Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I want to quickly move on, because it is obvious that the government is not going to take this issue of third parties seriously. I heard the minister say that section 305 is to be repealed and replaced with his new clauses. Speaking of getting your head around it, according to my reading of this, the PR company would have to furnish a return but it would only have to name those people who contracted to it or gave amounts to it of more than $10,000. I would like clarity relating to that, because my understanding is that, if 20 or 30 businessmen provide less than $10,000 each to the PR company, the PR company will have to furnish a return but will not have to identify the people who make that donation to it.

You say you are repealing section 305—and I might add that 305 was your defence yesterday in relation to a proposition I put with regard to a board of directors. I make the point again that no company is going to suggest that it increase the fees for a board of directors so that they could make an ongoing donation. It is going to be something that just occurs. Senator Abetz, by his own admission, is saying that a number of individuals gave money and therefore it was not a third entity—in this case, a religious group. That is the point in question. You cannot identify who the third party is by virtue of clauses 314AEB and 314AEC, and that is my point precisely. I am fully aware that Tasmanians for a Better Future are not captured, because there is no Tasmanian law, but under federal law for the next federal election, if you are repealing 305 as you say you are and substituting it with these two clauses, tell me: if those individual businesspeople do not give more than $10,000 to the public relations company, is the public relations company required to name them?