Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Prior to question time—or what was meant to be question time—there was a spirited debate and contribution by Senator Ryan which I appreciated in relation to this amendment. He raised issues about the problems with the democratic audit of Australia saying they were not completely impartial because they recommended rules for campaign financing that would favour unions and penalise corporations. I unambiguously state that the rules should be the same. You should not favour unions or big corporations. You should apply issues and the rules equally; that includes donations where they are made by individuals via a union, or individuals via a corporation. I think that is important and I want to make that clear. I still believe that the democratic audit, on balance, contributes usefully to the debate on issues of democracy in this country and I think it makes a valid point in its submission to this bill that it believes that the postal vote system favours incumbents and political parties. I think that is an issue that is legitimate and ought to be addressed.

This particular amendment says that the current disclosure rules with respect to political donations are woefully inadequate. When a donation is made it ought to be disclosed within 30 days, so long as you are above the prescribed limit, which is about $11,900 at the moment. Senator Feeney, on behalf of the government, indicated that the next tranche of amendments of reforms to the electoral laws in this country would include more timely disclosure of every six months compared with every 18 or 19 months that potentially occurs now. Given the lag between a donation made on 1 July 2011, you would not know about until 1 February 2013, because that is the potential lag. We need to have more timely disclosures.

Hopefully, Senator Ryan will acknowledge that someone who was not for more government intervention in the United States was no less that George W. Bush. I remember a statement he made a number years ago—either when he was running for President or when he was President—talking about the need for having much more timely disclosures and that the internet could be used; online disclosure could be done virtually instantaneously. This is not about extra regulation or red tape, it is about trying to find a mechanism, provided the threshold is a reasonable threshold. My issue at the moment is not with the current threshold; my issue is with letting people know when those donations were made in a timely manner. What is being proposed by the government does not address those issues.

Before we go to a vote on this, I note the words of Doris Haddock, who was an American citizen who in 1999 at the age of 87, a great grandmother, walked across the US from the Pacific to the Atlantic coasts in protest of the influence of big money in politics. She told the 1999 Reform Party Convention that a person:

… ought to be able to run for a public office without having to sell his or her soul to the corporations or the unions. Fundraising muscle should not be the measure of a candidate. Ideas, character, track record, leadership skills: those ought to be the measures of our leaders.

Those words are relevant in the context of this debate. Those words are relevant in the context of requiring greater degrees of transparency and disclosure in our political donations.

I indicate that I will be seeking to divide on this amendment. I note the support of my colleagues from the Australian Greens and Senator John Madigan from the DLP, and I am very grateful for that support. We need to get on with this sooner rather than later. I look forward to the next tranche of amendments that the government will be putting up. Every opportunity that can be taken to reform our electoral laws to make them more transparent, to make disclosure much more timely, ought to be seized. This is one of those opportunities.