Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

In regard to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Donations Reform) Bill 2014, let me begin by saying that I think Australia's democracy is pretty crook at the moment. It is getting harder to tackle big public issues like climate change, the growing inequality between the haves and have-nots, unfair tax breaks that contribute to that inequality, the reform of the health system and all of those things each day thanks to those huge corporate donations that come from the incredibly wealthy part of our community who pay lobbyists to influence government policy. That is a cancer at the heart of our democracy right now. I believe that those vested interests represent a very serious threat to good governments and the development of public policy that is in the national interest. At the heart of the problem is one simple fact, one simple proposition: corporations do not give their money away without expecting something in return. It is common sense. They companies; they are bound by law to make sure that they pursue profits. They do it for one simple reason. It is the clear expectation that they will get something back in return. They will get access to politicians and they will be able to influence those politicians to make laws and policies to ensure that those laws and policies provide them with a return on that investment. It is a pretty straightforward proposition. These are wealthy companies who do not give their money away unless they get something for it.

I had a baptism of fire when I was first elected here in 2010. I was elected at the time of the hung parliament and I witnessed this writ large when the minority government, the then Labor government, was forced to commit to poker machine reform, thanks to the election of an independent, Andrew Wilkie. Now, you would think that would be a no-brainer: public policy, 70 per cent support, ripping money out of the pockets of vulnerable people across community and widespread appetite to reform what was a really regressive tax. Because governments do not have the courage to tax people explicitly, they do it to the back door in the way of things like revenue collected from poker machine profits.

What we saw in response to that was remarkable. I remember being here watching the pokies lobby walk up and down the corridors, knocking on doors and making sure they got in the ear of every single politician in the building, particularly Labor politicians. The consequence of that—those threats in marginal seats to campaign there and also to withdraw their financial support—was that Labor went to water. In fact, they got themselves so tied up in knots that they managed to convince Peter Slipper to defect to become the speaker, shoring up an extra number and dudding the agreement they had made to reform poker machines to try to introduce a little bit more fairness into the way that we collect revenue across this country. We saw the corrosive influence of those vested interests and the huge donations that they bring.

We saw the same thing with the mining tax. Again, it was an industry that donates huge money to the Labor, Liberal and National parties. There was $3.7 million tipped into their pockets over the past three years, and that is without including donations that are made at the state level. It is huge money, buying influence and favourable policy settings for what is effectively a dying industry. What do they get for it? They get a hell of a lot. They get cheap fuel, they get accelerated depreciation on the assets, they gets all sorts of tax breaks and sometimes they just get pain, outright cash handouts. If you add it up, it is worth about $14 billion over four years. Imagine what that could do in terms of spending across health and education.

There are many other examples. We had Four Corners last year reveal the case of a mafia figure who may have played a role there in helping to secure a visa for himself with the then immigration minister. We had a man there, with a criminal history in Italy, who was about to be deported. He made a huge donation, got a hearing and ultimately was allowed to stay. We had Geoffrey Watson SC say in response:

This is a case study of what's wrong with the system. It's seriously wrong.

The point is that for no better reason than the making of donations to a political party, specific representations were able to be put amongst the most powerful politicians in the land - access which you and I couldn't get except if we made substantial donations ourselves.

It is another example of what is wrong with the system. We have got public confidence at an all-time low. We have seen the revelations in New South Wales uncovered as a result of ICAC, for example.

Our democracy is sick. It is based on the principle of 'one vote, one value' but it is now big money that talks. That is why we need this bill; that is why we need it. The bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act to make sure that donations from certain industries are prohibited: from property developers and from the tobacco industry. How remarkable is it that we are having a debate about the tobacco industry and donations right now. The National Party is continuing to get donations from an industry that kills people. It also includes the liquor businesses, gambling industry and, as I said, the mining industry and related business entities.

I want to congratulate my colleague, Senator Lee Rhiannon, because she has introduced legislation and she has had a longstanding commitment to these and many other important democratic reforms. She spearheaded the Democracy for Sale website. We had access to information about donations as far back as 1981; but it is with the establishment of that site that the public could get access to information on the quantity of money that is coming from particular donors in particular categories such as property developers, the finance sector, clubs and hotels and so on. It has been invaluable tool to inject some transparency so that the journalists, community groups and concerned individuals can highlight the impact that those political donations are having.

We Greens have been leaders in this space. It is interesting to look at where the other parties stand. I was fascinated to read a quote from Malcolm Turnbull, then freshly elected to the national parliament, from 2009. He at the time was quoted as saying:

… no political donations should be allowed unless they are: from citizens and/or persons on the electoral roll … subject to a cap; and donors should certify that the donation is either their own or their spouse's money and has not been given to them by a third party.

What a great idea. What a terrific idea. You are the Prime Minister of the country, how about doing something about it?

Let me refer to the recent contribution from the Labor Party. What we saw was a commitment to political donations, which was signed in a written agreement with the Labor Party in 2010. Let me quote to you the passage from the agreement around donations. The passage is that they:

Seek immediate reform of funding of political parties and election campaigns by legislating to lower the donation disclosure threshold from an indexed $11,500 to $1,000; to prevent donation splitting between different branches of political parties; to ban foreign donations; to ban anonymous donations over $50 …

That was an agreement reached between the Labor Party and ourselves. Terrific! But what came of it? We asked the Labor Party to act. We had the numbers in both Houses of Parliament and we had a written agreement. What happened to that piece of legislation? It sat on the notice paper here in the Senate and the Labor Party refused to bring it on for discussion, let alone a vote. And they now have the hide to lecture us about their position in support of those sensible recommendations. When they had the opportunity to reform the system, they walked away from it.

We have introduced another bill that encompasses the terms of that agreement, and we look forward to the Labor Party supporting that legislation when it comes before this parliament. We also believe in tightening the rules by including a commissioner of lobbying: an independent body similar to the one in Canada, which is a country far ahead of us in terms of transparency when it comes to political donations. That body would have an audit and investigative power, and it would be able to impose a five-year ban on ex-ministers working as lobbyists.

We have a revolving door in this parliament between politicians, industry and lobbyists. The revolving door is fuelled by money, power and contacts. What we need to do here is ensure that the revolving door between politicians, mining, property, gambling and industry money is slammed shut. We have to make sure that we support this bill in order to do that.