Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak this morning. I noticed with interest in the Canberra Times yesterday an article by Andrew Fraser, the political correspondent. It was headed ‘Opposition “pinched” review of poll funding’. The article was referring to my motion yesterday in relation to campaign finance reform, political donation reform and a widespread examination by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The article said:

Senator Ronaldson received the endorsement of yesterday’s joint Coalition parties’ meeting for a motion to refer the issue to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

It further quoted me as saying that it would be:

... the most comprehensive nationwide examination of campaign finance since Federation.

Then the article said:

However, the motion appears to almost replicate the wording of a reference given to the committee by Senator Faulkner more than a fortnight ago.

Then the article quotes Senator Faulkner:

“I’ve already done it,” Senator Faulkner said. “He pinched my words.”

So, according to Senator Faulkner in the article, he supported the wording of our motion because they were his words and he would agree with them.

When this matter came before the Senate yesterday, who supported the motion? The Liberal Party and the National Party as a coalition, Family First, the Australian Greens and the Democrats. Who did not support it? Who did not support the words that we had apparently ‘pinched’ from them for a reference to the committee? The Australian Labor Party did not support it. Not only did the Special Minister of State, whose words I had apparently pinched, vote against it, the Australian Labor Party voted against it. But rather than having the intestinal fortitude to call a division, they got their whip to stand up and under his breath say, ‘We just want it noted that we are opposed to this.’ How utterly pathetic.

The reality is that the Australian Labor Party did not support our motion. The motion that I suspect Senator Faulkner was talking about that he referred off to the committee on 27 February was the standard reference that someone in his position would give. I suspect that Senator Abetz has probably used words such as, ‘that an inquiry be conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to inquire into and report on all aspects of’—the 2007 election, in this case—‘and related matters.’ What the coalition’s motion did was not just give this committee that reference but demanded of them in a nine-point reference to put it all on the table.

Let us have the most comprehensive reform since Federation. Let us stop reacting to Wollongong. Let us stop reacting via press conferences to another disaster for the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales and the Wollongong City Council and the sex and donation scandal. Stop plucking little bits and pieces out and pretending that you are serious about campaign reform and finance reform. The Australian Labor Party voted against a comprehensive inquiry into this issue. So, despite all the platitudes of the Prime Minister, when push came to shove, when the pressure was put on them to see whether they were serious about it, they failed. This comes on the back of a Prime Minister who on 25 February said:

What I’d like to see ... is a general review of how we go about campaign finance. I am a big devotee of campaign finance reform.

So what did this big devotee do when he got the opportunity to do something about reform? He voted against it. He directed his Labor senators to vote against it. Some devotee!

Just out of interest I will pose a question. In his time in the Australian parliament how many times has this big devotee of reform talked about reform? Ten times? Five times? Once? Zero; not once has this big devotee of campaign finance reform mentioned one word about it. The first time he talked about it was when he was hit at a press conference with allegations in relation to the sex and political donations scandal at Wollongong City Council involving the New South Wales ALP. That was the first time this devotee of reform talked about it.

Let us get serious about this issue. The Prime Minister needs to come out today and say that he is prepared to sign up to that motion. It is good enough for the coalition. It is good enough for the Greens. It is good enough for Family First. It is good enough for the Democrats. What have the Australian Labor Party got to hide? Why won’t they have comprehensive reform? What are the Australian Labor Party frightened of? What are they trying to hide by refusing to take this reference? This was a perfect opportunity for the Australian Labor Party to show their bona fides on this matter.

We had the Special Minister of State misrepresenting the position because he clearly does not support my wording. Rather than me having pinched his words, the Special Minister of State is refusing to endorse my wording, the opposition’s wording, for this reference. He refuses to accept it, having said that I copied it. So what is it? Has he mistakenly said that he does not support it and that has been miscommunicated through to the Senate chamber or did he not mean that? The Canberra Times—and I hold nothing against it—were quoting his words that he did mean it. It is as simple as that.

If you respond on the basis of political crisis, you always get caught out. When you go in, as this Prime Minister has done, to support Premier Iemma in New South Wales in relation to the Australian Labor Party’s active apparent involvement in the Wollongong sex and donations scandal, when you back someone like that, you have to be prepared for the ramifications. And the ramifications are that, if you put little bits and pieces on the table, you have to be prepared to put the whole lot on the table, otherwise you will be accused of political opportunism, and indeed the Prime Minister has been opportunistic in relation to this matter. He has put out little bits when responding to New South Wales ALP problems. And then when asked to endorse comprehensive campaign finance reform, of which he is apparently a big devotee, he failed to do so.

If the Labor Party are not serious about this, as is clearly evident by their activities yesterday, why don’t they just say so? Why don’t they acknowledge that their Prime Minister, in defence of a New South Wales Labor mate, tossed a bit on the plate? Why doesn’t the Prime Minister say in reflection, ‘That’s probably not the right thing to do—we’re actually not serious about campaign finance reform, despite what I have said in the past’? With the ALP’s failure yesterday to support the motion that is exactly what the only situation can be. There are no two or three options in relation to this matter. It is quite clear: either you are a devotee and you do something about it or you pluck little bits and pieces out in response to questions at press conferences and then you vote against a motion that I would have thought any big devotee of campaign finance reform not only would have backed but might have even initiated. Well certainly he did not initiate it, so, having lost that opportunity, you would think that the second best course of action, the very least you would do, would be to back it.