Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

[by video link] Here we have a government that said it was not urgent to deal with paid pandemic leave so that people could stay home when they're sick and not spread COVID-19. But it thinks this bill is urgent. This bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020, would allow massive donations from the big corporate mates of this government so they could keep giving it those dirty, big political donations. That's what this government thinks is urgent business for the federal parliament. They are shameless. They don't want to actually help people and stop the spread of COVID-19; they want to keep the spread of dirty political donations flowing. That's what was listed at last minute's notice last night for the federal parliament to debate today.

The High Court had something to say about this. The government first tried to get around the stronger state restrictions and the stronger state requirements on disclosure of political donations with the EFDR bill a couple of years ago. The High Court said, 'No, you can't. It was terrible drafting and you simply can't get around those stricter state laws.' So here is this government again: it has come back with a redraft, because it is desperate to keep those millions of dollars of big corporate donations flowing into its coffers so it can shore up its own re-election and keep delivering for those same donor mates. What an absolute crock!

We've got some stronger donations laws around the country at the state level. They're not perfect—some of them, in fact, are still quite weak—but some of the states have moved to stop the flow of that big, dirty money to try to make sure that democracy isn't for sale and that those big corporate donations don't simply deliver representatives who can facilitate an agenda that boosts private profits. New South Wales, of course, is the most well-known example. It's got much stronger donations disclosure rules, donations caps and donations bans. It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than anywhere else in the country. Queensland has started to follow suit, thanks to pressure from the Greens in the lead-up to the previous state election. The Queensland government has banned donations from property developers. This federal government is not happy about that. So it has brought in this bill today, which is rushed through, in an attempt to allow the dirty money to keep flowing.

The statistics are appalling. This government and, frankly, the opposition too are for sale to big donors. There have been $100 million in corporate donations to both of those political parties since to 2012. Is it any wonder that we see big tax cuts for corporations on the agenda or that we see $270 billion given out for weapons manufacturers? Yet they won't even provide paid pandemic leave for ordinary workers and they won't even let casuals and temporary visa workers get access to JobKeeper. The priorities of the government are clear: they are here to deliver for their big corporate donors, so they doesn't want the restrictions that the states have started to impose on the flow of that money. This is an attempt to get around the High Court and allow that money to keep flowing into their back pockets.

We had hopes that Labor might stand with us and oppose this—and I can see that they've got some second reading amendments, which we'll be supporting—but it remains to be seen whether they will support our committee stage amendments that would actually stop the flow of dirty money and would restore democracy, putting it back into the hands of the people, not vested interests and donors. We've got a particular amendment which would lower the disclosure threshold for donations nationally, because at the moment there is a much higher threshold. Nobody knows who's donating to whom if they donate less than the $13,800 threshold. Getting rid of the dirty money is the most important thing, but at least knowing about the dirty money is the second most important thing. We're not even sure whether the Labor Party will stand with us to fix that loophole or whether they just want to have a second reading debate which says that but won't follow through and will vote for the actual amendment when it gets to the committee stage. We'll be moving other amendments that actually slam that back door shut and that say that you can't just donate that money to state political parties and allow other money to be freed up to be used—that you can't just use that back door to keep the dirty money flowing. We want to eliminate that possibility.

We also want to clean up the system so that you can't donate if you are a property developer or if you are in alcohol, tobacco, big mining or coal seam gas—a list of other industries that have for too long been influencing this parliament in a way that is not good for the community or the planet. The reason why we have no decent climate policy and why emissions have been increasing—particularly export gas emissions, even in this time of reduced emissions that is a COVID blip—is that this government takes millions of dollars from big oil, big gas, and big coal. This is exactly why we should be banning donations from that sector, and from other big sectors that seek to boost their own private profits at the expense of the public interest.

I think that we've got some crossbench support for those amendments. But this is a real test for Labor and the government: do they want to stand with the community and with the public interest? Or do they want to stand with their vested interests and their donors and let that dirty money keep dictating their policy agenda? We will find out soon enough. But, sadly, I don't have a lot of hope that Labor and the government will stand with us to ban that dirty money from those vested interests. These are the same vested interests that then offer well-paid jobs, I might add, to MPs once they leave parliament. It's a very cosy relationship: the money flows in, it gets used in the political campaign to keep seats, the policies get written that suit that corporate agenda, and the MP gets a lovely job once they exit parliament. It's a very cosy arrangement, where everyone wins—except the public. We've got a chance to clean that up today, and it will be a real test for the big parties if they want to vote to support that.

Dirty money should not be running this place, irrespective of where it's coming from. And so, another really important measure that we've long proposed and will again be proposing today is to cap political donations from anybody at no more than $1,000 a year. That includes corporations, it includes individuals, it includes organisations and it includes unions. Across the board, big money should not be buying outcomes. Outcomes should be determined by what's in the public interest and what's best for the nation. Again, it will be a big test for the other political parties in this chamber: do they want to do their job to represent their constituents and further the interests of the nation in a way that benefits everyone and benefits and protects nature? Or do they want to just be here for power's sake, keep taking the money and keep delivering for their big corporate vested-interest donors? We will find out.

As I mentioned earlier, we want to at least know the extent of the dirty money that is slushing around in this system. The federal government has long had much, much weaker disclosure rules than many other states have and the disclosure threshold is much higher. Many of the states have a disclosure threshold of $1,000, and often require disclosure within a much shorter time frame, for example, seven days. We actually think there should be real-time disclosure. But the federal rules are so much weaker. You don't have to tell anybody about a donation either that you've given or that you as a political party have received, except once a year. So it can be 12 months after the fact that you just got a whopping great donation that you have to disclose that to the public. That's not accountability. That's not transparency. That means that people could vote in an election not knowing who has funded a political party's campaign and—conveniently—only be told about it, many months after the fact, on 1 February each year. That time frame for disclosure and the threshold for disclosure are both far too weak. It allows a ton of dirty, dark money to be slushing around, funding political parties and exerting influence, without the public even knowing. The public don't know who is donating, they don't know how much and they don't know in a timely manner. So we've got an amendment to fix that as well, and to lower that disclosure threshold to $1,000, which matches the threshold of many of the other states. People have a right to know who is trying to buy influence from a democracy that is meant to represent people but which has been hijacked by big donors and vested interests. People have a right to know.

I know this is the Labor Party's policy, and we welcome that, but are they going to vote for us? I haven't got a reply yet. They've got their own second reading amendment to the same effect which we all know sadly is a great statement of principle that doesn't actually change the law; it doesn't have any tangible impact. The tangible impact that could occur is if they vote for it at the third reading stage, the committee stage, where I will move that amendment. And I really hope they do, because what's the point of having a policy if you don't vote for it? It's kind of meaningless. We've got a chance to lower the disclosure threshold for national donations—a huge improvement—but are they going to vote for it? We will find out. I believe we've got crossbench support for that. So it's coming down to Labor. It'll be very interesting to see whether they want to actually reveal who's funding their own campaigns, because there is an awful lot of corporate money that flows into their campaigns as well.

We've seen the Labor Party come to an agreement with the government—it happens quite a lot, doesn't it, particularly where big dirty donations are in question—that they're okay with this back door that continues to let donors get around stricter state donations laws. They're okay with this back door as long as they can get past the Queensland state election first. Well, that's a pretty cynical approach. Either you have a principled stance where you think that dirty donations shouldn't keep on flowing and where stronger state restrictions should be respected, or you don't. It shouldn't be contingent on your own electoral prospects in a state election. I've found that approach particularly affronting from the opposition, and I would urge them to support the Greens' strong amendments once we get to committee stage to really restrict the influence of big donations on our polity.

This is a long and sordid tale. We have been trying to remove the influence of big money from politics as long as I've been in parliament—and that's going back to the 2010 election now—and still we have $100 million in corporate donations that have flowed into the big parties' re-election funds. Donations reform is so long overdue it is beyond a joke. We've got a chance today to start to fix it, but it looks to me like the two big parties have, once again, reached an agreement that suits their political parties' bottom line and it very much suits the agenda of their corporate and other large donors. Well, democracy should not be for sale.

Political donations reform is absolutely critical. In fact, it's the one issue, as I have campaigned for many, many years, that the community consistently raises. No matter who they vote for, they all think it stinks that big donors can make big donations to big political parties and get fantastic policy outcomes that suit their private profits, while throwing the community and nature on the scrap heap. Everybody thinks that's corrupt. What we have here is legalised corruption. It's legalised for big donations to buy outcomes that suit private profits and deliver a well-paid job once that politician leaves parliament. It is legalised corruption.

We have a chance to clean this up today, to put democracy back in the hands of the community and start taking decisions that actually help people—what an absolute shock that we maybe give paid pandemic leave to workers so that they don't go to work sick and potentially spread COVID-19 because they can't afford to not get paid. That's the sort of stuff that this parliament should be working on, and it took the Greens this morning to bring that forward. Of course, the government didn't want to support it. I'm grateful that on this occasion we did have the support of the opposition. But, no, the government thinks it's not urgent. What's urgent here is creating a back door so that big donors can keep making donations to political parties and shoring up outcomes. It is absolutely disgusting. The priorities of this government have once again been made completely obvious, and it's all about corporate favours for big donors.

This is really heartbreaking stuff, because we've got a chance to actually fix this today. I know we won't get support from the government, but it remains to be seen whether we will get support from the opposition. I'm grateful for the support that we have from the crossbench, and I thank those members of the crossbench who have said they will support our amendments.

Let's clean up democracy. Let's make it work for the people, for the public interest like it's meant to, like we've all been elected to do. We're not here to deliver for corporate mates—memo to the government!—we're actually here to protect the public interest, and it's about time the government started doing so. I look forward to moving the amendments once we get to—