Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Cory Bernardi has quite rightly interjected that they need protection. They need protection from those people who would seek to intimidate them because of their donations. That is quite right. Senator Don Chipp a quarter of a century ago recognised that important point. We as a government, in fact, have had the view that the threshold should be $10,000 for the last 20-plus years. So there are no surprises here. We have remained consistent in that regard.

The important thing about this is that 88 per cent of all donations disclosed by both Labor and the Liberal Party were donated in amounts of $10,000 or more in the 2003-04 year. So, really, only 12 per cent of current donations might not be disclosed. If people are saying that that 12 per cent is going to somehow create undue influence on the body politic of Australia, I would say with great respect that I do not think you are right. What that 12 per cent—the rats and mice of the donations—is doing is putting untold pressure on political parties, especially small political parties, that have difficulty in coming to grips with the current system. And the Australian Electoral Commission spends far too much time on those figures for no real benefit. I would point out that on 9 March 2006, Karen Cassidy, the Tasmanian Greens convenor, said:

The Tasmanian Greens have two part-time employees, one of whom is our adminstrator. She basically has a full-time job in a part-time capacity trying to comply with the current regime for reporting of donations.

So even the Greens are complaining about the amount of work involved with these small amounts—and I am sure that is why Senators Brown and Milne are very quiet in relation to this point.

Those opposite have the absolute audacity, Senator Bernardi, to complain about the new threshold of $10,000. Coming from the state of South Australia, you will undoubtedly recall the stunt pulled by Senator Nick Bolkus—as he then was—for the campaign for Steve Georganas, who is now the member for Hindmarsh. He ran a $10,000 raffle. The one donor bought all the raffle tickets and there was no raffle prize—and it was not disclosed until he was flushed out. Senator Bolkus, a former minister responsible for the Commonwealth Electoral Act, engaged in this sort of behaviour.

It shows that the Labor Party will window-dress and assert themselves as being cleaner than the driven snow and then engage in the practice of trying to get donations and hiding them through the guise of a false raffle. It is the same when they talk about electoral roll rorting—‘It doesn’t exist; we don’t need to tighten up the provisions’—when they are the ones who have had people going to jail for roll rorting. I indicate to honourable senators that the electoral roll is used not only for electoral purposes but also for social security and other fraud related matters. Therefore, it makes good sense for the electoral roll to be robust.

I say to my good friend Senator Fielding that I disagree with his unfortunate reflection on political parties. In his contribution, he told us that community groups and lobby groups that push political agendas are not eligible for tax deductibility status. I say to Senator Fielding, yes they are, unfortunately. There is the Wilderness Society, the RSPCA and a number of organisations. What we are saying is: ‘Let’s level the playing field. Rather than taking tax deducibility status off some of these organisations, we ought to level the playing field.’

Senator Fielding said that he was opposed to the electoral roll being used for the purposes of the Financial Transaction Reports Act. I would be happy to give Senator Fielding a private brief on that. Basically, as a result of Commonwealth legislation, we require banking institutions to undertake checks for which we allow the electoral roll to be used—and they have now outsourced that to a third party. As I understand it, there is, at least on this issue, unanimity between Liberal and Labor and, I think, the Australian Democrats. So, if I have the opportunity to explain things to Senator Fielding later on, hopefully there will be agreement from him on that issue.

Unfortunately, time is short. Suffice it to say that those who are seeking to assert that there is somehow a conspiracy involved in relation to the thresholds et cetera conveniently overlook their own behaviour as a political party—for example, the raffle that I indicated earlier—and what Labour governments around the world do. In New Zealand, the threshold is $NZ10,000 and in the United Kingdom it is ₤5,000, which in very rough terms translates to $A10,000. Nobody has asserted that there is a democratic deficit in New Zealand or the United Kingdom because of those thresholds. They have had Labour governments for some considerable period of time and they have seen no need to change the laws. Nobody is asserting that there is a democratic deficit in those countries, and there is no basis to assert that there would be a democratic deficit if we were to have the $10,000 threshold in this country.

I thank honourable senators for their contributions. I look forward to the committee stage and I recommend the bill as printed.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Carr’s) be agreed to.