Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Murray’s proposition is one which the opposition will be strongly supporting. Senator Murray is proposing to essentially strike out a provision, a proposal we would strongly support. This is a highly controversial question that has arisen as a result of the Liberal Party’s long-held and absolute obsession with ensuring that it can get its big money mates to hand over millions and millions of dollars without being held publicly accountable for it. This is a proposition that is advanced on the most spurious of grounds—that is, that we are somehow or other expected to believe that this is all about the consumer price index. It has nothing to do with the consumer price index; although, I might add, the provisions of the particular section will see that an automatic increase in the sleaze factor will be there ad infinitum, should this legislation stand.

What we are looking at here is a proposition which would see the capacity for people to move money around rise from $1,500 per donation to, effectively, $80,000 per donation. This is not a matter that has anything to do with inflationary impact. It is about ensuring that the Liberal Party has access to very large sums of money. If you look at the so-called inflationary side of this, you see that if inflation were to be applied properly then the amount for which a candidate is required to put a post-election return in—which was set in 1984 at $200—would rise to $439. For post-election returns for groups of candidates, the amount would rise from $1,000 to $2,100. Measures that were introduced throughout the 1990s would similarly have very small increases—$400 or $500 at the outside—if it were purely an inflationary matter.

What we are talking about here is the capacity for large sums of money to enter into the political system and not be recorded, so that you cannot identify where the money is coming from. We know that under the present, somewhat inadequate, arrangements there are people around who are prepared to contribute very large sums of money. Lord Michael Ashcroft wrote a cheque for $1 million. We know that there is a capacity for very large sums of money to move into the political system. But what this will do is enable that level of investment to increase dramatically.

The Parliamentary Library has provided us with some advice on the effect of this measure. We see that with the current disclosure threshold of $1,500, of the current returns of $117 million, 81.9 per cent of the total donations is required to be declared. But under this provision the percentage of the total amount of money required to be declared would drop down to 70 per cent. That is on the current arrangements. If you see any change in behaviour as a result of these measures—which the government has said it intends to create; that is, it wants to see more people contribute these sorts of sums of money, and to do so in secret—then you would possibly see a situation arise where a little over 50 per cent of moneys would have to be declared. They are the consequences of these changes. What does that mean in real terms? What it means is that individuals with $80,000 will be able to buy votes in this parliament. That is a direct consequence of these sorts of provisions.

Those sorts of provisions have been rejected time and time again by this chamber and by this parliament. The Liberal Party has had this policy for the better part of 20 years and has failed to get it up. What has changed? Control of this chamber. That is the only thing that has changed in this whole debate. The provisions that are being proposed here are essentially not new. Senator Faulkner has probably argued this case for far longer than I have. But I recall that these questions have come up while I have sat here and listened over the last 13 years. They came up when the Liberal Party was in opposition and sought to do this. They have come up while the Liberal Party has been in government. But these proposals have failed, because they are fundamentally undemocratic.

These proposals are about ensuring the secrecy and the unaccountability of donors. Big money politics can buy votes, and this is a method by which that process can be made legal. That is why it should be strongly opposed. As far as we are concerned, this is one of those measures which highlights what this government is seeking to do with these electoral changes. It is not about improving transparency and it is not about ensuring that people know more about how their political system operates.

The Australian Electoral Commission has suggested that there needs to be a stiffening of requirements when it comes to the question of anonymous donors. But what do we see here? Exactly the opposite. Minister, I ask you straight up: why have you ignored the Australian Electoral Commission’s advice on this matter? What is the argument contrary to the view that says that the Liberal Party is in the pay of those large corporations that want to donate directly and buy votes through the Australian political system? If you can come forward and provide an $80,000 donation on the quiet and have no-one know that you have done it, what sort of influence can that bring? I think the answers to those questions are pretty straightforward. I look forward to the minister explaining his position on this, because so far there has been no explanation whatsoever provided as to why the government is seeking to do this—other than that it is an established Liberal Party policy which they are claiming is about inflation. It has nothing to do with inflation, other than the inflation of the Liberal Party vote. That is the inflation that they are interested in. They are interested in how they can keep it up.

It has also been claimed that this is a device by which we can ensure that more people contribute to the political system. We know a great deal about the sorts of people that this government wants to see contribute to the political system. As I read their proposals, if we saw an additional $10 million come into the political system, then the percentage of total receipts for which details would not have to be given would reduce to something closer to 50 per cent. There would be a reduction in the level of public disclosure. That is the direct consequence of this. That is the argument that is being put to you, Minister. I am looking forward to you putting a view to us as to why it is that you think that it is so important that this legislation should be allowed to proceed when it has have failed so many times before in this chamber.