Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I do not know what they were. I put in all the cards. We did not ask them how they voted. We worked on the basis that if they were right-thinking people they would vote the right way. That is just another example of measures designed to stop people getting on the roll. As I said, it is driven purely by self-interest. It is driven by a desire to disenfranchise certain groups in the community. All the evidence shows that these measures prevent Indigenous people, young people, poor people and homeless people from enrolling. They are hurdles over which they will not get, and the ID measures introduced in this bill will work very effectively in reducing the number of Australians who can enrol and vote.

That is true for the closure of the rolls provision. Large numbers of young people enrol late. We hear evidence that maybe up to 280,000 people at the last election would have had their enrolment affected by the early closure of the rolls. There is no argument in terms of democratic principles or integrity of the electoral system that says you ought to close the roll seven days earlier, as is proposed here. It is purely about self-interest. It is purely about the political advantage that the conservatives and this government think will accrue to them. It is totally unprincipled, it is against all the democratic aspirations of this country and it ought to be opposed.

The other major aspect of this bill is the measure relating to lifting the thresholds on declarable donations. This has again been a very consistent theme from the Liberal Party. They have never liked disclosure. They have never liked the fact that measures have been taken to increase the transparency in the role of donations in Australian politics. We have always argued that part of the defence against corruption in the political process is to provide transparency about the money that comes in to support political parties.

We have supported measures which try and ensure that large political donations are declared, are traceable and are transparent so that people know where the money that is donated to political parties comes from—just as we have the registers of senators’ and members’ interests, which let people know where the income of parliamentarians comes from to provide transparency and confidence that money, inducements and financial interests are not playing a role in decision making. The same principles apply in terms of donations to political parties. These measures by the government seek to increase the thresholds and increase the ability for people to make large political donations to political parties without any transparency and any disclosure.

There are all sorts of spurious arguments advanced by people like Senator Abetz in support of those propositions, but basically what this measure does is increase the influence of money over political parties. It increases the secrecy of those transactions. I defy anyone to argue that that is good for democracy. The transparency and the disclosure allow for a stronger and healthier democracy. People know what money flows and they can make their own judgments about what influence that brings. But, without that transparency and disclosure, people are not able to make those judgments.

I think you can mount respectable arguments about limiting or ending the influence of money in funding political parties. Part of the reason for measures about public funding was to take the pressure off political parties that comes from the need to raise funds for their operation and campaigning. But measures that seek to increase the secrecy and cloud the transparency of the role of money and donations in politics is a regressive move. It is a move designed to advance the interests of the government. They think they will benefit from this, therefore they support it. As I say, on any independent assessment, such measures cannot be supported.

The Liberals have been consistent in this. They have consistently sought to reduce the capacity of certain groups in society to vote. They have consistently sought to make political donations more secret. Those principles are reflected in a number of measures in these bills. I think they are highly dangerous for democracy. They take us back and undermine the integrity of our electoral system. Surely the principle ought to be that we ought to encourage every eligible Australian citizen to partake in this democracy and exercise their right to vote. Surely we should endorse a principle which seeks to make transparent any funding of political parties that participate in our democracy. Those two principles are seriously undermined by this bill, and they are seriously undermined for one reason only. The principle the government espouses is one of self-interest. That is the core reason for these changes. It is the only rationale for measures which otherwise are clearly against the progression and integrity of democracy in this country.

It is a sad day when we see this legislation before the parliament knowing that it will pass. But people have to understand why. This is not legislation the government has a mandate for. It is not legislation they have persisted with in previous parliaments. Why? Because they knew they could not win an argument in this chamber. They could not convince the minors, the Independents or the Labor Party that it was a good thing and that it would strengthen our democracy or accountability in Australian politics. They bring it in now because they have the numbers. They bring it in now because it serves their self-interest. They bring it in now because they seek to abuse their power. And it is not just the Labor Party saying this—it is the Greens, the Democrats, the Labor Party and Independents.

People should ask themselves, whatever their politics: why is it that only the Liberal-National coalition think this is a good idea? There is a reason for that: it serves their own self-interest. It does not serve the parliament, it does not serve democracy and it does not serve the Australian community. It serves the self-interest and the narrow political interest of the coalition partners. For that reason people ought to be very sceptical and very concerned that this bill should pass. Labor will oppose this here and oppose it in the community. We will reverse the measures, when we get the opportunity, contained in this bill, because this bill is bad for democracy. People need to recognise that this is one of the unfortunate outcomes of the government gaining control of the balance of power in the Senate. This is the abuse of power that comes from an unchecked power. (Time expired)