Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I take the interjection and I will repeat it. Senator Faulkner said, ‘To be fair, there would not be disclosure rules and regulations in the Electoral Act if it were not for the Labor Party,’ and I acknowledge that. My party is grateful for the initiatives and the efforts that the Labor Party put into a better funding and disclosure regime as far back as 1984. My criticism is not of what you did in the past but of what still remains to be done. I urge you to turn your eye to that.

But, coming back to this particular area: we see in our environment an increasingly moneyed electoral situation. Frankly, it acts as a major barrier to entry to small and minor parties and Independents. Unless you have rich interest groups or rich benefactors, you are going to struggle somewhat. The moneyed environment in which politics now operates in Australia is characterised by extremely high-cost campaigns and the increasingly well-benefacted, if I can use that phrase, nature of incumbency. In that case, you would have to ask why I would be concerned or worried about raising the disclosure level. My worry and concern about raising the disclosure level is that, the more political parties and politicians become dependent on money for electoral success, the greater the danger of undue influence and undue access being bought. Therefore our support for $1,500 remaining as the generous sum—we think it is a generous sum—set for the current threshold is based on the precautionary principle that, below that figure, we cannot really see someone being corrupted in the exercise of their duties, or a political party being influenced in the exercise of its duties. But, once you start to reach significant figures, you have to worry about it.

The government might say that $10,000 is not that significant, but there are clear cases in local council inquiries by the various corruption commissions where amounts of that type have been found to be improper and to have created a perception, and sometimes an actuality, of graft or corruption. The Labor Party claimed, in its submission to the inquiry into the 2004 federal election, that the current amount of $1,500 provides ‘a fair balance between optimum disclosure and practicability.’ I agree. Professor George Williams also argued that a major increase could not be justified. He stated:

The change would have a harmful effect on our democracy. Reform should instead be aimed at the more effective and more frequent disclosure of political donations.

Given the regulation loopholes that already exist with political finance disclosure laws, the boost from $1,500 to $10,000 can only intensify this problem. It could, essentially, allow secret donations of $9,999 to be made.