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

I rise to support the amendment moved by Senator Murray for the Democrats to strike out the disclosure threshold increase to $10,000. I do so because the people of Australia must understand that, by increasing the disclosure threshold to $10,000 and not regulating the capacity to compound this donation by giving it to the same party but different branches, this means we should virtually tear up the disclosure legislation in Australia. I do not think we should continue pretending that we have got political donations disclosure if we take this particular measure, and I will explain why. I would like Senator Abetz, through the chair, to tell me whether what I am going to say next is true.

Let us say BHP wants approvals for its expanded uranium mining or that Pangea Resources, however it comes back in a new form, or some of these uranium mining companies want to make sure that their agenda is facilitated by the government, why can’t such companies that are trying to secure an outcome increase their directors’ fees by $10,000 to each director? Let us assume they have got eight directors—that is, $80,000—and those directors each then make a $10,000 donation to the Liberal Party. Because it is $10,000 and it is an individual donation of $10,000 facilitated by additional directors’ fees, let us assume that is $80,000. The company itself can then make a $10,000 donation to each of the Liberal Party branches, therefore making a donation of $170,000 each and every year without having to disclose that they have made any donation at all.

Let us assume that a company like BPH Billiton has at least a dozen subsidiary companies and the corporate strategy of the organisation is to go for it. Even if three or four of the subsidiary companies decide to make the $170,000 donation, that is not disclosable. They could do it simply by increasing their directors’ fees and increasing the amount, so you are looking at many millions of dollars that could flow into the Liberal Party or the Labor Party—or any other party, for that matter—without any disclosure at all. That is the concern I have about these particular donations. I am going to get to third-party donations again in a minute, because that pertains to what I am saying.

Let me give you another example: what about a church that runs a number of businesses that depend on tax deductibility for those businesses? Let us assume there is a church which runs a medical centre that is competing with local GPs but the medical centre does not have to pay payroll tax. None of the GPs in the centre pay payroll tax because it is run by the church. What if that church organisation decides it is in their interests to maintain the tax laws that give tax deductibility for all church businesses regardless of whether they are for profit or not? It is in their interests. So what is to stop 10 or a dozen elders in a church making a donation of $10,000—let us say a total of $100,000—to the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or to whoever they want? They give $100,000 and, if they are each reimbursed to the extent of $10,000, that does not turn up in any disclosure.

This measure is set out so that companies or any group that wants to influence government policy can easily find a way to do so without ever having to comply with an electoral return. I would argue that, by increasing the threshold to $10,000, the government is tearing up the whole notion of disclosure. I think it would be more honest, if you want to tear up the whole notion of disclosure, to just abolish it, not to increase the threshold to $10,000 and allow for cumulative donations across all state branches of up to $90,000 to the Liberal Party in any one year without having to disclose.

I think that is a critical issue when put together with the narrowing of the franchise by stopping about 80,000 young people from getting onto the roll. So you are narrowing the franchise and reducing the number of people who can vote but increasing the ease with which large corporations and the wealthy in the community can influence the outcome of an election. It is clear to me that, whilst you may not be able to steal a ballot box in Australia, you can certainly buy one. You will be able to buy one without disclosure because of this increase to $10,000.

I would like to hear from the minister in regard to the example I have just used with BHP Billiton, or any other company or set of companies, or a church group that has an outcome in mind in terms of maintaining the tax deductibility of all their church businesses and their tax-free status and might have a well and truly good reason to not disclose. Let’s stop pretending that businesses donate to government because they have a view that it is a good thing to do. No business donates to a political party unless it expects an outcome.

As Senator Brown, Senator Murray and others have said in this place in the last 24 hours, the corporate requirement of the board of directors is that they spend money to maximise the profits of a company. If they were to give $100,000 to political parties in elections, and that in no way was associated with maximising profits, then they would actually be accountable and would be breaking the law as it currently stands. They say the reason they do not invest in ecological and social justice outcomes is that their primary responsibility under the law is to maximise their profit. So why do they give to political parties? They do it because they expect access. If you give enough, you can ring up the minister and get access. If you have enough money, you can buy yourself a seat at a table with the minister to whom you want to talk. If you are extremely lucky and can influence the government significantly, you can get what you want in terms of legislative outcomes.

I would be very interested to hear from the government as to why there was a special regulation in the industrial relations legislation that exempted specifically the Exclusive Brethren church from having unions in the workplace. I am interested to know why one particular church group got that exclusion. However, my main point is that business donates because it expects to get outcomes which advantage business, and now with this bill you will not even have the transparency to see which businesses are donating.

I am not naive enough to think that, coming into the next federal election, the nuclear industry in Australia is not going to be a major donor to the Liberal Party, but we will never know that. We will absolutely never be able to know whether the nuclear industry is a major donor to the Liberal Party because, on my calculations, depending on how many people they have on the board, via the mechanism of directors fees, any company can give up to $200,000 or more to the Liberal or Labor parties without any disclosure or transparency. That is a grossly unfair thing to do in a democracy. It is antidemocratic, and it is why the Canadians have moved to abolish corporate donations. They have been completely abolished in Canada because of the rorting that has gone on in the past and the recognition that, no matter what laws you write, companies and wealthy people will find ways around them. Minister, I would be interested to know whether your disclosure provisions mean you can give that amount of money to the Liberal Party in one year and never be identified.