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

[by video link] I'm happy to say a few words about that, but I don't want to butt in, in case there's anybody else wanting to do so. I can't see the chamber, so I'm not sure if I'm butting in.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: If you debate this, we are compelled to have a four-minute division. If you don't debate it, we can have a one-minute division. It's your call, Senator Waters.

I'm not sure I'd classify it as a debate, but I do wish to make a few remarks about the substance of the amendment. If I can confirm it, we're speaking to amendment (3) on sheet 8985, which repeals the head sections 302CAand 314B of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I think that's the one we're at.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That is correct.

It's a bit different when you're not there in person; I apologise. Essentially, my understanding of the effect of these amendments is that they would close the back door that the government are, in my view—a view they don't share—seeking to establish. It is a back door enabling them to continue to donate to state parties, albeit into a separate bank account, from donors that would be prohibited from donating to that state party were they operating under state laws. It all gets a little bit meta, but I made some remarks earlier today about my concern that there is a very cosy relationship between donors that will not be stopped from donating to state parties.

What I want to put to the chamber are some excellent remarks that were made on this very point by, of all people, the Queensland Labor Party in their submission to the JSCEM inquiry. They put it in a more cogent way than I have. You can't win them all! They say:

Simply asserting a donation is for federal purposes does not insulate a state party, or the state candidates it endorses, from corruption risks.

The point they're making is, where you've got federated parties and you've got state organisations like, I believe, the LNP, which organises themselves in Queensland, a property developer will be able to donate to the state LNP; it just goes to a separate bank account, and that's permissible even though that same donor is not allowed to donate to that same party if we are in a state context. It's an artificial distinction, and our view is that the creation of this separate bank account does not properly insulate the cosiness and the sense of obligation, if you like, from the state party back to that donor. That is exactly why we want to clean up donations. That is why, when we come to the remaining Greens amendments, we will move to ban donations from people like property developers, big mining, big pharma and a number of others that I will regale you all with when the time comes. We don't think you can insulate a political party from that influence—particularly not where you've got a federated structure like we now know that the LNP does. So that is why we will be supporting these amendments. Senator Lambie's very welcome to correct me if I'm mistaken about the effect of her amendments, but that is my understanding of the effect of her amendments, and we, on that basis, support them.

Question negatived.