Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation (Senator Abetz) to a question without notice asked by Senator Murray today relating to political donations.

The release last week of the Australian Electoral Commission’s 2004-05 funding and disclosure report revealed a particularly worrying donation from overseas. This was the massive $1 million donation to the Liberal Party from Lord Michael Ashcroft, a British citizen. This is believed to be the largest single donation from an individual in Australian political history. It has ruffled some feathers but has it attracted the outrage it could have? We do not know, because the AWB scandal dominates the media at present.

The former Liberal Party president, Mr Shane Stone, who secured Lord Ashcroft’s donation, claims it was merely a personal donation and that this lord had no business interests in Australia. But what interest does he have in terms of Australia’s negotiations, submissions and attitudes to international efforts to close down or regulate tax havens, including Belize? What interest does he have in that matter?

Rich people and a million dollars are not easily parted. There is no such thing as a free lunch and we are right to ask what this donation actually bought—just friendship and gratitude, or access and influence? We are especially right to ask such a question in this particular case, as Lord Ashcroft is not just your ordinary British Tory, he is not just a formidable and wealthy businessman but he is and has been a person of some notoriety and controversy in Great Britain. He reportedly sparked outcries in the 1990s when he kept the Conservative Party financially afloat while living as a tax exile in the Central American state of Belize. There is a long and dishonourable tradition in the United Kingdom of granting a seat in the elitist and unelected House of Lords to big political patrons. Apparently as a condition of getting a peerage, Lord Ashcroft returned to live in Britain in 2000. However, he is reported to still have many business interests in Caribbean tax havens. In Britain, where foreign political donations are now banned, Lord Ashcroft was reported as the person who essentially prompted such a ban—a ban which was referred to by some as the ‘Ashcroft clause’.

Under British law, a donation of more than £200 sterling or $A470 is allowed only if it comes from a person eligible to enrol to vote in Britain or from registered corporations operating in Britain. Similarly, in the United States it is unlawful for foreign nationals to make donations. United States citizens living abroad can donate. Similarly, Canada and New Zealand have laws prohibiting foreign donations. The Democrats have long called for donations from overseas entities to be banned outright. We have no problem with donations from Australian individuals living offshore. The fundamental principle of Australian electoral funding law is that the Australian Electoral Commission must be able to verify the nature and source of significant political donations. Offshore based foundations, trusts or clubs or individuals funded from tax havens making political donations to Australian political parties are a real danger, because those who are behind those entities are often hidden and beyond the reach of Australian law.

As I said, a number of democracies, including the United States, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom ban foreign donations to domestic political parties to stop foreign influence in domestic political affairs. When will Australia follow their lead by similarly banning foreign donations to the political parties of this nation? Only when agencies like the AAP, the press media or the media in general start to put pressure on about this fundamental principle. Otherwise, self-interest will mean that it just will not happen. In the last seven years, foreign donations totalling $2 million have come in from the Channel Islands, New Zealand, Sweden, the Philippines, Great Britain, Lichtenstein, Germany, China, Hong Kong, the United States, Japan, India, Fiji and Taiwan. Is the government aware of public concern that our democracy is for sale? Australian citizens think there must be no foreign interference or influence in Australian domestic politics. It is a big issue in other countries and it should be a big issue here too.

Question agreed to.