Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Last night, I asked you to see whether or not a vote had been properly called—because I do not believe it was—on an amendment in the committee proceedings. I wonder if you could report back to the committee on the outcome of your investigations.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The tape has been reviewed, and the advice that I have been given is that the chair did declare the vote on that particular issue. I remind the committee that the question is that schedule 4 stand as printed.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment that Family First are putting forward is about making sure that there is not one rule for political parties or politicians and another one for everybody else. It is about abolishing tax deductibility for political parties. The question is: why should politicians and political parties get special treatment? It looks like we will be increasing the tax deductibility from $100 to $1,500. That is a 1,500 per cent increase. We are talking about abolishing the tax deductibility for political parties.

Charities, quite rightly, enjoy tax deductibility. So they should, and Australians support that. But political parties are not charities. They are self-interested groups pushing their own agendas. Community groups like lobby groups or community groups that push political agendas are not eligible for tax deductibility—to the extent that environmental groups have been warned not to push political agendas to the extent of maybe losing their eligibility—but political parties are. This is all about filling the coffers of political parties. This is not about increasing participation. Family First believes there is hypocrisy here, and that political parties should not be treated like charities. They are self-interested groups pushing their own agendas, so Family First wants to see that political parties do not get special treatment. I urge senators to reconsider abolishing tax deductibility for political parties.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad Family First has taken up the Greens’ position on this. We have always been opposed to tax deductability for political parties. That goes back to the concessions earlier on. But what is happening is that the government and the opposition want to support tax deductability going from $100 in any given year from a donor for a donation to $1,500 a year.

Senator Fielding is quite right. Community groups have been warned that they must not get involved in political partisanship or it will threaten their tax deductability. That warning needs to go to church groups like the Exclusive Brethren, which has become blatantly involved in partisan politics, and Family First itself, which became part of the Howard government’s election machine at the last election. I think Senator Fielding is dealing with the potential hypocrisy there by saying, ‘We don’t expect tax deductability for that effort.’ It is a consistent and credible position that donors to political parties should do so because they want to support that political party and because they do not expect taxpayers to effectively fund it as well through the tax deductability process. The Greens support this amendment.

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

The Democrats have noted the support of the Family First Party for a number of our amendments previously, and that should be on the record. They put up a series of amendments that paralleled our own. This one parallels our previous amendment and therefore we obviously support it.

I should say, in arguing with respect to the threshold of tax deductability for political donations—which is to be extended from $100 to $1,500 and will now allow corporates to claim that as well, which they were not able to do in the past—we believe that this proposal is questionable on three grounds. Firstly, there is no evidence that this tax concession is needed and its net effect will be just the loss of general revenue to the government. Secondly, it is a matter of principle that needs to be established, and the policy should be whether political parties should be able to access the same tax concession regime as charities. There is the whole question of not-for-profits, which I do not believe has been properly examined. Political parties fall into the not-for-profit category, as do churches, charities, environmental activists, business think tanks and anybody else who is constituted for a not-for-profit purpose.

So what needs to be thought through is what tax concessions should apply across that whole category. Dealing with these in isolation is a problem, particularly if such concessions do not apply simultaneously to perhaps more-deserving or other deserving community organisations. I am concerned from a tax policy point of view that this is dealt with in isolation of general tax principles. The Liberal case has been that this is justified to reflect community standards and expectations. I am not aware of any surveys, research or anything else to determine what community standards and expectations are with respect to this issue. We agree that tax relief can encourage people to play a role by contributing to the democratic process, whether it is through environmental groups, forestry promotion groups or anything of any sort. But again I make the point that it should operate to general tax principles across the sector and that special interests should only be isolated for good cause. I am pretty sure it has not been done in this case.

In concluding my remarks I want to refer to an email which I received today. I will read the email but I will not give the name, because I have not asked for permission to do so. The email reads:

Dear Senator Murray,

Your speech in the Senate today was quite disappointing. It is no use telling the people that electoral fraud is not taking place in Australia, because after the Hawke Labor Government began changing the electoral laws the loopholes were exploited.

There is even an organisation exposing it, and Dr Amy McGrath has published a book or two on it. Check the H.S. Chapman Society.

When Senator Abetz answered, there was a fact there I had not thought I knew. Anyway, why not click on this link, found on Metacrawler today, and find out what was known to the National Observer way back then?

…     …         …

Senator Abetz also spoke of the imprisonment of a lady, and how an MP left the Queensland parliament but popped up as a Labor apparatchnik in NSW!!! Let’s be dinkum.

Anyone who wants to be a CITIZEN will register to vote, as well as get his/her vehicle licenced, pay his/her telephone bill and other accounts, and generally behave as a good citizen should.

The Electoral staff CAN NOT check as well as process THOUSANDS of last-minute applications by people who do not want to be RESPONSIBLE voters. Hundreds are FAKE applications, sent in by mail, and almost impossible to lead to the culprits.

However, it is WRONG for the Liberals to raise the donations figure. Please, if the next election cleans out the warmongers, please try to get the donations rules back to something like what it was, allowing for cost-of-living increases.

There is an issue that arises there. Firstly, that person does not like raising donations or the tax deductability or anything else, from the last paragraph. But, secondly, I am concerned that, in the heat and passion of the debate yesterday, the minister in my view added fuel to a fire which should not be encouraged—that is, that a section of the community believes, and wishes to believe, that the electoral roll of Australia is open to systemic abuse. I think it is very dangerous to foster that view, and it is a view that has not been previously promoted by the government. I think the minister should take the opportunity to put it to rest.

I answered that email today as follows:

I have sat through every hearing and every Report of every committee examining this area in the last ten years. I know Dr McGrath and her organisation well. I sat on the inquiry into the circumstances in Queensland, which largely concerned the Queensland State (not federal) electoral system. The federal system was pronounced clean by the Government dominated committee.

The fact that fraud occasionally occurs in the federal system is freely acknowledged by everyone, including me. That does not mean it is systemic or endemic. The present law is sufficient to deal with it. Read the Hansard record, Reports, Submissions, Findings into the fraud allegations.

I frequently find that allegations of fraud are bedded in the events and stories that occurred decades ago. The law and its administration has moved on from those days and has long been tightened up.

The idea that the Prime Minister’s Coalition did not win the last four elections fairly because of electoral fraud is fanciful. Fraud did not affect his wins.

Individual cases of fraud do occur. Mass organised fraud does not occur. It has never been accepted by any Committee, by this Government, by the AEC or any Party that fraud has affected any general election or any by-election in any seat or for any candidate.

You obviously don’t agree with me or the AEC but I do suggest you write separately to the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the Minister of State, the Prime Minister and the AEC Commissioner—ask each of them just two questions. Has any electoral fraud occurred which has affected any general election or any by-election in any seat or for any candidate in any federal election over the last ten years? And secondly ask—in all those elections over the last ten years how many instances of fraud have there been?—you will find it is less than one hundred individual cases in well over 40 million votes cast in the last ten years.

You alleged that there are hundreds of fake applications. If it were that easy, and if the fraud were all by Labor voters, then why isn’t Labor in power? Or are you suggesting Liberal fraud occurs on the same scale and cancels Labor fraud out? Allegations are easy—but where is the evidence? If you have any evidence you should give it to the Police.

We Democrats do not oppose (and have in fact proposed) tighter sensible anti-fraud measures. What we object to are measures disguised as anti-fraud but designed to disadvantage particular voting demographics.

Thank you for letting me know your views.

I have read that into the transcript deliberately because I was concerned that, in the minister’s remarks yesterday, he might have given large sectors of the public the impression that large-scale systemic fraud has altered or affected any election in this country. He might have given the impression that the Prime Minister and this coalition have achieved power illegitimately. I do not accept that. I think they legitimately won the election. I do not think fraud affected any of their results. Neither do I think it affected the results of any other person who has won election in this parliament. I say so based on the evidence offered to me consistently as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters by the AEC and substantial numbers of witnesses. I did want to make those remarks, and I support Senator Fielding’s amendment.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will be opposing this amendment. There has been no case made for it. There has been no evidence presented to support this amendment. The Labor Party supported a previous amendment seeking to oppose an increase in the level of tax deductibility. We do not, however, object to the question of tax deductibility for political parties in this country. One of the great things about our system of government is that minority parties—microparties and individual MPs—are never short of getting a headline by abusing politicians. There is never a shortage of opportunities in public life to say that members of parliament effectively should not be paid at all, should not get any resources and should not be provided with any support to undertake their legislative work. There is a mood in the community that we should actually be paying to be here. I take the view that that is a totally inappropriate approach. I know that short-term opportunist methods of attracting public attention might have some short-term appeal. The consequences for the political system, however, are not quite so beneficial.

As I said, you are never short of getting a headline by abusing politicians and politicians’ entitlements. The fact remains that the question of tax deductibility for contributions to political parties—as for churches and a number of other charity organisations in this country—is always open to attack, if you are so inclined. But you have to put a case for it rather than try to run some cheap populist line, which will get you a run on the ABC—or in the Murdoch press, because there is plenty of scope in the Murdoch press to attack politicians. It will not necessarily improve your standing because people in the public at large actually understand these questions and understand what cheap politics is involved.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the amendment in relation to tax deductibility and stopping this proposal the government has put forward. I want to respond to Senator Carr’s accusations about cheap politics, grabbing the headlines and the consequences for the political system of short-term opportunism. I agree with that. But it was Labor in Tasmania who made an art form of it, with their short-term opportunism and abuse of politicians—saying that we had too many politicians in Tasmania, that they cost too much, that we should get rid of them and that there were too many of them who had their snouts in the trough.

It was Labor in Tasmania under the late Premier Jim Bacon, who was Leader of the Opposition at the time, who drove day in, day out a cynical, short-term politically opportunist message that we needed to reduce the numbers and get rid of the parliamentarians. It was a cynical manipulation of the electoral system to reduce the numbers in the parliament to try to get rid of the Greens. If ever a political party used short-term opportunism with dire consequences for the political process, it was Labor in Tasmania.

The government, which was a Liberal minority government, clapped their hands, cheered and went with them. Together they suspended the standing orders of the Tasmanian parliament. They then changed the Constitution without going to a referendum by using a two-thirds majority—a ganging up of the two major parties. They pushed through and changed the Tasmanian Constitution to reduce the numbers in the House of Assembly from 35 to 25, destroying the committee system and destroying all the reforms that we had put in place over a period of years. They turned the Tasmanian parliament into a dysfunctional parliament where now almost all the members acknowledge that 25 is not a critical mass capable of running the state.

So if ever there was a case of using ‘snouts in the trough’, of arguing that politicians cost too much and they are a waste of space, then it was Labor in Tasmania in order to achieve—the only way they ever could—a majority government because they knew, we knew and the Liberal Party knew that as long as the Greens were in the Tasmanian parliament Labor could never achieve a majority. That is why they reduced the numbers as they did, successfully eliminated three of the four members at that time and got their majority. That is how it happened and it was precisely for the reason that Senator Carr just outlined: it was short-term opportunism of the most cynical and despicable kind. The people of Tasmania are still suffering under a dysfunctional parliament because of it.

I am absolutely persuaded that it is only a matter of time before some of those ministers in Tasmania, who voted for the reduction and went along with this short-termism, will be the ones saying: ‘There is too much of a workload. We have to expand the ministry. We have to expand the numbers again.’ Because they knew all along that 25 was not enough of a critical mass to run a parliament. I reject the notion that the minor parties are engaged in some sort of political opportunism and grab for a cheap headline. What the minor parties here are trying to do is restore some integrity and transparency to the political process. I support Family First’s proposed amendment. It is Greens policy. It was supported initially by Senator Christabel Chamarette many years ago, and we will be supporting this amendment.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government opposes the Family First amendment. I am disappointed to hear that my good friend Senator Fielding repeated what he said in the second reading debate: that political parties are self-interested groups. That might be a reflection on those involved in Family First but, from my experience in the Liberal Party, those involved in the Liberal Party are civic minded. They have aspirations for the nation. They seek to serve the nation. They want to make Australia a better place because they believe in a particular world view: they believe liberalism is the way to go. I would have thought that Family First would also be full of people who are absolutely committed to this nation and believe that families ought to be put first in the conduct of the nation’s affairs. To say that they have just joined Family First out of self-interest I think does them a great disservice.

Similarly, I would imagine that there are people in the Greens who would say that certain policies ought to be pursued for the betterment of the country. Sure, we will disagree and fight passionately about those different beliefs, but just to say that people who are involved in political parties are self-interested is not a view I can share. In fact in my experience, even with Labor colleagues when we fight across the chamber, I think they are misguided but I do accept that they have more at heart than just their own short-term political self-interest as a motivating factor.

In relation to donations to political parties, we are in an interesting environment where, let us say a trade union might be able to charge—I do not know how much trade union fees are; they vary—easily $300 per annum fully tax-deductible. If you are a professional—let us say a doctor, lawyer or accountant—your fees to that professional body are completely tax deductible. You can make a contribution to the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, for example, or the forest industries association, or indeed to the Wilderness Society or to the Huon Valley Environment Centre and so the list goes on. Or indeed to the RSPCA who then use that money for a political campaign. In a free and democratic country all those organisations should be allowed to actively engage.

Unlike the Greens, I happen to believe that even minority religious groups ought be allowed to be actively engaged, albeit the churches as such—I am not sure that they actually get tax deductibility otherwise people would be wanting receipts when the plate is passed around of a Sunday morning.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are all so honest that they do not need receipts.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For tax deductibility you would need receipts, Senator Carr. So the proposition that the government is putting forward is sure, we are not making it unlimited. It is unlimited for donations, let us say, to the Wilderness Society or to the RSPCA—unlimited tax deductibility. We are saying for a political party it stops at $1,500. We believe, in general terms, it is good and proper to encourage people to make a contribution to the political party of their choice and, as a result, help stimulate the activities of a diverse range of political parties. I know that Senator Hutchins, in his contribution as a Labor Senator, said that some of these reforms are in fact going to assist the small and minor parties. I, personally, do not want to do that because I think that a mainstream party, such as the Liberal Party, ought to be in government. Having said that, as a matter of principle, if that does stimulate small and minor parties, I say so be it. That of itself should not be a reason why one would oppose tax deductibility. I think those points have been made.

Once again, I want to complain bitterly about Senator Murray revisiting previous debates. He always does that.

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

Not always; sometimes.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All right, not always—that is an exaggeration, and I withdraw it. On occasion, my good friend Senator Murray seeks to revisit debates. Chances are because the good thoughts come to him after the debate, and I think that happens to all of us, Senator Murray. We think: if only I had said that during the course of the debate. I thought it was interesting that Senator Murray said: if you ask the Australian Electoral Commission has any election result ever been impacted by fraud or changed by fraud—

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

Senator Murray interjecting—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All right, just the last election.

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

In the last 10 years.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, in the last 10 years—I could not quite hear that; I take that interjection. The answer would be no. If the test is to ask the Australian Electoral Commission if any election has been impacted by the electoral funding thresholds by being allowed to donate around the nine different divisions et cetera or by overseas donations—all the sorts of things the Democrats have been trying knock out—I think we know what the answer would be: exactly the same answer that Senator Murray got to his question. That of itself does not sustain Senator Murray’s arguments in relation to making the roll more robust.

I will have to check the Hansard but, when I gave my speech to the Sydney Institute, I started off by making, I think—it is always dangerous to try to quote yourself—very strong comments about the fact that we have a very good, robust electoral system. I said that in my concluding remarks of the second reading debate as well. What I have said consistently is: just because we have got a good system does not mean that it cannot be made more robust. The example I used last night of the former member for McMillan, Christian Zahra, who got himself onto the electoral roll before he became an Australian citizen, exposed the weaknesses of the current method of enrolment in this country. It is easier to get onto the electoral roll—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was British—is that the problem? You do not like the British, do you?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was illegal, Senator Carr—that is the point. It was a fraud on the electoral roll. When you point these things out to the Labor Party, who had members of the Labor Party going to jail for electoral fraud, they come into this place and assert there is no such thing as electoral fraud taking place. We say: talk to Karen Ehrmann. She appeared before the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in prison clothing, and Senator Faulkner had the audacity to question her. I think she made comments to the effect: ‘It’s all very well for you, Senator Faulkner, dressed in your suit. I’m here dressed in prison clothing.’

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

She wasn’t in prison clothing; I was there.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She wasn’t in prison clothing? That is what—

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, may I suggest that you address your remarks through the chair.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Chair. ‘That I have to wear prison clothing because of electoral fraud.’ It does occur. Once again, we have the debate about whether or not she was in prison clothing. The issue is: was there electoral fraud? Senator Murray, the Greens and Labor cannot say that there was electoral fraud. They will always seek to duck and weasel their way out of that very point.

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

A point of order, through the chair: the minister cannot claim his memory would be deficient, because not a quarter of an hour ago I actually read into the transcript what I said.

The Temporary Chairman:

What is your point of order, Senator Murray?

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

My point of order is that the minister is deliberately misleading the Senate. This is what I read into the Hansard:

Individual cases of fraud do occur. Mass organised fraud does not occur.

I and my party and every party here have acknowledged that individual fraud does occur.

The Temporary Chairman:

Senator Murray, you are debating the issue. That is not the point of order.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I did not quite quote Senator Murray faithfully, so be it. When Senator Murray tried to verbal me before, I did not get all antsy and get up on a point of order.

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

Senator Murray interjecting—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did by suggesting that there was widespread—

The Temporary Chairman:

Senator Abetz, address your remarks through the chair.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

fraud. I have never made that assertion, and I think Senator Murray acknowledges that. From time to time in the debate that goes on in this place, there will be occasions where we misinterpret each other or do not get the detail absolutely right. But when you have got somebody sentenced to a period of imprisonment for electoral fraud, you have to acknowledge and accept that there is electoral fraud.

When a former federal member of this parliament is exposed as having gotten himself onto the electoral roll before he was made an Australian citizen, you have to acknowledge that there is a problem with the robustness of people getting onto the electoral roll—I note that Family First in fact voted for those increases in integrity measures because Family First shares those views. But I did not want Senator Murray’s comments this morning to go uncontested.

In relation to Senator Milne’s comment, can I say that, once again, it is the Greens blaming everybody else other than themselves for their political misfortune. The simple fact is that when Christine Milne was the leader, as she then was, the Greens lost ground and a lot of seats in Tasmania. Under different leadership in Tasmania with a reduced parliament, the Greens increased their representations.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman, on a point of order: the record stands that the Tasmanian constitution was changed by the Liberal and Labor parties. It has absolutely nothing to do with what Senator Abetz is saying.

The Temporary Chairman:

There is no point of order.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is disorderly!

The Temporary Chairman:

Senator Abetz has the call.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that Senator Brown is allowed to interject and say that other people interjecting are disorderly, when he is in fact interjecting at the same time. I just love the double standard, and the Greens have made it into an absolute art form. What Senator Milne was saying before was that—and she even went to speak ill of the dead—in relation to some conspiracy to reduce the size of the parliament and get rid of the Greens out of the House of Assembly, yes, the Greens did suffer a huge electoral backlash at that time. Who was the leader of Greens at the time? I think Senator Milne has forgotten. Allow me to remind her: it was her, the now Senator Milne. She oversaw the demise of the Green vote in Tasmania, when they had one representative left. Now, in that smaller parliament that was allegedly designed to get rid of the Greens forever, they have four Greens. What I am suggesting—and as I said last night, I do not know why I am giving them this gratuitous advice—is that when you have electoral defeat, do not try to scapegoat a religious minority like the Exclusive Brethren, do not try to scapegoat certain businesspeople and do not try to scapegoat a now deceased Premier of Tasmania: look at yourselves and ask the question, ‘Why didn’t as many people put a No. 1 next to the Green candidates as they did before?’

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They did.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They did.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is just unbelievable! If exactly the same number of people voted Green, how could they lose seats and then pick up seats under exactly the same sized parliament with exactly the same number of votes?

The Temporary Chairman:

Senator Abetz, could I suggest that you return to the amendment before the chamber.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was very kind that that was suggested to you because I am of course responding to matters raised by Senator Milne. I note that the suggestion was not made to you that Senator Milne should be brought to order, but I do take the point. I think it is a very valid point and I will conclude my remarks.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill is grossly inaccurately entitled as an ‘integrity measures’ bill, and of course the government seeks to use it as justification for measures which are essentially about limiting the franchise. The Committee of the Whole has before it an amendment that goes to the question of tax deductibility. There is an inference in the way in which this argument has been put that there is something improper about the taxation arrangements that have been made for political parties, and from that the government has launched yet another assault on the Labor Party by suggesting that there have been occasions on which people have misused office. In fact, all the examples the minister spoke of in this discussion about individuals misusing office have been about the Labor Party. Of course, he ignores the fact that of the 40 million or so votes that have been cast in the last 10 years there have been very few examples put to justify the government’s attacks upon the electoral system which are contained within this legislation.

In fact, you could put forward the ratio of the number of occasions on which it has been demonstrated that people have broken the law and that ratio is one in a million. There is a one in a million chance. To suggest that it is all on one side of politics, which is an inference the government makes, of course is to ignore the facts. We have had clear examples—for instance, the member for Longman, Mal Brough, had members of his staff incorrectly and falsely enrolled. In those circumstances, we had the situation where Mr Christopher Pyne declared that Mr Brough and his office were entirely innocent before the police or the AEC had investigated the matter. There was a clear case in which the government was only too happy to present the proposition that fault lies entirely on one side of politics, even though I think it is universally acknowledged that the examples of misbehaviour are one in a million. I could argue the case similarly on the basis of the fact that, over the last 100 years, I think there has been in excess of 1,000 people elected to the House of Representatives—over 1,000 people have been elected—and on how many occasions have there been—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ferguson interjecting—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is about the question of integrity. On how many occasions have there been examples in which members of parliament have been required to spend time in one of Her Majesty’s prisons? Of course, the number is minuscule. The government’s logic is that because there has been one case in 1,000 that should justify action against parliamentary democracy. That is the logic that the other side are presenting here: that there have been occasions where this has occurred, despite the fact that no evidence has ever been presented that an electoral outcome was affected. No evidence has been suggested to justify the government’s proposition that, in reality, because they find a one in a million opportunity where people have done the wrong thing with the electoral laws, 432,000 Australians should be disenfranchised. The government says, ‘There is a one in a million chance that people might do the wrong thing with the electoral laws.’ Of course the government knows that of the 432,000 Australians who will be disadvantaged most of them vote Labor.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. You quite rightly chastised me, saying that, as we were debating an amendment dealing with tax deductibility, I should bring myself to that. I in fact concluded my remarks and sat down, accepting your chastisement. You have just accepted about four minutes worth from this speaker without any attempt being made to relate his comments to the Family First amendment that deals with tax deductibility.

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Abetz. I was about to advise Senator Carr that, if he wished to debate the issue that he was speaking about before he sat down, we should put the question with respect to schedule 4. He could then debate that on the question that the bill stand as printed.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the matter of the Greens support for this amendment to not have tax deductibility for every $1,500 that is donated to political parties: when you look at the taxation system, what happens when a person donates $1,500 to whichever political party is that they save roughly $600 in taxes. That is, the rest of the unsuspecting public puts in $600, because that is what is forgone in taxes. That is why we oppose that provision. It is, as Senator Fielding said, a different matter for charitable groups, for church groups, for unions and for business. I might say that, as far back as 1996, the last inventory I saw—by Lauren Van Dyke—showed that the corporate sector was advantaged by more than $10 billion a year in tax deductibility and in government grants and support out of the public purse.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was from the Labor Party in 1996.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it has gone up way beyond that since then, Senator—thank you for drawing our attention to that. It is up around $15 billion a year now, and that is something that needs to be looked at. The debate always comes back to charitable groups, environmental groups or church groups, but the real advantage goes to the big end of town. The real advantage in this legislation will also go to the big end of town—the Liberal Party donors. You cannot tell me that this legislation is not putting the advantage of the existing government at the forefront. It comes out of the Prime Minister’s office, this legislation. All of it is written—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That seems to be your favourite phrase.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’m sorry?

The Temporary Chairman:

Just ignore the interjection, Senator Brown.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it might stop them, Chair. The fact is that the government members opposite are baying because I am on the money here. They not only want to cut young people’s ability to make late enrolments because, more and more, they are voting for the Greens; they also want to ensure that, when it comes to their support base and the money that rolls in to the Liberal Party, maximum tax deductibility will apply and—worse than that, I think—that secrecy will prevail. We debated that issue last night: $90,000 can come from an organisation under this insidious system without there being any public record of it. It is our job to try to sensibly ensure that our democratic system is more open and accountable than that.

I also want to respond to Senator Abetz’s rabbiting on about the Greens opposing small church groups being involved in the election process. Of course we do not; we support it. But we need it to be an open and identifiable involvement, not a covert matter or a matter of collusion or deception—lying to the Australian public, which is what the Exclusive Brethren engage in.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that schedule 4 stand as printed.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

The Temporary Chairman:

Order! Could I confirm that there were two voices calling for a division?

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

Senator Murray interjecting—

The Temporary Chairman:

There was just one voice?

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

There was just one voice.

The Temporary Chairman:

I retract that call for a division.

Question agreed to.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I have it noted that Family First was the only audible voice on noes on that, and Family First was opposing tax deductibility for political parties.

The Temporary Chairman:

You can have it recorded that you opposed it.

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

That is very inaccurate, Senator Fielding. That is a sign that Senator Fielding has not understood our clear statement of support for his amendment and our clear voice of no. But we do not support a division; we support the no on the voices. What he said is inaccurate and a poor reflection of what occurred.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fielding interjecting—

The Temporary Chairman:

Senator Fielding, you did not have the call, and your request has been met.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is necessary under those circumstances to just repeat the obvious—that is, the Greens support that amendment to oppose the clause.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question now is that the bill stand as printed.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.