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

Mr Temporary Chairman Watson, it is not a filibuster. I asked a specific question, which is a realistic question in the context of Australian business. Currently, with the $1,500 threshold, substantial sums of money donated to any political party are publicly disclosed. The question I asked the minister was: would it be possible for a company with eight directors to pass on a $10,000 increase in directors’ fees to the Liberal Party, plus make a company donation to each state, and achieve a donation of $170,000 without a requirement for disclosure?

The difference between the regime now and the proposition you are putting forward is that, if eight directors in the same company gave $1,500 and the company gave $1,500 to the states, the total they could give would be $25,500. So there is a huge difference in disclosure. At the moment, a company that gives anything more than $25,000—or, under the scenario that I am suggesting, $25,500—escapes disclosure; but, realistically, most of them do end up having to disclose it. Under what you are proposing, under the scenario I have put to you, a company could provide $170,000 and not have to disclose it.

That is a substantial difference, and that is because you are increasing the threshold from $1,500 to $10,000 but not capping it by putting in a provision which prevents a company making a donation to the state branches as well as the federal party. That is the change here. It is the substantial increase in the amount of the threshold plus the failure to cap the number of branches that you can give money to that makes the huge difference. What will happen is that companies that used to be caught by the disclosure provisions and were required to admit or to demonstrate up front what they donated will no longer have to do so; they will be able to give a large sum of money every year over the life of a parliament and nobody will know about it. That is the difference.

Corruption occurs when people do not know what money is being spent because they have no way of knowing what the outcomes are and why. That is why I am putting this to you, and I would like a straight answer as to whether you could donate that every year because of this failure in the legislation. That is why I say it is antidemocratic. The minister is suggesting that this is somehow just recognising the different inflation value for money and so on. The fact is that the Canadians have been in precisely the same situation and they have amended their Canada Elections Act to reduce the role of private money in elections by limiting the amount any individual can contribute to a party or a candidate in a given year to a $1,000 donation. Their amendments also introduce a total ban on contributions by corporations, trade unions or associations, which were previously allowed to contribute up to $1,000.

Canada have recognised that they had disclosure limits previously and they did not work. They have gone for a ban. What you are doing is compounding the problem. That is why I am saying that there are no disclosure laws if this threshold of $10,000 applies, because of the capacity to expand the $10,000 donation to $90,000 around the country for the Liberal Party. Also, if a board really wanted influence, it could get it through its directors fees, and the company would not have to put in a disclosure form because, as a third party, you can reimburse an individual for giving $10,000 without having to disclose it. That is why I am asking specifically: can what I am saying happen? Yes or no?