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

Generally speaking, to avoid doubt, people will put a cheque down for $9,999, which would definitely not be disclosed and therefore would be secret. Had this law been in place for the electoral period of 2004-05, it is claimed that a very high percentage of donations would therefore have been secret. The government argues in contradiction to that that a very high percentage of donations will still be disclosed. I think—and the minister will be able to verify this—the government says that around 75 per cent of total receipts will still be disclosed.

The Democrats think—and, I must say, it is a theme being picked up by the media—that more secrecy and hidden influence is not what ordinary Australians want. We think that already the perception, if not the reality in some cases, is that only those of wealth—corporate or entity wealth or individual wealth—are able to get major access and major input into our political system. We say: don’t let’s aggravate further that perception; let us put our efforts into more transparency. Raising the threshold is contrary to good principles of transparency and full disclosure.

In closing my remarks, I must say that I would be less concerned about this jump to $10,000 if the multiple donations problem did not exist—that is, the ability of individuals, as in the example I have just given, to donate $9,999 secretly not just to one but to nine divisions of a party, if a party has nine divisions. That means $90,000 worth of secret donations in a year, and that is an extremely concerning issue. When I discussed this matter formally with the Labor Party at the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters hearing on this matter, I had the impression from the national secretary that they were as concerned as I was about this issue. I have tried to address the issue of multiple donations in a later amendment of mine. I hope that when we come to it I will find, at least, the opposition able to support it.