to parliamentarians once they have been elected. Candidates for an election are unable to accept foreign donations and are required to submit a return to the Australian Electoral Commission detailing the donations and electoral expenditure. This obligation ceases 30 days after the return of the writs. This means that anyone in this place who receives donations personally during their term in parliament is not currently required to disclose them. It also means that there is a loophole which would allow serving parliamentarians to accept donations from foreign sources. This bill will close that loophole. Given the prohibition on parties and candidates accepting foreign donations, I wouldn't expect that anyone in this place would take gifts from foreign sources, because that would go against the spirit of the donations reforms that were enacted in 2018.

It was Labor who successfully fought for a ban on foreign donations to be included in the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018, because we knew, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, and I know you knew, that we had to act to protect our democracy from foreign interference. But this government, the Morrison-Joyce government as it now is, had to be dragged kicking and screaming into banning them. It took two years for the government to act after Labor introduced our own bill to protect our democracy. Because of the reforms Labor achieved in 2018, registered political parties, candidates, Senate groups and political campaigners, those organisations who incur at least $500,000 of electoral expenditure in a year, are unable to accept donations of over $100 from foreign sources, if they are intended to be used for electoral expenditure, or any foreign donations over $1,000 at all.

There are also important anticircumvention measures in place to stop people getting around these bans, and it is right that this ban be extended to elected members of this place. The prohibition on accepting foreign donations shouldn't stop 30 days after a candidate is elected. The ban will apply to gifts received by sitting parliamentarians from the commencement of this legislation. The other change this bill makes in relation to foreign donations is to prohibit candidates from accepting them from six months prior to either the date of their nomination or the date they announce their candidacy—whichever is earlier. This will enhance the integrity of our democratic processes and put candidates on a level playing field with elected representatives.

This bill will further align the obligations of parliamentarians with those of political parties by requiring them to provide an annual return to the Australian Electoral Commission detailing political donations they've personally received which are over the disclosure threshold. Most donations received by parliamentarians who belong to political parties would be received on their behalf by that political party.

The party must then, of course, disclose the detail of the donation each year to the Australian Electoral Commission.

However, there is currently no obligation on parliamentarians to disclose donations personally received. That means donations received by parliamentarians who are not members of political parties are not required to be disclosed. This isn't right, and it will be corrected by this bill. Parliamentarians who do not personally receive donations will not be required to provide a return to the AEC. Annual returns will need to include the total value of all gifts received by the parliamentarian during the year; the total number of persons who made gifts; and, for each gift over the disclosure threshold—which is currently $14,500—the value of each gift, the date on which each gift was made, and the name and address of each donor. A parliamentarian's return must be provided within 20 weeks of the end of the financial year.

The bill requires parliamentarians to provide an annual return in relation to each financial year from 2020-21, where the gifts were made before, on or after the commencement of this bill, once enacted into law—that is, the bill will have retrospective application in relation to gifts received personally by parliamentarians during the 2020-21 financial year. Returns for the 2020-21 financial year will need to be provided within 30 days of the act's commencement. Annual returns will be published on the AEC's website.

Candidates will also be required to disclose donations they personally received during the period of six months prior to the date of their nomination or six months prior to the date of them announcing their candidacy, whichever is earlier. A similar position will apply to Senate groups, who will be taken to have begun being a group in an election six months before the day members apply to be grouped on the Senate ballot paper; this will continue until 30 days after polling day. These changes will substantially improve transparency and, along with the ban on foreign donations, will put candidates and elected representatives on a level playing field.

Donors are already required to provide an annual return setting out donations made to political parties or political campaigners which total more than the disclosure threshold, but under this bill the requirement will extend to gifts made for federal purposes to the same parliamentarian or candidate if the total value of those gifts exceeded the disclosure threshold. Donors will also be required to disclose gifts they receive in excess of the disclosure threshold if the gifts were then used wholly or partly to provide a gift to a member, senator or candidate. This is another important step to improve the transparency of our electoral system, allowing voters to better understand the actions of Australia's biggest electoral donors.

But, of course, there is so much more to be done. If this government really wanted to improve transparency in our politics, it would be supporting Labor proposals of lowering the donations disclosure threshold from the current $14,500 to a fixed $1,000 and also requiring donations to be disclosed within seven days so people really know who is donating to political parties and parliamentarians. This simple change would mean voters have this information when they go to cast their ballot and would not have to wait up to 19 months to find out who is funding political parties, as they do at present. There are other reforms that would enhance our democracy and that the government should be committing to, and accordingly I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that the explanatory memorandum states that the bill's intention is to increase transparency of political donations; and

(2) notes that transparency of donations and the integrity of Australia's electoral system would be further strengthened by:

(a) lowering the disclosure threshold from the current $14,500 to a fixed $1,000 so political donations are transparent for all to see;

(b) requiring real time disclosure of political donations;

(c) reforming electoral expenditure laws;

(d) providing more resources to the AEC to increase enrolment and turnout;

(e) addressing the spread of dangerous misinformation and disinformation;

(f) legislating for a powerful and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission;

(g) making laws to prevent governments from pork-barrelling in marginal held seats; and

(h) requiring parliamentarians to disclose secret donations; and

(3) calls on the Government to implement these electoral integrity measures that would make a real difference to improving public confidence in our democracy".

But, despite Labor's ongoing calls for increased transparency, the government has not taken any action on real-time disclosure or lower donations disclosure thresholds.

Labor is proud to have continuously fought for greater transparency of political donations. I want to acknowledge, in particular, the work in this regard by Senator Farrell, who has been a relentless advocate for the reforms that would deliver the democracy and electoral systems that Australians deserve.

He is building on a very strong legacy—a very strong Labor legacy, I might add. It was Labor, under Prime Minister Bob Hawke, that was first to introduce a donations disclosure regime back in 1983. The disclosure threshold was then set at a fixed $1,000, but in 2006 the Liberal government led by John Howard increased the threshold to $10,000 and linked it to CPI because it wanted to hide donations it was then receiving. This, sadly, has continued and been exacerbated because indexation has caused the threshold to blow out to a staggering $14,500. Any donations received below that amount do not have to be disclosed. This is unacceptable and it is something Labor is committed to changing in government.

On the other hand, instead of addressing this pressing issue, in the dying weeks of the parliamentary term the government has finally decided to pursue some form of electoral reform with this and a number of other bills. We do welcome the reforms contained in this bill, despite it being a late and imperfect attempt at increased transparency. It's better late than never. But this cannot end our collective effort to increase the standards of democracy, transparency and accountability.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the second reading of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021 bill but not the amendment. I could have some more sympathy for the amendment if it were genuine in seeking increased transparency, particularly around union movement donations to political parties. I would love to see a higher threshold and standard for union donation revelations. Perhaps when unions donate to political parties they should be required to reveal the details of every member of that union and put that on the record so that we know, with those millions of dollars that are funnelled into the Labor Party from the union movement, who the members of that union who are making these political donations are. Maybe we should also require unions to undertake a vote before they give political donations to anyone in our system. They should say to their members: 'Hey, we want to funnel millions of dollars of your union dues into political campaigns. Do you support that or not?' Maybe that sort of transparency would make a big difference in our system. But the Labor Party do not propose that in their second reading amendment, and we all know why.

Nonetheless, I support the bill. Firstly, I am surprised that what we're bringing in through this bill wasn't already the case. I just assumed that the standards that we in political parties have to meet around political donation disclosure was also the case for Independent MPs. Of course, I am so shocked that Independent MPs, who would know that they did not have the same obligations as the rest of us, have never chosen to raise this before! They've never come into this chamber or the other chamber and said: 'Hey, here is something terrible. I've just realised that, as an independent MP or senator, I do not have the same disclosure requirements as all of you who are members of a major party. How appalling. I am so fanatically supportive of all these other integrity measures that I raise so regularly in the chamber, so the first thing I want is to make sure that my integrity is beyond reproach.' But we have never had this issue raised by Independent members. It makes me reflect on the motives of some of the contributions they give in regard to their purported desire for increased governance and integrity measures in so many other pieces of legislation that they contribute on when they've never pointed out to us that they aren't doing what the rest of us are doing.

I am not impugning anyone with that, and I am not aware of any evidence that the wrong thing is occurring. But the whole reason for the regime that we have around disclosure is to make sure that there is no risk of that.

And we political parties of course have very significant requirements on us insofar as who we can receive donations from and the disclosure requirements of those donations. As the previous speaker mentioned, at the moment, any donation over $14,500 you receive has to be publicly disclosed each year; and that's been an index linked figure, which is why it changes every year from the legislation that he reflected on from the Howard government in 2006.

It is therefore very surprising that Independent members of parliament, before indicating whether they're contesting the next election, haven't had those requirements on them. I haven't indicated my intention publicly that I'm running at the next election, so maybe I'll take the opportunity to stop the presses and say that I do intend to recontest my seat. If I weren't a member from the Liberal Party, having just made that statement now, if I was an Independent, that's the first time that any requirements under current legislation would suddenly be triggered upon me. If I had chosen not to make that statement, if I chose to wait until next year before I made that statement, until I publicly say I'm recontesting the next election, if I'm not captured within the party political structures, then it seems—and again I express my surprise at not having being aware of this until now—there are absolutely no obligations on me until I make that commitment that I will be a future candidate.

There are things that we are required to do to make sure we're not receiving money from foreign sources, from foreign donors. That is prohibited for political parties. When my party, the Liberal Party, receives donations we have a responsibility and we receive a declaration from the person making a donation that they are not a foreign donor under the definitions in the act. Of course, we also have to make sure we're tracking the money we are receiving so that, if or when a particular donor triggers in a financial year that disclosure threshold of around $14,500, we make sure that we fulfil our responsibilities in our annual returns to the Australian Electoral Commission to declare those donors.

We also declare a whole range of other pieces of information about the financial flows of our party in that financial year. This is very important for the integrity of our democracy, but it is absolutely unbelievable that this same requirement isn't in place for Independent members of parliament. At the moment, the very fact that it isn't means it is possible for someone who's a member of parliament but not operating under the rules of a political party to receive money from a foreign source. It is possible for them to receive more than the disclosure amount of $14,500. They could, for all we know, receive millions of dollars and have no requirement whatsoever to publicly disclose that if they haven't yet committed to contesting a future election. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, frankly. It is completely ludicrous that we would allow a component of our political system, a component of our representative democracy, to not have the same responsibilities as the rest of us.

There are obvious reasons why we believe political donors should be disclosed and we shouldn't be allowed to receive donations from foreign sources. We don't want foreign interference in our political system. We know we don't have it with the major parties, because, if they received any financial contribution from an overseas source, we would have to return it. It's illegal to receive political donations from foreign sources, and that's quite right. We live in a heightened environment of foreign interference in elections. We know this full well from experiences overseas and from reports that we on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters have received from the security agencies about cyberinterference et cetera during campaigns. We know that there are bad actors operating from foreign locations who could well seek to disrupt and influence our elections and our politics more generally into the future. We must be very vigilant in making sure that we stand up against that and have systems in place so foreign money cannot come in and influence politics in this country.

That's why we don't allow political parties to receive donations from foreign sources. It's clearly why—and this is what this bill achieves—we need to make sure that foreign sources also can't finance or bankroll Independent members of parliament and that Independent members can't receive any financial consideration from overseas sources, in exactly the same way that political parties can't.

For the very same reason, we should have the same regime when it comes to revealing donors that are legal Australian sources of donations. We have to be able to receive donations in our political system. We have to be able to raise money so that we can run campaigns and communicate to the Australian people what our ideas are, what we stand for and what we will do if they choose to support us and vote us into government. That's the right of the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Labor Party and the Greens, and it's the right of Independent candidates. But it's equally important that it is known, if it is over a significant figure. I believe that $14,500 is on the low side, frankly. I don't think somebody is influenced by a $14,000 donation, but, for a $50,000 donation or a $1 million donation, absolutely. It makes an enormous impact if someone comes along and gives someone a $1 million donation. Under the current law—bearing in mind that we spend tens of millions of dollars on national election campaigns—anything over $14,500 from a single source within a financial year is disclosed by political parties.

That means that, if someone receives hundreds of thousands of dollars, or millions of dollars, from a particular interest group—from a union, for example—in exchange for taking certain policy positions in the parliament, we will know. If the Labor Party come in here and push legislation, we can link it back to the fact that they've received millions and millions of dollars from vested union interests. People might judge, by virtue of the disclosure, that they are influenced by that money that they get from the union movement. Thanks to disclosure laws, it's on the public record that they have received the majority of their funding from those sources, and that is important so that we know what their true motivations are for the sorts of policy positions that they take and the sorts of policy and legislation that they try to bring into this chamber. So we know, and the people of Australia know, what happens with the Labor Party and the connection between union donations and their policy positions. Commensurately, they continue to lose elections in this country, and long may that continue.

That's why it's just as important that Independent members of parliament declare the source of their donations. As I say, it is a great surprise that they have never come clean on this scam and have never been honest, in this chamber or outside of it, about not having the same requirements as the major political parties. Potentially, people have been receiving massive financial contributions and never declaring them, as people in any political party in our system have to do. Why have they never raised it before? I don't know. That's something that they can address if they choose to.

I'm very relieved that we've discovered this massive, gaping hole in the robustness of our donation disclosure laws and that in this bill we are addressing it. I'm sure this will have strong support in this chamber and the other. I'm sure that everyone who will be captured by this, who has been hiding in the shadows until now, is not afraid of the sunlight or of coming clean on an ongoing basis as to where their money comes from and making sure that they have no problem with not accepting donations from foreign sources. I think it is a great oversight that we have captured. I commend the minister for identifying this gaping hole in the integrity measures around our elections. I look forward to this coming into law as soon as possible so that there will no longer be any risk of Independent members receiving funding from offshore sources or taking massive donations from sources here at home that they don't declare. This legislation closes those massive loopholes in our electoral funding disclosure laws. I commend the bill to the House.

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

It's a little hard to even focus on what I intended to say after having listened to the rubbish that has just come out of the member for Sturt, as he claims that this is the hard work of the government in ensuring transparency and accountability.

Could I just point out for the member for Sturt—and the minister will confirm—this loophole was brought to the attention of the government by the independent member for Indi? This was no sleuth work or great legislative work coming from the government. So could we just pause a little on the inference that the member just made to the House that, somehow, this loophole has been used by independent members to accept donations from foreign donors or in ways that would be contrary to the disclosure requirements of members of the major parties. The irony that the government and the member for Sturt and whatever members speak on this after have the gall to come into this place and talk about transparency and accountability with respect to donations is just breathtaking.

Let's talk about what this is. This is the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021. I have no issues with it, because it is a loophole that we have identified and has been brought to the government's attention. It closes a loophole with respect to a sitting member, prior to announcing as a candidate for the next election, receiving a donation of over $1,000. Donations are made to a party, so, for members of parliament that are members of a party, donations are typically made to the party rather than the individual. The party will disclose donations received each year. I'll come to that in a moment, because we know the full disclosure doesn't occur.

Whilst a party member is caught, essentially, by the obligation to lodge a return, in most cases they don't have anything to disclose, because it's simply wrapped up in the party return. But, obviously, in situations of individual MPs, they still have to include all gifts or donations received for federal purposes, regardless of value. This introduces the disclosure of the source of the donation if it is above the $14,500 disclosure threshold. But what this is actually introducing is an additional disclosure requirement on independents that is not imposed on members of a party.

It does go well beyond that requirement of reporting. Part 3 of this bill clarifies that candidates will be subject to obligations under the act, even if they haven't announced their candidacy. So they're deemed to be a candidate for six months before they announce or nominate. In this situation, the government is quite happy to be retrospective. But the irony is how often it is not willing to be retrospective in looking at its own house. The irony is there's just no justification for backdating all obligations to six months before a candidate announces. It's to cover up a time when the candidate potentially has no idea they're even going to be a candidate, particularly when laws applying to a precandidate entity are being tightened in the political campaigner bill that passed this place last week, which require disclosure of donations received and foreign donor bans for that announcement period.

There's no doubt the government and the coalition are scared of the independent movement. All these legislations are little pieces of a puzzle to try and stifle democracy. They are trying to preserve their status quo and limit competition. The irony is that that goes so against liberal principles they're so happy to espouse in any other situation.

What are the practical implications of this bill? It will have very little material impact because independents have been based on integrity. We have been calling, time and time again, for transparency measures, integrity measures, lowering of the donation threshold and real-time donation reporting. On all those measures, this bill is silent. We wouldn't want to be increasing any requirement on ourselves, would we, government members?

Anyway, this is the campaign that they are choosing to make. I see the member for Mackellar is here; obviously, he is here because he knows he will face a concerted campaign from his community, because they are dissatisfied with the transparency and integrity shown in this place.

All states and territories have more transparent donation regimes with lower donation thresholds than the federal government.

Last year both parties worked together to reduce the transparency of political donations further, in avoidance of the High Court ruling. Independents were the only ones in this place to oppose that change, and proposed amendments to increase transparency. This bill and the political campaigner bill debated last year are an obvious assault trying to minimise competition in this place.

It is so hypocritical for members of the coalition to come into this place and talk of transparency and accountability when we have situations of blind trusts and the defence of blind trusts that come forward, when we have a refusal to stop lying in political advertising, when we have an unexplained delay in introducing a federal integrity commission and when every attempt at increasing accountability and transparency in this place is opposed. But, of course, they will come in here and grandstand about their call for equality and transparency.

If the government truly wanted to improve equity and disclosure, it would make the reporting time frames consistent across parties and Independents. After the last election Independents had to disclose their donations by October and they were made public in November, whereas all parties did not have their donations made public until the following February. I don't see any measure to amend those provisions in this legislation.

Also, an Independent only campaigns in their seat, and so it is very clear for their community when they see what moneys have been raised and what has been spent in that campaign. But, for the major parties, there is no breakdown per electorate. No party MP needs to disclose how much they have spent or how much they have raised. They hide under the cloak of the party banner. It's one large malaise dumped in a spreadsheet without any fidelity as to which electorate raised the funds or on which electorate funds were spent. By contrast, the Independents campaign on integrity and are transparent. They represent single seats. They provide fidelity at every election, and it's disclosed in a more timely manner.

Last month I seconded the bill introduced by my colleague the member for Indi which would increase the transparency of political donations. It would reduce the threshold for disclosure of political donations from $14,500 to $1,000. It would increase to quarterly the reporting frequency for $1,000 and to within five days for donations above $14,500. This is the type of donation reform this parliament needs.

For too long, money has been hidden from view and public scrutiny. Our democracy has been for sale. The incumbents are doing all they can to hold onto the status quo as hard as they can. We do not know who is paying for access to politicians and to government and what influence that is having over decisions. The Big Deal documentary recently aired by the ABC last month has shocked so many people around Australia, and it certainly has been noted by constituents. It revealed that over 55 per cent of donations to the ALP and 65 per cent of donations to the coalition were undisclosed. You didn't hear that in the member for Sturt's speech, and I'm pretty confident we won't hear that in any later speeches. The unashamed portrayal of cash for access and influence was horrifying.

Transparency is essential to good governance and public trust in democracy. The gall of the government to increase transparency requirements under the pretence that we must have been trying to hide something, ignoring that we brought it to their attention, especially in circumstances where so many independents voluntarily overreport and espouse transparency! At the same time, we have this unanswered question of a blind trust of significant amounts of money having been donated to the former Attorney-General for his personal use, yet there is no disclosure of who made those donations or where they came from. Were they from foreign donors? There is nothing on the record. The gall of this positioning! I'm quite comfortable because I know the Australian people can see through this.

They've had this time and time again, and they see through it.

The coalition are so busy looking at those challenging them that they completely fail to recognise the challenge and why the challenge has emerged. The Independent movement that the government is so desperate to squash exists because people are fed up with what happens in this place. They're fed up with the lack of integrity and the lack of transparency and accountability of the major parties and their lack of action on key issues when it comes to women, when it comes to integrity and when it comes to climate. At the last election only 25 per cent of Australians said they have trust in the federal government, and I can't imagine that will have risen any for the coming election. I have no doubt that the lack of transparency counts heavily towards that feeling.

I support this legislation—this is great!—but if you really want to come to the Australian people on a platform of wanting equality and accountability, bring forward some measures that clean up your house. Seriously, it is time to improve the transparency and accountability measures. I support consistency and improvements, so let's bring in some reform around political donations. Let's make sure that we actually bring in and support legislation around truth in political advertising. I note the member for Mackellar, who is going to come in, I am sure, and talk about the nerve of the Independent movement, not being held to the same standards of accountability. Yet whilst supporting the idea that there should be truth in political advertising, he has not come in here to talk about that increase in standards I am sure. Then we have transparency of donations. How can we talk about accountability without talking about a federal integrity commission? It is so overdue. The model the government is proposing is a model that creates a double standard. It is trying to hold MPs in this place to a lower standard than anyone else. That cannot be acceptable.

Transparency and integrity are really important issues in Warringah and, I believe, around Australia. People have had enough, and that's why they are turning to alternatives. It's really important for people to understand. This is your democracy. This place is to represent you. The people you put in this place are here only because you put them here. It's absolutely time to engage in your democracy. At the end of the day, if you are a bystander decisions will be made about you that impact your lives, so I call to communities: get engaged; get involved; be onto the issues; demand accountability from your members; from us, from me as an Independent, but from all your members of parliament, demand accountability. Hold them to account on their voting record, on what they say to you and on what they say in this place. The Australian people and I have really had enough.

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the call, Deputy Speaker Freelander. I'm so glad to be able to make this contribution to the debate on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021 with my third-favourite Deputy Speaker in the chair. I'll tell you the full rankings later, but you are definitely in my top five, and I appreciate the opportunity to give this contribution in front of you.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm part of the trifecta. That's very good.

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure I'm not in your top five on any list, Deputy Speaker, so I'll keep that in mind.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure you are.

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very important piece of reform that the parliament is undertaking. The member for Warringah said many things that I agree with. This is the people's parliament. This is their democracy, and it is important that they know who has donated to our campaigns. That is absolutely the case. Therefore, I support this piece of reform because it makes it possible for people to know the answer to that question.

The Australian people, as I'm sure the member for Warringah will agree, are no fools. They know—absolutely. They're not going to be conned by political parties or candidates or, indeed, political movements that try to fool them into believing that they are voting for one thing while voting for another. Just overnight in Victoria we saw a whole bunch of crossbench MPs, who were elected on various issues such as ending plastic bags, getting more money for the taxi industry et cetera, vote for Daniel Andrews's 'reforms' that will give the Premier of Victoria, whoever may sit in that seat—not just Daniel Andrews but whoever comes after him—some extraordinary powers to literally put Australians under house arrest.

I think the voters of Victoria, whether they are voting for a federal member of parliament, a state member of parliament or, indeed, their local councillor, deserve to know where that person is getting financial support from. That is for this reason and this reason only: it has the impact of influencing decisions that they may make and who has access to them when they are making those decisions.

There are, however—it saddens me to say this—a number of issues on which I disagree with the member for Warringah. I don't think this is about political parties. I don't think this is about Climate 200 or 'voices of' front groups or Mackellar souffles or whoever happens to put their name on whatever front group wants to stand up and have a go at campaigns. The fact of the matter remains that election campaigns are a contest of ideas. They're about who has the best ideas to improve the lives of the working men and women of Australia, who has the best ideas to assure those Australians who are seeking financial security in retirement and who has the best ideas to offer hope for Australians who are under the age of 40 who want to purchase their first home so that they can start a family and put down roots in their local community. These are the contests of ideas that excite me. If an election is about those things, that's a good thing. No election should be bought, that's for sure. But it's not about us, it's not about the crossbench, it's not about the front groups and it's certainly not about the Labor Party and the Greens. It is, has been and always will be about the Australian people and their right to know who is funding whom.

On that basis, electoral funding laws in Australia are critically important. I am probably one of very few people in this chamber who disagree with public funding of election campaigns. I think it corrupts the political process. How many candidates do we see running in elections just to collect the public funding that comes from that? Far too many. That's not democracy. That's not a contest of ideas. It's just another arbitrage opportunity that certain people have taken benefit from at the expense of the Australian people. I believe that is the view of very few members of this chamber, but it is a view that I hold strongly.

On the question of what these electoral laws do, our electoral funding rules should make apparent who is making large donations and for what purpose and, therefore, what influence that may have on a person down the track. When people say, 'The major political parties don't reveal where 40, 50 or 60 per cent of their funding comes from,' that is because it comes from small donations. The view of this parliament has been that people who are making small donations are unlikely to be able to influence the decisions of elected members and, therefore, in that balance between a right to privacy and a right to know, the right to privacy prevails. This idea of, 'If you've got nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?' has been uttered by some of the greatest tyrants of the 20th century. It always amazes me the people who come into this chamber and happily make that statement and happily repeat it, forgetting it was one of Stalin's favourite slogans—'If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about.'

This parliament has always believed that individuals are born with certain inalienable rights, and among those rights are a right to privacy, a right to freedom and a right to make your own decisions. And so, unless those donations are large amounts, it is not in the public benefit and not for the public good to actually reveal those donations. In fact, I think it is a matter of great sadness that candidates have to reveal where they get donations from because—and I stress this before it is clipped up and misused—we would want campaigns by all political parties and all political candidates actually funded by a large number of people through small donations.

When you have that, no one single person has enough influence over a candidate for them to take that into consideration when they are making decisions in the best interest of all Australia—not just the electorate that they represent, but all Australians. Therefore, having a broad base of donors whose amounts are small is actually critical to our democracy. I think it is a shame that we have been moving away from that and getting larger and larger donors. How many of those donors, for example, are simply protecting—let's be blunt about this—legislation that this parliament has introduced that has accrued benefits to them? How many times have the unions donated to the Labor Party and, equally, have certain big businesses donated to the Liberal Party, historically, looking to maintain their privileged position under law? Dare I say it, there have been other candidates—not just elected members of this House who are members of political parties, but other candidates—who sit on the crossbench who also may be overly influenced by a particular donor or a group of friends of donors. It's important that the Australian public is able to see who those people are, understand where they're getting support from, and then judge some of the decisions that they make within that context.

The member for Warringah and others have mentioned real-time disclosure. I'm utterly opposed to real-time disclosure. The member for Warringah and I participated in a documentary about donation laws in Australia. It was a very worthwhile exercise, and I highly recommend everyone viewing it on iView. But I will throw a dart at the heart of the hypotheses of the documentary, which I found troubling, and that is this idea, which I don't think anyone in this House or anyone in democratic politics anywhere in the world would deny, that the influence money has on US politics is corrosive. It's up to the United States but they need to look at it more clearly and understand the impact it's having. I don't think there is anyone in this chamber who would say that if we had the amount of money that flows through the US electoral system operating in this system it would be a matter of grave concern. But that documentary constantly went back to provisions in US law and said, 'Well, what if we implemented things like real-time disclosures?' What we know from the United States is that real-time disclosures are fantastic if you are trying to hide where you're getting your money from.

What happens in Australia is that when you give someone $100,000, even if you give it to them in $1,000 increments over 100 days, in the end it all has to be bundled up and reported as one amount. Going to the point that the member for Warringah made: the benefit of being in a political party is that every Australian can see that Jason Falinski, the member for Mackellar, is a member of the Liberal Party, which received $100,000 from BHP, not that BHP paid him $1,000 and then someone else $1,000 and someone else $1,000 and so on. It all gets bundled up so that Australians can see how much money the Liberal Party received from a particular donor. Under real-time donation laws, that doesn't happen. The Liberal Party reveals that on day 1 we got $1,000 and on day 3 we got $1,000 from a different entity, so that, by the time you get to day 100, no-one has been able to keep track of where the money has come from. So it actually has the result of hiding the very thing that electoral funding laws are meant to show the Australian public, which is where political candidates are receiving their money from.

I say to those who are opposed to this bill—and I note what they're saying—that this is actually about putting everyone on a level playing field so the disclosures have to happen at the same time. I don't understand why that's a problem. I don't understand why this has become such a cause celebre for the crossbench.

They are constantly in here telling us that they stand for integrity, that they stand for equality. Here's a piece of legislation that is indisputably about exactly that. I say to them, if I may, that this is something they should give full throated support to, that they shouldn't delay in the House and that they should, if I may say it, congratulate, rather than sneer at, the House for actually passing.

The Australian people are not fools. The Australian people know that these Independents are all part of a coordinated group headed by Simon Holmes a Court and funded through different trusts, funds and front groups. No-one knows where the money is coming from. No-one knows where Climate 200 got it's $3.3 million from. There are a lot of people around saying that $200,000 from Simon Holmes a Court, $100,000 from Nick Fairfax and $100,000 from Simon Hackett does not equal the $3.6 million that they say they have in this front group. No-one is fooled when they go on Facebook and see The Voices Of group. The members of that group all used to be members of the Greens who at the last election were on the campaign committee of the Independent, who was funded by GetUp, who then also had the benefit, I might say, of an offshoot, a new front group, so he could maintain this fiction that The Voices Of group is somehow a community group. This is a RICO, or racketeer influenced and corrupt organisations, case in the making. The tentacles run everywhere. Apparently it's all uncoordinated. Watching their behaviour, I'd believe that. It's all uncoordinated, but the major thing about it is that it's always about hiding who they are, what they stand for and where the money is coming from.

Here we have a piece of legislation that, basically, says to Simon Holmes a Court: tell us where the money is coming from, Simon, and, more importantly for the people of Wentworth, North Sydney, Mackellar, Goldstein, Higgins and Kooyong—all of which, I might add, are Liberal seats—tell us where it's going. Don't get me wrong; they're all about democracy. That's why they target just one political party. We all know what's really going on here. The left wing are now using these front groups to attack Liberals because they know they wouldn't get elected as Labor members, as Labor candidates or as Greens candidates.

That's what's going on. That's why all the money is hidden. That's why the front groups keep sprouting up with different names. It's like drinking new Coke and then going back to Coke classic. The thing inside the can is the same. You're still drinking the same drink. The point of this electoral reform is about making all of that obvious. Please spare us the cant about 'community groups'. There's nothing about them that's community. What there is a lot of with them is how coordinated they are and how much they're hiding.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this bill introduced by the Special Minister of State just last week. The substance of this bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021, appears to be threefold. First, it will require all parliamentarians to lodge annual returns to the Australian Electoral Commission relating to gifts received during the financial year. These provisions would also require donors who make gifts to parliamentarians above the AEC threshold to report them in their annual returns. Second, this bill would extend foreign donation laws to cover current sitting members of parliament, not just when they are candidates for election. Finally, this bill extends by six months the period during which a person is considered a candidate for the purposes of reporting donations received during an election.

On the face of it, these are positive reforms. I say 'on the face of it' because, unfortunately, the minister did not make the time to brief the crossbench prior to this debate. The soonest I could get an appointment was tomorrow. I will say that these amendments would not change too much about how I already do business.

While the current provisions in the electoral act do not require non-party parliamentarians to lodge annual AEC returns, I am committed, as I have said so many times in this House, to disclosing on a quarterly basis all donations I receive, at any time, above $1,000. That information is on my website right now for all to see. Sadly, in the interests of transparency, the same cannot be said for all major parties. At this stage I do have concerns about the retrospective application of the candidate provisions. While I welcome any reforms to improve the disclosure of political donations in this nation, it's very curious indeed to see that the government has become laser focused on reforms targeted at Independent candidates, all of a sudden.

It's also curious to see that the government do not pay attention to the loopholes in the act which they proactively exploit. For example, it's common practice for candidates from the major parties to lodge individual AEC returns that state that they received $0 during an election—zero dollars. This is obviously untrue. The major parties are clearly exploiting a loophole to ensure that the public is left in the dark about how much money they decide to spend in each electorate. The public has that information about an independent candidate, so why not from the major parties too? Wouldn't that be great transparency? Wouldn't that be a marvellous loophole to fix?

That's why I will soon be moving a detailed amendment to this bill to require political parties to declare in an AEC return exactly how much money they gave to an individual candidate, if that candidate submits a nil return under part 5. If the government is truly committed to disclosure equality when it comes to political donations, then it will support this detailed amendment. I encourage them to do so, but I'm not going to hold my breath. I will also be moving detailed amendments to reduce the AEC political donations declaration threshold from $14,500 to $1,000. These amendments reflect the provisions of the private members' bill I introduced last sitting and the private members' bill the member for Mayo introduced at the start of this parliament, which I was very pleased to support.

The government is keen to say that they are 'committed to increasing transparency when it comes to political donations via this bill'. Well, let's see them 'walk the talk' on these amendments. Under current laws, the major parties only have to disclose donations received above $14,500 to the Australian Electoral Commission each financial year. Australians deserve to know who is holding the purse strings of the major parties before voting for them. Politicians are meant to represent the people, not their donors. The parliaments of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland have all set disclosure thresholds on donations of $1,000. New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia also require near real-time disclosure of donations, but right now there is no equivalent law at a federal level.

In summary, I challenge the government on whether it truly introduced this bill in good faith. This bill has had no consultation and was never contemplated by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I truly do wonder what the government's ultimate motivation here is. If the government honestly cared about equality in political donations laws, it would also support my amendments to lower the disclosure threshold and prevent political parties from hiding where they spend money during elections.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank all those in this chamber who have contributed to the debate on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021. The bill will ensure greater transparency in the disclosure of electoral donations by: extending foreign donation restrictions to parliamentarians for the full length of their term in office, rather than just the period they are a candidate for the election; requiring parliamentarians who directly receive donations for the purpose of incurring electoral expenditure or creating electoral material to lodge an annual return to the AEC each financial year; and extending the period for which a person is taken to be a candidate by an additional six months for the purpose of disclosure period for the candidate and Senate group returns and for restrictions on receiving foreign donations. This will support the continued integrity of the electoral system by ensuring that Australia's world-class electoral funding and disclosure regime is consistent and continues to provide transparency for Australian voters.

I thank my colleagues for their contributions, and I commend this bill.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Scullin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.