John Madigan (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Last year I moved a motion to establish an inquiry into political donations. I did this because the current regulatory framework is profoundly inadequate. As it stands, there is no limit on the amount private donors can give to politicians. Nor are there restrictions on who can donate, leaving it open to gaming operators, alcohol and cigarette companies, property developers, miners, banks, environmental groups and anyone else interested in influencing the political system to throw money at politicians in the hope they will do possibly do their bidding.

I will state that the vast majority of donors—individuals, companies, unions et cetera—are ethical and reputable, but some may not be. Although we have disclosure laws, the current threshold of around $13,000 is absurdly high and the timing over which disclosures must be made is way too slow. Furthermore, there are numerous loopholes allowing political parties and their benefactors to avoid disclosure. The outcome is a political system in which almost all players are funded by a combination of big business, unions, activist groups and a few wealthy Australians—that is, by sectional interests.

To think major donors may expect nothing in return is possibly naive. At the very least, they expect to have the ear of politicians. Ultimately, they are seeking influence over political decision making. This is plainly undemocratic. It renders what should be government for the people and by the people something else. Australians deserve transparency, not trials by innuendo about alleged behaviour. As the High Court observed recently, it compromises the expectation fundamental to representative democracy that public power will be exercised in the public interest. It is corruption of the political process, pure and simple.

As a result, the people we represent are rapidly losing confidence in our capacity to improve their lives. They think we have been bought. In 2014, the Lowy Institute found less than two-thirds of Australians and less than half of 18- to 29 year-olds thought democracy was 'preferable to any other form of government'. Furthermore, nearly a quarter of young people thought that 'in some circumstances, a non-democratic government can be preferable'. When asked why they did not see democracy as the preferable form of government, more than two-fifths said this was because 'democracy only serves the interests of a few and not the majority of society'. In a system that derives its legitimacy from the will of the people, this trend, if left unchecked, is an existential threat. Despite this, federal politicians have repeatedly failed to put a stop to this cancer on our democracy. Unfortunately, here, the fox is in charge of the hen house.

There is some hope for change. Sufficient numbers of my fellow senators voted to pass the motion I moved last year establishing an inquiry into political donations. The inquiry was referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, where it remains. However, to date, JSCEM has failed to call for submissions on the critical aspects of the inquiry it was commissioned to undertake. I have sought answers as to why this is the case but have been frozen out of the process. The terms of reference are clear. Their proper examination requires the committee to call for submissions and hold public hearings. Anything less would be a betrayal of the will of the Senate and, ultimately, of the people we all purport to represent.