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

[via video link] This is a bit tricksy, really. The government has managed to sew up the opposition's support for this whole bill—which, I might add, its Queensland Labor state counterparts strongly oppose—and it has done so on the basis of this provision, which requires a separate bank account to be used. I'm afraid that's not enough protection from the influence of big money over our politics. Clearly, if money goes into a separate bank account, it's still going into a pool of funds. It will still therefore free up other funds that could then be used for state purposes. So, whilst this is a very small improvement, it is nowhere near enough of an improvement, and it still allows a dodging of those stronger state restrictions. So I don't take any comfort from this. I know the opposition does—I know the Queensland Labor Party does not, but your internal squabbles I will leave to you. This is not enough of a reassurance. The fact is, big money is still flowing.

I note Minister Cormann's reference to disparate regimes. Well, harmonise them! Have some strong national laws with caps on donations and with proper disclosure thresholds. That's the solution that would actually clean up politics and deliver a good outcome.

I might just also address some of the comments that Senator Cormann made in relation to the Greens' support for previous versions of the EFDR bill. I was in the parliament when this vote occurred. We moved an amendment to say that federal laws should not be allowed to override stronger state donation laws—and you guys voted against it. So it's a bit rich for you to somehow accuse us of having a curious position when, in fact, we sought to improve this last time. We are now seeking to improve this again. I have a private member's bill which would also seek to clean up donations laws. We have been entirely consistent, and we'll continue to bang our heads against the brick wall that is made of your big donors' vested interests until we smash it down. I just want to get that on the record.

I might also add that, sadly, the supplementary explanatory memorandum which Senator Cormann tabled, what, four minutes ago, has not been properly circulated. I've managed now to secure a copy of it. But again we see a government that doesn't take this chamber seriously. It's sewn up the opposition to support them on this amendment, so it's thrown due process out the window once again. We understand the intent of these amendments. We've read them; we don't need the supplementary EM. But I just want to note that it is bad practice to not circulate documents like that, that pertain to chamber business.

They are the comments that we have about this amendment. As I say, it is a very small improvement and, on that basis, we will be supporting this amendment. But it is nowhere near enough, and it does not overcome the litany and the tide of big, dirty political donations that the government is still allowing to flow, and it doesn't really disguise the fact that the government is still attempting to circumvent stronger state donation laws.