Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

Family First believes the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2006 contains some reasonable measures but also some measures which are not reasonable. Family First’s main concerns are the special treatment given to politicians and political parties by giving us tax deductibility status for donations and the push to increase the tax deductible amount from $100 to $1,500—a staggering 1,500 per cent increase. Family First opposes this special treatment for politicians and political parties. It is no more than a money grab by politicians and political parties feathering their own nests. Family First will move an amendment to abolish tax deductibility status for political parties.

Charities enjoy tax deductibility status, and so they should. The Australian community supports this. However, political parties are not charities. They are self-interested organisations pushing their own agendas. Community groups and lobby groups that push political agendas are not eligible for tax deductibility status. I note that last year the government warned environmental groups that their tax deductibility status was at risk because they had embraced political activities. That is fair enough, but let’s be fair dinkum and apply the same rules to the community groups we call political parties.

Why should politicians and political parties be treated differently? There is the argument that a higher threshold would encourage people to participate in the democratic process. Family First understands that donations are important to political parties—we all need them. But a cynic would say that the increase in the tax deductible amount is simply about filling the coffers rather than increasing participation. Family First believes this is yet another example of hypocrisy: one rule for us politicians and political parties, and another one for everyone else.

The government also wants to increase the threshold for disclosing political donations from $1,500 to more than $10,000. That makes it more likely that donations will remain secret and hidden from public knowledge. It will also protect the identity of people who are trying to influence the nation’s political agenda via their donations. This lack of transparency and accountability is not acceptable. If people or organisations want to influence the political agenda, their donations should be made public.

Many of us took an interest in the recent change of government in Canada, and I understand members of the Liberal Party helped the Conservatives to win the election. That is why it is so interesting to note that the Conservative government in Canada is actually tightening up its electoral laws, not weakening them as proposed in this bill. The Canadian government has reduced the amount individuals can contribute to a candidate each year from $Can5,000 to $Can1,000. The Canadian government will also ban corporations, associations and trade unions from making any contributions. Family First will be moving an amendment to keep the disclosure threshold at the current level.

There are a range of other measures in this bill, some of which, as I said, are reasonable and some of which are not. Family First supports the government’s move to require people to prove their identity when they enrol to vote. I have been surprised myself when enrolling that these requirements are not already in place, as they make sense. The bill will also allow commercial organisations such as banks to use name and address details from the electoral roll to help them verify identities under the Financial Transaction Reports Act. I can understand organisations wanting this information, but the electoral roll was not created for that reason and those on the roll have not provided their personal information for that purpose. The roll’s primary function is to assist elections, and I have concerns about its broader use.

Family First’s main concerns are with the special treatment given to political parties and politicians through tax deductibility status and the increased threshold for disclosing political donations. For those reasons, Family First cannot support the bill.