Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to put some remarks on the record, some of them tempered, on the facts and history of Labor's long-term commitment to this suite of reforms that we consider important. The context in which this happening requires the first comment. The reality is that this is occurring at the end of the week when we have seen incredible hypocrisy from the Greens party. The Greens party, who have come of age in their own minds, have done a very dirty deal with the government. Yet here they are taking their usual sanctimonious stand, purporting to be the saviours of all things democratic, when the reality is far grubbier and grimier than their supporters would ever believe.

Labor have a very longstanding commitment to making sure there is transparency about political donations. A vibrant democracy wants people to engage not just at the ballot box but in between, by being part of policymaking, by joining political parties or through the practical reality of making a donation to a cause that they support to advance the cause of democracy. We believe in that. But, for far too long, there has been a platform on which many, many who have money have sought to profoundly influence the course of decision making in this nation.

At the New South Wales level of politics, from an up-close and personal perspective—being on the Central Coast—I can tell you about the grubby, grimy and dirty deals that were established out of the office of Chris Hartcher. Through that whole region, there were 11 politicians that had to stand down from the Liberal Party who got caught because they ignored the legislation that had passed in that state because they thought they knew better and they should be able to take donations, very significant donations. from whomever they saw fit. So the Greens, through this coalition with the Liberal Party, are joining forces with that sort of outfit, where huge donations come through almost completely uncritiqued. For far too long, we have seen them continually resist any attempts at reform.

If I go back to look at the most significant attempts at change that have been made, they are all from the Labor Party, and they reflect the resolutions that continue to stand as a result of our most recent conference, in Melbourne last year. I would like to quote from a second reading speech that was incorporated in Hansard in this place on 15 May 2008 by Senator Ludwig, on behalf of Senator Faulkner. It goes to the heart of one of the critical issues that need consideration. It said:

The first group of measures reduces the disclosure threshold for donors, registered political parties, candidates and others involved in incurring political expenditure from 'more than $10,000' … to a flat rate of $1,000.

That was on 15 May 2008. The bill, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill, got sent off to a committee and it came back on 11 March 2009. That time, Senator Faulkner said:

As I indicated earlier in my contribution, the government does believe that this bill is a critically important first step in the electoral reform process and I have much pleasure in commending the bill to the Senate.

A few days later, on 18 March, he put on the record:

The history of this is as follows. Last year the opposition sent these measures to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for a period longer than 12 months. Then, late last year—

referring to 2008—

after the committee had reported early, we heard the opposition argue that these measures should be delayed even further. Last week in this chamber we saw the opposition combine with Senator Fielding and, on equal voting in the chamber, defeat this legislation on the second reading. In the House of Representatives on Monday of this week again the opposition voted against these measures now contained in the 2009 bill.

At every single opportunity that they had to come to the table and vote for transparency, this government, when they were in opposition, foreshadowed the sort of government that they wanted to be: one that is happy to do deals, one that is happy to do any sort of deal. They have been happy to do one with the Greens this week, and they are certainly happy to do deals with donors and to take many, many dollars from them and hide them as much as they possibly can. They are not doing too good a job over there on that side.

Let's talk about the Greens party. This week Senator Rhiannon has led the great Liberal-National-Greens charge to try to ram the most significant changes to our electoral system in three decades through this place. Senator Rhiannon, the champion of democracy, has form on this. We do not have to look too far to see that she puts her money where her mouth is, so let's follow the money and see where it goes.

Senator Rhiannon and her colleagues say that they oppose corporate donations. But as Senator Cameron indicated in his contribution, the Greens have accepted the biggest ever political donation in Australia's history—no less than $1.7 million. How to win friends and influence people—with $1.7 million. If you have big money, you have a big voice. If you are friends with the Greens, they are quite happy to take $1.7 million. Then we have Senator Waters standing up and saying that mining companies and property developers should not be donating anything. But travel companies? That is fine. Travel companies can do what they like. We do hear that tourism is a growing industry in Australia, but the Greens are not noticing that. Have they required that they and their followers should not support Wotif? Is part of the deal they did, when they got their $1.7 million, that they would never ever use Wotif again? I do not think so. That is not the case.

In addition to that, it is on the record that Senator Rhiannon was so angry about her Greens colleagues defying her position on corporate donations that she ghost wrote an article on the Crikey website attacking her own party. Sadly for Senator Rhiannon, who was outraged,—and I can understand her being outraged—she was subsequently outed as the true author of a piece of hate mail and forced to apologise to her colleagues. It is there for all to see: 'Greens sorry for attacking its own party'. This action is revealing of Senator Rhiannon's motivation.

This is not the end of Senator Rhiannon's discord with her own colleagues. There is a good reason for that, and it is not just because of the structure of the proposals that she has put in here in cahoots with the Liberal Party this week. On 6 January this year Senator Di Natale announced that the Greens would no longer oppose genetically modified crops. In his move to be partners with the Liberal-National Party, Senator Di Natale is jettisoning Greens' policies left, right and centre. He is leaving the policy behind and is leading the vanguard to the destruction of democracy, as we know it, in Australia.

Senator Rhiannon, angry again, took some action to defy the Greens' position on GM crops. In a petty act of retaliation, a few days later her notification of alteration of interests declared that she had made a donation to an organisation called Gene Ethics that—wait for it—campaigns against genetically modified organisms. Whatever your view about GM, I am pretty sure that most of the Greens party might agree with Senator Rhiannon on this. But it shows that they are a divided unit. They are divided within themselves. We have seen it here throughout the whole week. Their policymaking does not accord with the image that they have attempted to create in the Australian community.

Greens voters who thought that this was the great hope for them for the future have been profoundly disappointed by what they have seen this week. The Greens party is also in turmoil inside its political organisation. Senator Rhiannon, through that donation, is funding a campaign against her own party and against her own leader. That just shows her incredible contempt for her colleagues.

The star of the week, Senator Rhiannon, is the one who was primarily responsible for this filthy deal with the Liberal Party over Senate voting reforms. She has insisted, in her party room, that the government's legislation be allowed to commence immediately. God help us all from the Greens and from the coalition that they are now establishing with the Liberal-National Party!

It has been put to me—and the people of Australia should make a decision about this—that the only reason Senator Rhiannon is doing this is for her own self-interest. There are psephologists around who have made many predictions about what will happen if this government continues with this electoral reform process, this sham, that they are undertaking. We know that one of the outcomes indicated is that Senator Rhiannon may not be re-elected at an ordinary half-Senate election, and that it is in her interest that there be a double dissolution, where she would have a much smaller quota to reach to be able to get back here. Senator Rhiannon knows that one of her colleagues in South Australia—either Senator Simms or Senator Hanson-Young—is unlikely to be returned because Nick Xenophon is going to take that seat. Senator Siewert is likely to be sacrificed as well. But the biggest thing that is sacrificed in this deal between the Greens and the Liberal Party is hope for Australian politics and transparency.

Debate adjourned.