Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak against the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2006 and to support the Labor Party’s amendments. This bill was rammed through the House of Representatives on 11 May 2006 after minimal debate and three gags. That is typical of the abuse of parliamentary processes we have seen from the arrogant Howard government since it gained control of both houses of parliament.

I have spoken before about the shameless and comical way the Howard government names its bills. In recent months I have spoken against the so-called regional telecommunications services bill, which should have more accurately been called the ‘used Telstra shares fire sale bill’. I have spoken against the so-called Work Choices bill, which should have been called the ‘two choices bill’ or the ‘take it or leave it bill’. I have spoken against the Welfare to Work bill, which should really have been called the ‘social insecurity bill’. But I have to say that the title of this bill really does take the cake. Anyone who is across the detail of what the Howard government is proposing in this bill would be at a loss to understand what this bill has to do with integrity.

It is clear to me that a more accurate name for this bill would have to be the ‘harder to vote, easier to donate bill’, because that is exactly what this bill is about. And I have not found a single word of opinion from the commentators that suggests otherwise. Not even the dancing bears have come out in support of the government on this bill. Maybe the likes of Ackerman, Albrechtsen and Bolt have some shame—or at least more shame than the government where this bill is concerned.

This bill has two main aims. The first aim is to hide large donations to political parties from the public and the media. The second aim is to make it harder for people who would be eligible to vote from being able to vote. I will deal with these two aims separately and in turn. Labor is opposed to hiding large donations from the public, because to do so would allow influence to be bought without anyone ever knowing about it, because to do so would open the floodgates to corruption, and because to do so would undermine the integrity, and public confidence in the integrity, of the electoral system. If this bill becomes law, a company, a wealthy individual or even a trade union will be able to donate up to $90,000 a year across the state, territory and national branches of a political party without ever being identified.

Who in their right mind could possibly think that is a good thing? One of the greatest safeguards against people trying to buy political influence is the knowledge that campaign donations will be disclosed. If this bill is made law, it will open the door to secret backroom deals where contracts, taxpayer grants, favourable policy decisions and high-paying ministerial appointments could be bought by donations that both the public and the media would never, ever know about. It just makes no sense. Perhaps it makes some sense when you know that Senator Abetz had his grubby little hands all over the drafting of this bill.