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

It is a fanciful proposition that is being put to the Senate. It is hypothetical in the extreme. What would stop a front group such as Doctors for Forests, for example, being used to get money from high-wealth individuals who happen to be from the medical profession to then provide money to the Australian Greens or sending money overseas and having it come back courtesy of the Swedish Greens? What would stop them having high-wealth individuals buying artworks at public auctions from high-wealth artists as some sort of commercial transaction?

I put this question to Senator Milne and the Senate: in the real world, do you honestly think that nine state directors of a political party, with all the directors of the particular company that Senator Milne is talking about, would be involved in this extensive conspiracy which would be of little monetary value at the end of the day? I indicate to the Senate that, with this increased threshold, we are talking about only 12 per cent of the disclosable revenue. On current figures, over 80 per cent would still be fully disclosable as transacted today. The Greens organiser in Tasmania herself came out on the radio lamenting the amount of time it took to deal with the rats and mice of donations to comply with the current laws.

Indeed, it was interesting to see why the Labor Party seemed to be opposing this. Looking at Senator Hutchins’s contribution, I note that he said that he was against this increased threshold not because of the threat of corruption in the major parties but because he thinks that this will advantage the minor parties. We are getting a mishmash of reasons from those opposite. I do not know why you are just trying to latch onto any reason or excuse to oppose this.

As to Senator Milne’s suggestion, it is hypothetical and fanciful. The reality is that those who want to engage in corruption will not be donating through extra moneys being made available to each of the directors, who then make it available individually to each of the state directors through a state party organisation. The unfortunate history is that, when that does occur, it is usually done with a pair of white shoes and a brown paper bag that has cash in it. Even under this legislation, that will not be detected unless somebody blows the whistle. Even in the Canadian situation, with its new guidelines, the brown paper bag and the white shoes will not be detected. Unfortunately, until such time as human nature changes considerably, that sort of behaviour will occur. This regime will not overcome that. I invite senators to consider the very wise words of former senator Don Chipp as to why you do need an appropriate threshold to protect privacy.