Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I briefly commenced my contribution last week—and I will not detain the Senate for an extensive period of time today—and I had been touching upon what I believe to be a giant position of inconsistency being adopted by members of the government in relation to a number of aspects of this bill, particularly the way new enrollees are treated. I am reminded that on many occasions government members in this chamber have told us that this is a government which is friendly to the family, that this is a government which respects the bonds of family in the community and that this is a government which believes that those bonds should be encouraged. Yet, at the same time, this legislation contains provisions in relation to new enrollees which require, in some circumstances, that their applications for enrolment or variations to their enrolment be witnessed by any other person than someone who is related to them. Many young people who do not have a drivers licence will find themselves in a situation where they will need to enrol in the shortened time that the government now prescribes without recourse to people who have known them for all their lives or for a substantial period of their lives. Who would better know the identity of new enrollees than their relatives? Who would better know the person and that the details on the application were indeed factual than the relatives of the person seeking to be enrolled?

If an elector does not have a drivers licence or a prescribed identity document, they must have their enrolment application signed by two referees who are not related to the applicant and who have known the applicant for at least a month, and those people must provide their drivers licence number. There can only be one reason for that being prescribed—and no reason has been advanced by the government, I might say, as to why this provision is to be included as a result of this legislation—in regard to those seeking to enrol or to change their enrolment. The reason is that it is designed to make things more difficult. It cannot be because that gives greater certainty about the identity of the person seeking to be enrolled. How can it? How could it be that the relatives of a person would not be the best persons to attest to the accuracy of the application the elector is providing to the Electoral Commission in which they are seeking to enrol and exercise their democratic rights, perhaps for the first time, or to change their enrolment?

In relation to the issue of changing their enrolment, who indeed would be more likely to be seeking to alter their enrolment than a young person who may be in rental accommodation and moving from place to place, as is the wont of students, particularly those who are students at university for the first time and who may have to move away from home and may not have a strong network of friends and acquaintances to assist them to enrol? Who would be better placed to assist with such an application—for a young person seeking to enrol or alter their enrolment details due to a change of their place of residence—even remotely, than a relative? I cannot think of any person who would be better placed. Yet this piece of legislation seeks to, and will, rule out those people from attesting to the identity of the person registering for the electoral roll to be able to exercise their democratic right to vote for members of this parliament.

In addition, when one considers this in the context of remote Aboriginal communities, given that some of those communities are very small and that a number of them contain, substantially, people who have a familial relationship—perhaps extended, but a relationship nevertheless—I have no doubt that some young people without a drivers licence will find it extremely difficult to find a person who satisfies the test—that is, a person who is not a relative, who holds a drivers licence and who can be reached easily for the purposes of testing that the young person is who they claim to be on their application. In remote communities, how do you find someone who is not a relative, who has known the young person for at least a month and who has a drivers licence? In some cases I suspect that will be an impossibility. So the provisions of this bill, far from enhancing democracy, will actually deny young Australians in remote communities the opportunity to exercise a vote, let alone make it easier. As well, the three-day limit will place great time pressures on those young people to enrol to vote for the first time if an election is called and they have not sought to enrol earlier.

One has to say that the motivation for this must be to deny some people the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights, rights that I think all Australians believe are fundamental rights of members of our community. Some people, it might be said, take those rights quite lightly, but I do not think that this parliament should take any action which could be seen as a justification for members of the community taking lightly their rights and obligations in relation to exercising their democratic rights. Too many sacrifices have been made by Australians over the years for our democratic rights to be weakened in this way, for the rights of Australians to be subjugated to the political will of this government—to deny people the right to vote where it is thought that they might not vote for the government.

It also ought be said that a class of people who might find themselves in difficulty as a result of these provisions are those who rent their accommodation rather than live in a home they have purchased. I do not know of anything that justifies treating renters as lesser people in terms of their democratic rights, but that is what this bill will do. You see, if people rent their homes then they are more likely to change their place of residence more frequently. In changing their place of residence more frequently, they are more likely to move from one electorate to another. Then, upon the calling of an election, they will find themselves in the position of having to prove their identity when they turn up at the polling booth to exercise their democratic rights.

Another provision in this bill is clearly designed to make it more difficult for people to exercise a provisional vote, and we all know that there are quite a number of provisional votes made in every federal election. It has been said, and I think it is a valid suggestion, that the provisions of this legislation will actually impose a greater workload on the AEC in administering provisional voters’ rights. Now, I have never heard the AEC complain about the workload that they face in administering the current system of provisional voting—not once, and I have had some dealings with the Electoral Commission in relation to elections held in the state of Tasmania. I have not heard them complain once. I think that the Australian Electoral Commission take great pride in the fact that they administer what has been, at least up until now, one of the most democratic and well-respected electoral systems in the world.

It has been said in this debate, and I echo the statement, that Australian electoral officials are sought out for elections in all parts of the world, particularly the Third World, I might say, to assist in the conduct of those elections. And, in those areas where democracy has more recently been introduced, their assistance has proved to be invaluable. The AEC have never complained about the provisions that the government is changing. They have never highlighted that the system could be strengthened by reducing the time allowed for enrolment after the calling of elections, nor have they sought to change the identification provisions in the way that this bill suggests. Their views are clearly being swept aside by this government in its pursuit of political advantage via these changes.

Indeed, the coalition-dominated Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, following the 2004 election, did not suggest there were weaknesses in our system in relation to the enrolment period and the identification of those seeking to enrol—changes to which the government now seeks to give effect through this bill. The government’s own members, in reviewing the last election, did not find it to be a problem. I always thought the government’s view on matters of law was ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. The only way that this election system is ‘broke’ insofar as the government is concerned is that it may not necessarily deliver to the government the advantage that it would like it to deliver.

So let us see these changes in the light in which they should be seen. These changes are purely party partisan. They are designed not to enhance the democratic rights of Australians, they are designed not to give effect to the general principles of democracy that people of a certain age ought to have access to the right to vote; they are designed to limit the opportunity for people to exercise their democratic right in this country. When members opposite talk about their respect for the family and then say in legislation that a relative cannot verify that their relative is the person that they claim to be for the purpose of enrolling for an election, that smacks to me of an absolute double standard and reveals in its entirety the motivation for this change—that is, political advantage.

I will not detain the Senate any further on this matter. There have been some excellent contributions in this debate, and I think the opposition has clearly won the argument. The fact that coalition members have chosen not to stand up in this place and debate the principles that lie behind this bill indicates that they do not want to be on the record justifying this sort of sham legislation which will undermine our democracy, not strengthen it. Frankly, I can understand why they would not want to put their words on the record supporting this legislation, because it is shameful.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to speak briefly on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2006. I was not able to do so last Friday when it was before the Senate because I was chairing a Senate committee. I want to put a few things on the record. I will not cover all aspects of what the bill deals with, because other speakers have done that quite adequately, but I do want to touch on a few components of the legislation. In particular, I am very concerned about the likely impact it will have on the ability of Indigenous Australians to engage with the electoral process. If you look at the extra hurdles that are being put in place through this legislation, you will see that it is quite clear that one group in the community that will almost certainly be most significantly affected is Indigenous Australians. The requirement to produce a drivers licence is obviously going to be harder for younger Australians and for many people in remote areas. The requirement to produce an alternative prescribed document, to find a couple of people to sign declarations verifying your identity and to then get that into the relevant authorities is going to be a hurdle that is much more difficult for Indigenous people to overcome.

The first thing that I want to emphasise in saying that is that it is not that Indigenous people are any less capable than anybody else of following requirements but that people in remote communities are far less likely to be readily reminded and far less likely to be able to do these sorts of things easily. The key aim in the Electoral Act is to make it as convenient as possible for people to get on the electoral roll. You always have to balance that with ensuring that the integrity of the electoral roll is such that it does not unduly or improperly affect the outcome of elections. We have to face up to the simple reality that there are always going to be flaws in the electoral roll. The key test for the parliament, for the Electoral Commission and, indeed, for the public more broadly is to ensure that the accuracy of the electoral roll is close enough to 100 per cent so as not to impede the accuracy of an election result. You can never get 100 per cent. The government is not suggesting that you will get 100 per cent with these changes. We could always do more to make it closer to 100 per cent, but the test is whether or not such extra actions will make a discernible difference with regard to an electoral outcome and whether or not there are adequate protections in place to detect any fraud or deliberate dodgy behaviour that impacts on the result of an election.

I have been a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in the past. I was a participant in the committee back in the days when it was chaired by Mr Pyne, the member for Sturt, when there was an inquiry focusing on the revelations about dishonest behaviour with regard to electoral enrolments by some members of the Labor Party in Queensland. Of course, the Shepardson inquiry looked into that matter. There was no doubt that some dishonesty was uncovered. Some people had to pay quite a high price when that dishonesty was uncovered, but the simple fact is that at no stage was any evidence provided, let alone proven, that that dishonesty affected the result of an election. No evidence of any substantial nature at all was provided to that inquiry, to any of the others that I sat on or at any other time that I am aware of that suggests any form of calculated, organised, deliberate widespread fraud with regard to electoral outcomes.

It is quite clear that, if significant fraud was conducted at election time by people wrongly enrolled, voting when they were not entitled to, voting in the name of dead people or all those sorts of urban myths that float around the place, it would be detected. Any election that is sufficiently close that there is the prospect of that sort of behaviour influencing the outcome would clearly be pursued by the losing party and would clearly be able to be detected. You might not be able to detect people voting that way on the day but, if a whole bunch of people busted in to vote unlawfully as is sometimes alleged, it would be detected after the fact and, if it affected the result in a particular seat, that result would be able to be challenged and, I would suggest, almost certainly overturned. The simple fact is that that has not been detected on any wide scale, and I believe the protections in place are adequate to assess whether or not it has happened.

In addition, we could put in extra requirements that would compromise people’s protections under privacy laws to ensure that they are enrolled where they are supposed to be enrolled, to ensure that people are not incorrectly enrolled at the wrong address and to ensure that the people who are enrolled are the people they say they are, but it would cost an enormous amount of money. It would improve the accuracy of the electoral roll marginally, but it would not be to any discernible benefit.

You also have to look at the flip side. It is unreasonable to spend millions and millions of extra dollars to just slightly improve the accuracy of the electoral roll. On top of that, you have to look at what the impact will be. If you make it too difficult, too much of an imposition, too much of an inconvenience or too much of a hassle for people to get on the roll then many people will not do it. We would all like to think that everybody would be charging down to get their name on the electoral roll the moment they turn 18—or I think you can get your name on the roll provisionally at age 17. We would all like to think that everybody in the country follows politics as closely as we in this chamber do, but the fact is that people do not. The fact is that enrolling is something that people usually do some time or other when they get around to it. We all know, or at least we should know, the enormous percentage of young people—particularly those who are just 18—who are not on the roll.

I recall that it was suggested during estimates a year or two ago that perhaps as many as 50 per cent of 18-year-olds are not on the electoral roll. The time when they do get on the roll is when an election is called or when an election is imminent. That is why the deliberate closing of the electoral roll on the day that writs are issued is a flagrant rort, and it will unquestionably lead to the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of Australians. For those who want the history and the background of that, Senator Ray’s and Senator Faulkner’s speeches on Friday in this chamber give that detail quite accurately. We know what impact it will have because we have seen it. It has been done before. It was done in 1983 and we know what happened. Tens of thousands of people, mainly young people, will be disenfranchised, and many more will be forced to vote in an electorate in which they are no longer eligible.

I believe that this legislation is a perfect example of why it is tremendously dangerous to give any one political party control of both houses of parliament. We have seen that, at the first available opportunity, this government has introduced changes to the Electoral Act to try to rort the act in their favour. That is not only unconscionable; it also brings democracy into disrepute. Many people have criticised the way this government has followed the US in areas such as foreign policy. I am particularly disappointed to see them following the USA with regard to the partisan use of electoral laws. That is what this legislation is: it is blatantly party political and deliberately tilted to meet the interests of the governing party.

People have already noted that under this legislation it will be possible, in effect, to make anonymous donations of up to $90,000 to a particular political party. That can be done if you donate $10,000 to each division of a party in each state and territory, plus nationally. That is a disgrace. We have seen, of course, a significant jump in the level of tax deductibility for political donations. I remember when the Electoral Act was amended to allow donations up to $100 to be tax deductible. The Democrats supported that at the time because it was actually a clause specifically out of our party’s policy. That was back in the time of the former Labor government, more than 10 years ago.

My personal view is that it was probably an unwise thing to have in policy. We have public funding, and to have a second bite at the cherry through the tax deductibility of personal donations to political parties is, I think doubling up, and it is a less efficient method. If you are going to have public funding, where political parties are funded through election campaigns, I think that is a sufficient draw on the public purse. To have a second draw on the public purse through tax deductibility is, I think, unwise. I think we should reverse that policy and remove tax deductibility from the act altogether. We certainly should not be having that massive increase of up to $1,500.

The other aspect that I want to return to is the fact that the impact is likely to be greater on Indigenous Australians than on anyone else in the community. In the last few weeks we have been talking about the range of problems Indigenous Australians face in many areas, particularly in remote communities. It is particularly ironic and inappropriate to be changing the Electoral Act in a way that it will make it less likely that Indigenous people will be on the electoral roll. How much extra incentive will political parties have to ignore the needs of Aboriginal Australians if they know that more and more of them are not on the electoral roll? There would be even less motivation to address the views and needs of Indigenous Australians with fewer and fewer on the electoral roll—and there is already a higher than average proportion of Indigenous people who are not on the electoral roll.

Again reflecting back on the time when I was a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, after the 1998 election—I think it was, but I might be mistaken—I spent three days at public hearings in the Northern Territory. At that time, the Northern Territory had just one House of Representatives seat. The Country Liberal Party was so obsessed with the fact that the Aboriginal population in the Territory were voting so much for the Labor Party that they figured there had to be a rort going on. We had hearings in Darwin, in Alice Springs and in Maningrida in Arnhem Land. All the hearings focused, in theory, on how the system could work better for people in remote communities and for Indigenous Australians. But I know, from things many people said on and off the record, that there was great frustration about the large percentage of Aboriginal people who did not vote for the Country Liberal Party.

It is no secret that a large proportion of Indigenous people in many areas vote disproportionately towards the Labor Party. That is not something I am pleased about. I do not know why they vote for the Labor Party, and I will not use this opportunity to go on at great length about the Labor Party’s failures on Indigenous affairs—in many respects I see them as not much better, and occasionally worse, than the coalition’s failures.

It is nonetheless a simple psephological fact that, broadly speaking, a large percentage of Indigenous people do vote for the Labor Party. I have on occasion heard coalition people basically accepting that that vote will go significantly in that direction and that there is not much they can do about it. However, it appears there is something they can do about it. They can change the Electoral Act to make it harder for Indigenous people to get on the roll and easier for them to get kicked off the roll—particularly when you add in the provision in this act which makes any person who is subject to a term of imprisonment of any length of time—not just a term of at least three years, as is currently the case—not eligible to vote. This is once again going down the US path, and that is a very dangerous path to go down. We all know, and this is another area that we should all be working on in a policy sense, that Indigenous people are disproportionately represented in this country’s jails. This will be another mechanism for significantly disenfranchising a greater number of Indigenous people.

We need to look at how this is used in other parts of the world. I will use the example of the United States of America. People have written a lot about the presidential election of 2000, in particular in the state of Florida. People talked about a range of things, such as hanging chads and whether or not certain things were counted or not counted, but to me the biggest thing that stood out in that state, and in different counties within that state, was the fact that one mechanism that was used by the Republicans—and they are not alone in using electoral law to this end—to disenfranchise a group in the community was to make not just felons but also former felons ineligible to be on the roll. Such people are disproportionately more represented in the black community in America and they are disproportionately more likely to vote Democrat in the US. It was a deliberate tactic to try and purge potential Democrat voters from the electoral roll in the United States, in a way that would potentially affect the outcome of a presidential election—and of course we all know some of the things that have happened since then—and potentially have an enormous impact on the direction of human history.

I am not suggesting that this bill goes that far. However simple the measure, if it is saying that it is appropriate to disenfranchise people because they are in jail, what is to say that the next step will not be to disenfranchise people because they were once in jail and so they are not of proper character and should lose their right to vote? Where does it stop once we accept that some people, who are citizens, should nonetheless have their right to vote removed from them? It is a very dangerous precedent that is being extended substantially in this legislation and it is, once again, by no coincidence whatsoever, occurring in a way that almost certainly will advantage the party that is currently in government.

As a number of speakers have noted in this debate, we also need to look at the form of this government. One of the first things they did when they got into power in 1996, under the guise of budget cutting that was necessary because of the budgetary situation at the time, was to cancel the Aboriginal Electoral Education Program, a program that was widely acknowledged, including by the Electoral Commission, as being enormously effective in improving the ability of Aboriginal people to engage in the electoral system, to understand how it worked and to participate more fully.

Many of us repeatedly bemoan the lack of Aboriginal participation and presence in the federal parliament. Only two people in this parliament in over 100 years have come from an Aboriginal background—they were in this Senate—and of course there are none at the moment. When we are deliberately cutting programs that allow Aboriginal people to be able to more effectively engage just with the voting process, it is no surprise that so few of them have made their way through the political processes and into the parliaments of this country.

While this government restored many of the programs they cut for budgetary reasons in 1996, they have never restored the AEEP. The clear intent of that was to not make it any easier for Indigenous people to vote or to understand the electoral process because they do not vote for this government. This government do not want to help them get on the roll or be able to vote; they want to make it easier to get them off the roll. That is a shameful thing at any time, but at a time when we have a public debate that is openly acknowledging that we need to do better as a political process and as a parliamentary system in assisting Indigenous Australians, it is particularly shameful.

I want to briefly correct one thing in Senator Ray’s otherwise very good speech. In speaking about the Democrats’ role in a previous amendment to the Electoral Act, he said that we supported what Labor called the ‘dash for cash’ legislation. That legislation did not cost the taxpayer one cent. It simply ensured that the Electoral Act clarified the way the administrative structure of the Liberal Party interacted with the public-funding requirements. It may or may not have been responsible for most state Liberal Party branches now being broke, as Senator Ray alleged—I do not know whether or not they are broke, and I do not know whether or not it is a consequence of that legislation—but that is not my business; how they organise their funds is a matter for the Liberal Party.

It was also incorrect to say, as Senator Ray did, that the Democrats were internally divided at the time and that most of the Democrat senators actually opposed it but went along with it because they did not want to rock the boat. That is simply wrong. I can categorically say that, as leader of the party at the time, I did not hear a single Democrat senator express any opposition to that change. It was a logical change. It did not cost the taxpayer one cent. There was no reason not to amend the Electoral Act in a way that enabled the public funding to go in the direction that the administrative arm of that party wanted it to go. I would make the same amendments for any other political party if it did not cost the taxpayer anything. I think that was a misrepresentation by Senator Ray of both the Democrats’ position at that time and the import of that bill.

Having said that, getting back to this legislation, this is a sign of what happens when a government has control of the Senate. There is the risk that they can rort the very act that gets people elected here and tilt it more in their favour. That is shameful and should be opposed, and I hope that at least one member of the coalition in the Senate has the courage to do so. (Time expired)

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2006 covers a wide range of subjects in the Electoral Act that need adjusting. I intend today to speak about only one or two of these subjects, which I believe are the essentials that need to be addressed.

I want to speak today on party registration and party names, because I saw one of my colleagues, Larry Anthony, the former member for Richmond, defeated by a subterfuge, deceit or misleading conduct by the liberals for forests, as they were called at the time. My colleague the former member for Richmond had had a reasonable hold on that seat and had worked particularly hard in it. Mr Anthony was a National and he ran under that banner. He was defeated, by 301 votes, by a candidate who ran under the registered party name ‘liberals for forests’.

There were 1,417 votes collected by the liberals for forests candidate and Mr Anthony was beaten by 301 votes. I have heard that their how-to-vote cards and shirts were identical to those of the Liberals and that the party logo was identical to that of the Liberal Party. There was an absolute plan to deceive. I believe they deceived a number of people—particularly elderly people, who became distressed when they found out what had been achieved. This bill takes on board and addresses that problem.

We in the National Party have lost a very good member of parliament—and probably a prospective leader—but if that is the will of the people then I accept it. In politics, there is always a winner and a loser; I accept that, as long as it is fair and reasonable. But this was not fair. This was designed to mislead. I understand that the people of Richmond are very annoyed about this. I have been told that they are determined that they will reverse this, because they see that unfair play succeeded. Someone who had worked very hard in his electorate for over three terms of parliament was defeated by the group of people who ran as liberals for forests. When we in the Liberal and National parties run against each other, we direct preferences to each other. However, the liberals for forests directed preferences away from the National Party—there was no Liberal candidate at the time, which was even more confusing, to direct preferences to Larry Anthony. He lost the seat by 301 votes.

If ever there was a wrong that needed to be addressed it is that one, and it has been addressed in this particular bill. This subterfuge should have been addressed long ago. You cannot have ‘labor for the dolphins’ or ‘nationals for the turtles’ or liberals for whatever—such names are designed to mislead. The name ‘liberals for forests’ was designed to mislead. And it did mislead people—particularly the older people in the electorate, who became confused. Our polling booth workers pointed out the distress that it caused some people. So I am very pleased to see that a part of this legislation addresses that.

I am also pleased to note that, for postal voting or provisional voting, people will have to provide some form of personal identification. It is very easy—and it does happen—to register as Mr or Mrs Bloggs and to give an address that does not even exist or that is the address for a vacant block of land or a boarding house or even a factory. Yes, there are checks. Sometimes those checks are made; sometimes those checks are not made. Surely it is not too much of a hardship for anyone to turn up with a driver’s licence, a rates notice, a pension card or some other form of identification. Everyone in Australia must have some identification. It is easy to do that. It is not done in the seats where big margins are held, but sometimes it is done in seats where the result is going to depend on a knife-edge margin—such as the seat of Richmond.

I have been in the business of politics for many years. Traditionally, provisional votes go to the Labor Party. Fair enough; that is part of the electoral process.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s why you don’t like it.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not object to people voting for the Labor Party, but I do object to people being able to register for any address and not come up with proof of identity. I observed that, in the results in the seat of Richmond, up to around 80 per cent—from memory—of those provisional votes went against the sitting candidate. We all accept that provisional votes do, traditionally, favour the Labor Party, but not to such a high degree. You might get 60 per cent; you might even get 65 or 70 per cent, but, when it starts to come in around 80 per cent, you need to start saying: ‘If this is the case then let’s make it certain, by asking people to provide proof of identity when they register for a provisional vote.’ So I think this piece of legislation goes a long way, with these two particular aspects, to making the Electoral Act more fair, more reasonable and more certain. It certainly has my support.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listening to a number of speakers on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2006 has drawn me to speak on it now. I have had the opportunity to hear what Senator Boswell has said about this bill, as well as Senator Mason, who is on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I will deal more broadly with the issues that the Labor Party finds offensive and I will reflect on the name itself—that is, the ‘electoral integrity and other measures’ bill. That reminds me of the government’s view on naming bills in the industrial relations field. I think they have done the same thing with this bill. They have effectively named a bill by using a title which is misleading in itself—‘electoral integrity and other measures’. The ‘other measures’ is probably closer to the truth.

When you look at electoral integrity, this bill is far from it. The Liberal Party have been seeking many of the measures contained within this bill—not all of them; some of them are an improvement—over the last four, five or more years. They are now serving them up again, because they have got the numbers in this chamber. That seems clear. It is a pity that neither Senator Boswell nor Senator Mason mentioned that point. In truth, they went on about self-serving issues. I think the central issue of this bill is that it is democracy diminished, not democracy enlarged or improved—and perhaps that should have been the name this bill was given.

The purpose of this bill as stated was to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act in order to implement the government’s policy on electoral reform—and there they go again using the phrase ‘electoral reform’. It is far from reform; in truth, it is a reduction in democracy and they should admit to it. It is far easier to at least admit to it and then move onto the substantive issues. The major issue in this bill is to increase the threshold for disclosing gifts to party candidates from $1,500 to a whopping $10,000. But they do not leave it at that. To makes sure that they do not have to revisit it and that we do not have to have this debate again, in what could only be described as an excessive exercise, they have decided to link it to the CPI index so it will continue to rise, probably at the rate of some two or three per cent per year. This could only be described as Liberal Party heaven, because the Liberal Party have been seeking this for some time and they will succeed unless some on the other side see the light. But I doubt that will happen. I suspect when you look at their speeches and you hear the summing-up speech by the minister, they will argue that it is one of those provisions that will be helpful.

Yes, it will be helpful, of course, to the Liberal Party but it will not be helpful for democracy. It will be a backward step for democracy. The Liberals have been trying to do to this since 1999. Section 314AB of the Commonwealth Electoral Act requires all parties to disclose donations, and the limit or threshold is currently $1,500. This brings with it substantial transparency—and that is a word that the Liberals cannot say, see or come to grips with. Transparency brings with it the ability for parties and people to understand where the revenue, where the source of income, comes from—from people to political parties. That creates a more transparent system. It ensures that there is integrity in our system of democracy. They argue that a $10,000 limit will not change things much at all. It will most likely encourage people to change their pattern of donation to the Liberal Party. That is exactly why they have been promoting it. It will ensure that those people who want to remain anonymous will find ways to ensure that they can donate $9,999 to the Liberal Party and not have the source of funding disclosed. They will not have transparency.

It was argued in the original 2004 report that this measure has no policy merit at all. It will only diminish transparency between donations and the source, and it will ensure that the people who want to remain anonymous will do so. Senator Abetz has argued that the amount has been eroded by inflation over time. He is not living in the same inflationary period that we have been in if he thinks that $1,500 has been eroded to that extent. It was set 20 years ago. It was probably much too low then, he argues. I think that argument does not have any policy merit at all and misses the point completely. It is a poor defence by this government to argue those matters. It completely misses the whole issue.

Will it make a difference? Of course it will make a difference: $9,999 will be able to be donated anonymously to eight Liberal branches. That is where they know the difference will come in. They have the ability to use family relationships, so a husband and wife can each donate $9,999 to the eight branches of the Liberal Party throughout Australia. That is precisely where they want to be. They want to be in a position to ensure that their sources are not transparent where they can move cash from one source to the next.

Debate interrupted.