Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Listening to a number of speakers on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2006 has drawn me to speak on it now. I have had the opportunity to hear what Senator Boswell has said about this bill, as well as Senator Mason, who is on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I will deal more broadly with the issues that the Labor Party finds offensive and I will reflect on the name itself—that is, the ‘electoral integrity and other measures’ bill. That reminds me of the government’s view on naming bills in the industrial relations field. I think they have done the same thing with this bill. They have effectively named a bill by using a title which is misleading in itself—‘electoral integrity and other measures’. The ‘other measures’ is probably closer to the truth.

When you look at electoral integrity, this bill is far from it. The Liberal Party have been seeking many of the measures contained within this bill—not all of them; some of them are an improvement—over the last four, five or more years. They are now serving them up again, because they have got the numbers in this chamber. That seems clear. It is a pity that neither Senator Boswell nor Senator Mason mentioned that point. In truth, they went on about self-serving issues. I think the central issue of this bill is that it is democracy diminished, not democracy enlarged or improved—and perhaps that should have been the name this bill was given.

The purpose of this bill as stated was to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act in order to implement the government’s policy on electoral reform—and there they go again using the phrase ‘electoral reform’. It is far from reform; in truth, it is a reduction in democracy and they should admit to it. It is far easier to at least admit to it and then move onto the substantive issues. The major issue in this bill is to increase the threshold for disclosing gifts to party candidates from $1,500 to a whopping $10,000. But they do not leave it at that. To makes sure that they do not have to revisit it and that we do not have to have this debate again, in what could only be described as an excessive exercise, they have decided to link it to the CPI index so it will continue to rise, probably at the rate of some two or three per cent per year. This could only be described as Liberal Party heaven, because the Liberal Party have been seeking this for some time and they will succeed unless some on the other side see the light. But I doubt that will happen. I suspect when you look at their speeches and you hear the summing-up speech by the minister, they will argue that it is one of those provisions that will be helpful.

Yes, it will be helpful, of course, to the Liberal Party but it will not be helpful for democracy. It will be a backward step for democracy. The Liberals have been trying to do to this since 1999. Section 314AB of the Commonwealth Electoral Act requires all parties to disclose donations, and the limit or threshold is currently $1,500. This brings with it substantial transparency—and that is a word that the Liberals cannot say, see or come to grips with. Transparency brings with it the ability for parties and people to understand where the revenue, where the source of income, comes from—from people to political parties. That creates a more transparent system. It ensures that there is integrity in our system of democracy. They argue that a $10,000 limit will not change things much at all. It will most likely encourage people to change their pattern of donation to the Liberal Party. That is exactly why they have been promoting it. It will ensure that those people who want to remain anonymous will find ways to ensure that they can donate $9,999 to the Liberal Party and not have the source of funding disclosed. They will not have transparency.

It was argued in the original 2004 report that this measure has no policy merit at all. It will only diminish transparency between donations and the source, and it will ensure that the people who want to remain anonymous will do so. Senator Abetz has argued that the amount has been eroded by inflation over time. He is not living in the same inflationary period that we have been in if he thinks that $1,500 has been eroded to that extent. It was set 20 years ago. It was probably much too low then, he argues. I think that argument does not have any policy merit at all and misses the point completely. It is a poor defence by this government to argue those matters. It completely misses the whole issue.

Will it make a difference? Of course it will make a difference: $9,999 will be able to be donated anonymously to eight Liberal branches. That is where they know the difference will come in. They have the ability to use family relationships, so a husband and wife can each donate $9,999 to the eight branches of the Liberal Party throughout Australia. That is precisely where they want to be. They want to be in a position to ensure that their sources are not transparent where they can move cash from one source to the next.

Debate interrupted.