Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Greens also support this amendment, moved by Senator Xenophon. It provides an important step in cleaning up the complex way disclosure is presently managed. I did note Senator Feeney's comments. He said that the government will not vote for this amendment because the government has its own bill. On first hearing that sounds good, particularly when he says that its bill is to improve disclosure, make it more transparent and more timely. But then he tells us that he is referring to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2010, which is a bill that has been sitting there for three years. That is why we need to support the amendment that Senator Xenophon has brought before us. We have waited three years and Senator Feeney thinks it is a good argument to say, 'Well, we have this bill sitting here.' It is also worth remembering that, while it does cover these important issues of lowering the level of disclosure from presently pushing up towards $12,000 down to $1,000 and of more timely disclosure, Labor should have made some progress when it first was elected. It is worth remembering that this problem that we have came in when the coalition had control of both houses of parliament and the laws were wound back in a very unsatisfactory way. Labor did vote with the Greens and other minor parties, I understand, against that change. But here we have the situation where Labor for the last six years could have changed the law. It has had a bill for three years, we have talked about it for six years, and it has not changed. That is why we need the action and I am very pleased that we are able to explore the issue this evening.

The law was changed in December 2005 when we went overnight from knowing that the public could find out who was donating if they gave a donation above $1,500 to all of a sudden having it changed to $10,000 and linked to the CPI. As we know, it is now up to about $11,900. That means that we have had a great deal of donations that have been hidden from public scrutiny. It is worth reminding ourselves how extensive this is, which underlines why we need the amendment that we are considering tonight. If you go back to 2005 when this change was made, which is basically what Senator Xenophon's amendment deals with, at that time Senator Eric Abetz and the Liberal Party federal director, Brian Loughnane, stated that the new $10,000 disclosure threshold would make little difference to public scrutiny. A lot of people doubted that; it is a big change. Once again their words were shown to be quite misleading.

The Greens Democracy4sale research project examined the 2004-05 data, the disclosure data that the Australian Electoral Commission puts out on 1 February each year. That was the last time we saw donations having to be disclosed that were $1,500 or higher. Data for the New South Wales Liberals showed that only 58 per cent of donations, about $3.2 million, would have been identified if the new disclosure threshold had been applied. So clearly it was a large amount that would be hidden. Figures for the National Party are also interesting. In 2004-05 the Nationals reported 148 contributions of $1,500 or more. We would have had no details about most of those contributions if the law had already been in place. That gives us some idea of the money that is coming in about which we have no idea who it is coming from. Of the more than $1.3 million the Nationals received in 2004-05, 63 per cent would be identified, with 37 per cent hidden from public view. So what Senator Ryan is really saying when he says they do not want the bar changed and he talks about too much regulation is that they want to avoid public scrutiny. This is a very important point because at the time Senator Abetz and the director of the Liberal Party argued that 90 per cent of the dollar amount donated would still be available for public scrutiny. I understand that the exact amount that Senator Abetz argued at the time was 88 per cent of the dollar amount still being available for public scrutiny.

That has certainly not been the case when you look at the figures and compare those from 2000-05 to later years.

This is a worrying trend and underlines why we need to have amendments like those before us. In fact, we need to look even more deeply into the whole issue of disclosure. As we have been waiting for this legislation from the government to come on for so long, I think it is worth us taking the opportunity that these amendments afford us to just consider the changes we do need with regard to disclosure because, yes, we need to get the bar down—$1,000 seems very reasonable—and it needs to be done in a timely manner. In these days of electronic spreadsheets and websites whereby it so easy to coordinate, it would be very easy to have the donations put up probably within a matter of hours.

We also need to clear up what is declared and the penalties for non-compliance. This really does go to the issue of resources for the Australian Electoral Commission. Often you find out that the rules have been broken but nothing happens, and it just goes on because there are not the resources for the Australian Electoral Commission to look into it in detail. When it comes to disclosure, it is very unclear what you are actually looking at. It needs to be differentiated at least between fundraisers and money donated. A very important issue that comes up time and time again when you talk about disclosure is that the money that a donor puts in should be aggregated. It should not be possible for a donor to give small amounts of money, thereby staying under the threshold and out of public scrutiny in that way.

For the record, in the 2011 state election the Greens in New South Wales enacted their commitment to continuous disclosure by publishing details of donations that were received. The amendments before us address just a part of this, but it is an important step towards bringing forward a healthier disclosure system. Labor may have promised action on this front but we still have not got it. We know that the legislation has been sitting there for three years, and that is why we cannot keep waiting. We have some amendments before us now. The Greens support these amendments, and I urge all senators to support them.