Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 24 February 2016, from Senator Siewert:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

"The need for immediate action on political donations reform, to address the corrupting influence of political donations, including from property developers and fossil fuel companies."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made for today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for immediate action on political donations reform, to address the corrupting influence of political donations, including from property developers and fossil fuel companies.

There is systematic failure in the electoral funding system in Australia today. It breeds corruption and it must change. Electoral funding laws are broken. They are broken because they do not work. They do not work for the community and they are deeply damaging to our democracy. They do not work because large donations can be disguised. They can be disguised by a whole range of methods that further undermine the public's confidence. They are also not working because of inconsistencies in disclosure. Transparency is not working. You cannot say that there is transparency when there is such deep inconsistency, often in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars, between the disclosure of companies and the disclosure of the parties and the candidates who received the money. The result is that the big donors—powerful players—are perceived to buy influence. Sometimes they appear to buy influence, and that perception is damaging our democracy. It certainly encourages the notion that politicians are for sale.

The public deserve honesty. They deserve honesty in terms of how our funding laws work. Again, the culture is one of dishonesty. It is dishonest because so much is not disclosed, and what is disclosed barely helps inform the public and those who are trying to understand how the current system works. This has been identified very clearly by Transparency International. In a very important report into political funding that they released in 2015, they found:

Australia’s high disclosure threshold on financial contributions to political campaigns means that loopholes can be easily abused.

Those loopholes exist because of a number of factors. One very big one is that, at the moment, you do not have to disclose that you are giving money at a federal level if your donation is under $12,800. But you can give that $12,800 in every state and territory. Multiply that amount eight times and it comes to about $100,000 that you can give without disclosing it.

Our system is also broken because there really is no comeback for people who do the wrong thing. The AEC has not prosecuted anyone under the AEC laws on electoral funding over the past seven years. We can also see how serious this is from a lot of the incidents that were exposed in New South Wales at the Independent Commission Against Corruption, our New South Wales corruption watchdog. Often when I have spoken on this issue people say: 'That is a New South Wales problem. We do not have it at a federal level.' We do not know what we have at a federal level because we do not have a commission to expose it. That is the essence of it, and that is why the New South Wales ICAC has done such an outstanding job.

It is worth sharing some of the examples. They are very worrying. There was a sham company called Eightbyfive. It was run by Tim Koelma, a former staffer of Liberal Party minister Chris Hartcher. He issued false invoices for consulting services to disguise donations. In that period about $400,000 came to the Liberal Party. The Free Enterprise Foundation launders—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: the Liberal Party pinged him.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then there is the Free Enterprise Foundation—and I do not think this one has been pinged—where we again have the laundering of illegal donations. It has been reported that Paul Nicolaou, the former New South Wales Liberal chief fundraiser, appears to have come up with the idea of exploiting a loophole so that banned developer donations could be accepted by funnelling them through the federal branch. Westfield gives $150,000; Brickworks, $125,000; and the Walker Group, $100,000. Again, this is exploiting loopholes when we had worked to really clean up the laws in New South Wales with regard to electoral funding. There are so many ways in which this deeply undermines the confidence that people have in the political process. It damages not just those who are involved in these scams but all political parties—the very institutions that we work in and all members of parliament, because people become deeply cynical about how the political process works.

I would like to refer senators to a very important High Court case—it is very relevant to this debate—where the court identified how serious the problem of political donations was. They talk about corruption and that there are two forms of corruption. There is the quid pro quo corruption, as they refer to it, where money is directly handed over for a result—maybe a special development or a mining application. Then they talk about the more subtle kind of corruption where a culture develops whereby those who receive the money feel they need to accommodate that industry, and over time one finds that there is a weakening of the laws. So there is an urgent need to address the whole issue of the corrupting influence of political donations. It is deeply damaging to our political process, to our democracy, and it needs to change.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address this matter of public importance because a lot of the assertions that have just been put forward by Senator Rhiannon are not actually borne out in fact. I would like to address this at a number of levels: firstly, why people make donations; secondly, the mechanisms put in place to provide transparency and accountability around those donations; and, thirdly, the practical outcome in terms of the decisions that are made, particularly at a federal level. I accept that there have been examples. In fact, in Sydney at the moment, with the Auburn council some very clear examples of a conflict of interest with property developments and the decision makers. That accusation has been made, and it appears as though there is a body of evidence to support it. But many of the decisions that are made by federal government do not go directly to property developers. So the three areas I would like to cover are those.

In terms of the motivation, I have been involved with politics as a member of parliament and now as a senator since 2004. One of the things that struck me is that, whilst there are many people in the Australian community who do not get engaged in politics or, indeed, in the workings of the parliament—and I would have to say that I was one of those before I joined the Liberal Party in 2004 and became a member of parliament—there are some people who care deeply about the direction of this country. It is not about their personal interest. Many people who donate do not have business interests. Many people who have large business interests do not donate or seek to influence outcomes specifically for themselves, but they care about the philosophy of the people who are running the country. So, in this year, an election year, it should be no surprise that there are people in our country who are saying, 'Do we want more of the socialist compact between the Labor Party and the Greens that looks at having big government and that seeks to diminish individual responsibility and reward for effort and to be the nanny state dictating the distribution of other people's money, or do we want a government that actually provides incentive and opportunity and that encourages people and, indeed, allows people to be rewarded for innovation and excellence and hard work?' They are too quite distinct approaches to providing government.

Many people say that there is not a lot of difference between the coalition and the Labor Party when it comes to politics, but at its heart the difference between the coalition and those on the opposite side is the view about the role of government in people's lives as opposed to individuals. And there are many people—businesses, corporations and private individuals—who feel passionately enough about wanting to see government in the flavour and character that suits their own ideology, but it is not about their individual interests; it is about the interests of the nation—and that is not just true for the coalition. If we have a look at the CFMEU and the donations they have made to both the Labor and the Greens, we see large amounts of money being donated—for example, here in the ACT, $50,000 from the CFMEU to the Greens party; and, in Victoria, $1.6 million from the unions to the state Labor Party. Why? Because clearly people on the left of politics—and many people in the unions are in that position—want to see a government run by the Labor Party. That is their right. They have every right to raise money to increase the opportunity of people from that political party getting their message out. Unlike the accusation from Senator Rhiannon, that is not corruption; it is actually about engaging in the political process and trying to provide the opportunity for political parties to make their point.

So my first rebuttal of the MPI that has been put forward by Senator Rhiannon today is around the issue of motivation. I would argue that certainly in my experience people who provide donations to political parties, whether they be unions, individuals or corporations, do so because they believe in the values of the party that they are donating to. There are others whom I have seen donate to both major political parties and, in fact, to the Greens sometimes. This is because they believe that the system of government we have here is worth supporting. They recognise that it is expensive to run campaigns, it is expensive to communicate with people, and they provide that funding.

Australia rates very well on any international scale in terms of transparency and lack of corruption. Part of the reason for that is that we have good governance in place and the Australian Electoral Commission has very clear procedures around people who have donated. They need to disclose names, who it was donated to and amounts. So we see that there are procedures in place for that. In fact, one of the things that Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters looks at often is this very issue around funding for electoral campaigns and whether or not there should be more federal funding or there should be bans on fundraising. It has even been proposed previously that there should be bans on fundraising so that people do not have to pay for TV advertising. In fact, once there was a proposal put forward in legislation to ban TV advertising in the lead-up to, and through, the election. That was struck down by the High Court. Why was that struck down? Because the High Court recognised that, constitutionally, there is an implied freedom of speech that says that as we approach an election the people who are seeking to stand for election must be free to communicate with the public, put forward their ideology and their policies, and build the case as to why people should be voting for them.

We do not only have the transparency of the Australian Electoral Commission and all of the reporting and disclosure that goes with that. We also have decisions of people like the High Court and reports from people like the electoral matters committee, who have looked at electoral funding and decided that not only do we have systems to keep it transparent and to keep corruption out of it but that, importantly, constitutionally it is an essential part of our democratic system, for our people to have free speech and to put forward the case to the elector as to why they should be in public office and help form the government.

So my first and foremost rebuttal is motivation, and we see that that is above the board for people who donate. Second is around the fact that any donations that are given are part of a transparent system. The third part I come to is in the order of influence. There is an accusation when you talk about corruption that decisions are being bought. I certainly know that people supported my campaign when I was running as the member for Wakefield. But, as a back-bench member, I was not directly making decisions. Those decisions were made by ministers, with all the probity of departments that goes into that.

One of the things that I have often advocated to people who want to talk to the government is that the committee system of the parliament is the place to come and make their case if they want to see changes in policy. The committee system is open, it is on the public record and it is transparent. On any given policy area, as legislation comes through—particularly in the Senate with the legislation committees or the references committees—the committees are the place where they can come and make their case and there is absolutely no way that you can make accusations of things like corruption.

So I completely refute the basis of the urgency motion that has come forward today. No matter which way you look at it, at a federal level people like property developers just do not come into the equation of our decision making. In terms of the transparency and the system, there are mechanisms in place that have been upheld through multiple reviews as well as by the AEC, a completely independent commission who look after our electoral system. As I said, there are people, corporations, and organisations such as unions who want to see people elected who will govern the country in the way that they believe is good for the country's interest, and they are prepared to donate money to allow them to communicate. That basic premise has been upheld by the High Court, who said that the implied freedom of speech required through the Constitution means that that kind of funding needs to be able to continue.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a great opportunity it is to speak today to demonstrate the complete hypocrisy and the complete cowardice of the Greens party. They have gone from being a claimed party of principle to a party that is more interested in maximising the number of Green bums on Senate seats. That is what is going on in this chamber today. The Greens are so embarrassed by their filthy deal with the government to eradicate all voices on the cross benches of the chamber other than their own. They have entered into a filthy deal with the government.

Let me read to you from the constitutional reform and democracy platform of the Greens. Under 'Principles' it states:

4. The Constitution should express our aspirations as a community and define our rights and responsibilities …

5. Parliament is the central authority of representative and responsible government.

And here is the cracker:

6. The composition of Parliament should reflect the diversity of opinion within society.

Well, tell me this: how can you live up to that principle of your policy when you are introducing a system that you know is absolutely about eliminating the votes of 25 per cent of Australian voters, who did not vote for us, who did not vote for the coalition and who did not vote for you or Senator Xenophon? Twenty-five per cent of voters are going to be excluded.

I want to thank my colleague Gary Gray for circulating this document, because if any document circulated by Gary Gray recently demonstrates what is really going on in this debate, this document does it. Tragically, it does not support Gary's own arguments, but I suspect he did not bother to read too much of it. It says 'Australian voters have spent over 30 years voting 1 above the line, and it does seem reasonable to assume that many people will continue to do so.' What you are introducing is a first-past-the-post voting system, and you are legalising it. You may be happy with that, but let us go to why. This document is the analysis from the Parliamentary Library circulated by Gary Gray, who thinks it supports his arguments. It goes on to say: 'The obvious way to approximate the new system is to first look at how many quotas are achieved by each party as a primary vote. This will indicate how many seats the party is guaranteed to win and may account for four or five of the six vacancies at a normal half Senate election. The remaining seats will be determined either by preference flows or by whichever party has the largest remainder after the full quota is allocated to elected candidates.' Here is the scam: according to the Parliamentary Library, the only parties that could be reasonably expected to transfer preferences at sufficient numbers to elect another candidate are the larger parties—the Liberals, the Nationals, the Labor Party and those down in that corner, the Greens.

The Parliamentary Library has belled the cat. The Greens have done a deal to breach their own constitution, their own principles that they set out. The only parties that could reasonably be expected to transfer their preferences in sufficient numbers to elect another candidate are the larger parties. It goes on to discuss 'the limitations of this approach,' because he has been asked to model this by Gary Gray: 'Whilst the 2013 Senate election is the most recent guide to the will of the voters it was unusual in a number of ways, which will not likely be replicated in future elections.' This is the Parliamentary Library's analysis—

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, a point of order on relevance: I certainly want the senator to expand on his current subject but also be relevant to the issue of donations.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are debating, Senator Rhiannon. At the moment I am happy with Senator Conroy's presentation.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can understand why you don't want this read in the parliament. He says of the 2013 election: 'Most apparently the Palmer United Party and the Liberal Democrats won substantial votes and won Senate seats that they are not likely to be able to replicate in future elections'—my apologies, Senator Leyonhjelm; he does not realise the impact you have made, but that is what the Parliamentary Library said—'due to lost electoral support evident in recent polls and by-elections.'

He goes on to model it and, believe it or not, comes up with: 'The Palmer United Party are going to win a quota again.' Nobody on the planet believes that; even he does not believe that. He actually writes earlier that that is not the case. So what will happen to those votes in this system? We know what will happen. They will go back where they came from, mostly from the Liberal Party. If he is right about Senator Leyonhjelm they will probably return to the pretence of the Liberal Party called the Liberal Party. That is what this debate has always been about—Greens bums on seats. (Time expired)

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Greens Party for today's opportunity to talk about the need for urgent action on political donations. You ought to be congratulated, just like Goodman Fielder, the producers of my favourite margarine, MeadowLea. I enjoyed my MeadowLea on toast this morning, so allow me to also acknowledge George Weston Foods—good on you mum, Tip Top's the one.

The Liberal Democrats agree there needs to be urgent action on political donations. This can be achieved by sending cheques made out to us directly to PO Box 636, Drummoyne NSW 1470 or through our web page at ldp.org.au.

While enjoying my Nescafe coffee this morning—thank you, Nestle—I reflected upon the fact that at the last election Australians were forced to hand over $58 million to the greedy major parties. This paid for wasteful advertisements that drove us all crazy. Even the Greens produced enough junk mail to create a bare patch in the Amazon rainforest about the size of the ACT. That is why long-suffering taxpayers should welcome anything to ease this burden—donations given willingly by individuals and corporations. So long as this process is transparent it is something to be encouraged. The Liberal Democrats certainly encourage it, which is why we regularly check on the contents of PO Box 636 at Drummoyne NSW in the postcode 1470.

Speaking of transparency, the Liberal Democrats were proud to receive our first major corporate donation from Philip Morris International, in 2013. I do not recommend smoking but I do support the right of people to choose to smoke. I would like to thank Philip Morris for their generosity to my party and remind other tobacco companies, chop-chop merchants and smokers that we are still waiting for a donation from them. We also welcome all donations from developers and alcohol, gambling and mining companies.

As the Greens rightly point out, this is now a matter for urgent action. It can be addressed by sending a cheque made out to the Liberal Democrats at PO Box 636, Drummoyne NSW 1470. I must leave now to quench my hard earned thirst, for which I thank Carlton and United Breweries, a subsidiary of the Foster's Group.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased also to rise and speak to this motion which concerns itself with the allegedly corrupting influence of political donations. It seems that, in the eyes of some in this place, when it comes to political donations some donations are more corrupting than others. What is most interesting about this motion is what is not in it.

The motion appears to suggest that the 'corrupting influence' of donations pertains only to those 'from property developers and fossil fuel companies'. That is a ridiculous assertion. This government does not believe it is appropriate to create particular classes of citizens or professions and ban them from participating in the political process. So long as the rules are clear, the process is transparent and the rules are consistently applied, then our present regime for the disclosure of donations represents an appropriate balance between transparency and enabling Australians to participate in the political process.

I understand that some in this place have a certain world view—namely, that property developers and fossil fuel companies are engaged in some sort of Dickensian villainy on a massive scale. Clearly that is not a view I share, nor is it one shared by most sane Australians. But I would just mention, most especially to the Labor Party senators here this afternoon, whose Senate representatives have also been making contributions on this subject today, that if you want to have an ounce of credibility on this subject, it is important to start in your own backyard or, more accurately, in your own bank accounts. I would venture to suggest that if you spoke with most ordinary Australians and did a word association test putting to them the word 'corruption', the most likely response just now would not be 'developer' or 'fossil fuel company'; it would be 'union'. Eight weeks ago, we had the release—

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an outrageous statement to make! What about the 500 Club in WA?

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The best is yet to come, Senator Lines. The best is yet to come. Eight weeks ago, we had the release of the final report of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. The report found a pattern of widespread pattern of corrupt and disturbing behaviour across Australia's trade union movement, with some of the most egregious examples occurring in my own state of Western Australia. I know that Senator Lines is here in the chamber.

The Labor Party and ACTU leadership have been at pains to suggest that what has been uncovered represents just a few bad apples. Well, the royal commissioner dismisses the notion in the introduction to his report.

Opposition senators interjecting—

For those Labor senators who have not laboured over it, let me read what the royal commissioner had to say:

You can look at any unionised industry. You can look at any type of industrial union. You can select any period of time. You can take any rank of officeholder, from Secretaries down to very junior employees. You can search for any type of misbehaviour. You will find rich examples over the last 23 years in the Australian trade union movement.

He went on to say:

These aberrations cannot be regarded as isolated. They are not the work of a few rogue unions, or a few rogue officials. The misconduct exhibits great variety. It is widespread. It is deep-seated.

Yet when we look at the text of this particular motion, which is supposedly about the corrupting influence of political donations, do we find any reference to the corrupting influence of union donations? Of course we don't.

If debates such as these are going to have any credibility, we cannot just cherry pick particular types of donors. In particular, we can hardly leave out the unions, given what emerged during the Royal Commission. Bear in mind also that the royal commissioner said that what had been found through that process in relation to corruption was 'the small tip of an enormous iceberg'. The final report paints a picture of a disturbing culture. Let me quote again:

Whistleblowers are unlikely to be found for various reasons including a well-founded fear of reprisals. The same is true of misconduct on building sites and other aspects of the misbehaviour that has been revealed. The very existence of a Royal Commission tends to cause a temporary reduction in misconduct. But it is clear that in many parts of the world constituted by Australian trade union officials, there is room for louts, thugs, bullies, thieves, perjurers, those who threaten violence, errant fiduciaries and organisers of boycotts.

It is worth recalling that the movement being characterised here is the chief source of both funding and personnel for the Australian Labor Party—a party that paints itself as the alternative government in Australia. The movement funnelled almost $6.5 million to the Australian Labor Party in 2013-14. In fact it has been estimated that, over the last 10 years, union contributions to the Labor Party have been over $98 million. Two of the worst offenders when it comes to the corruption uncovered by the royal commission were the Construction, Forestry Mining and Energy Union and the Maritime Union of Australia. Of course, it is also proposed that those two unions, the CFMEU and the MUA, soon merge. They are to be joined together in unholy matrimony, two like-minded souls joining together to wreak havoc on the nation's industrial landscape. I just hope there are no awkward scenes or battles ahead between Labor parliamentarians about which one of them gets to serve in the wedding party. Certainly the Leader of the Opposition would hate to be included, but there are some Labor senators who faithfully troop into this chamber and earnestly read union authored talking points. I just hope they have not forgotten where those invitations have been issued.

Let's not forget that the royal commission also found multiple instances where the Australian Labor Party had failed to declare donations from trade unions, including an instance where the Leader of the Opposition himself failed to declare such a donation. So if we want to have a discussion about the corrupting influence of political donations, maybe we should start by looking at donations from unions which are themselves engaged in corrupt behaviour. Just this week we have seen more trouble with the CFMEU. The national secretary of that union, Michael O'Connor, was one of 13 officials who allegedly ran an illegal blockage campaign last year—that is, trying to prevent workers from going onto a site to do their job. The union officials are accused of obstructing trucks and subcontractors from going onto construction sites and calling them a variety of foul names—charming behaviour. But, again, as the final report of the royal commission says, these are not isolated instances. In fact, there are currently around 73 CFMEU representatives and officials before the courts around Australia.

What makes this week's report of particular concern, of course, is that Michael O'Connor is the brother of the opposition's industrial relations spokesperson in the other place, the member for Gorton. I am not one to get personal, but given all the hysteria we heard from those opposite about Commissioner Dyson Heydon's alleged conflicts, I would have thought that it was a much greater concern that, if those opposite win the election this year, the person in charge of dealing with union corruption will be the brother of someone who now stands accused of it. It is difficult to conceive of a greater conflict of interest, and I cannot understand why the Leader of the Opposition has not taken steps to deal with it.

The government believes that our present disclosure laws are working well. They are overseen by an independent body, the Australian Electoral Commission, and the details of donations are reported and accessible to members of the general public. Yes, the system relies on people and entities making honest disclosures about the donations they receive. Yet the most troubling evidence we have seen of noncompliance in recent times did not come from the property developers or from fossil fuel companies; it came from the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, who failed to disclose a $40,000 donation from his union mates. If we are going to have this debate, we need to start with those areas where the problem actually exists.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting to note that Senator Smith could not even get through his allocated time because his speaking notes from head office ran out. I want to deal with this urgency motion about the corrupting influence of political donations. This is a pretty typical of the Greens. A lot of public grandstanding, but political incompetence, is what we are seeing here from the Greens. They do a backroom deal with the Liberals and completely disenfranchise millions of Australian voters. They are denying individuals—that is, potential senators—the opportunity to do what Bob Brown did years ago, and that is actually get into parliament. That is what they are doing. They are denying people an opportunity to get into parliament. They have put their own narrow self-interest before democracy.

The Greens in this place are a real political soft touch. They are so naive when it comes to negotiating with this government. On carbon pricing, they gave the Libs what the Libs wanted. On multinational taxation, they gave the Liberal Party what they wanted. On electoral reform, they have given the Libs exactly what they want.

Senator Rhiannon interjecting—

If you were actually serious, Senator Rhiannon, about dealing with a corrupt system, you would have said to the Liberal Party, 'Unless you deal with corruption in the system, we are not going to cave in to your agenda on electoral reform.' You would have actually stood up for what you claim is your principal position, and that is dealing with electoral donations. But you did not. You just caved in in an amateurish, naive way. You have disenfranchised millions of Australians.

What we heard from Senator Smith here was just pathetic. At least Senator Fawcett tried to deal with the issue in an intellectual way and did not just run the spin line and the lines that were put out by head office. If you want to know what is going on with any of their policies, you have to look at the Liberals' political donations. When it comes to the GST, they are from big business. That is where they get their donations. A lower corporations tax and higher executive salaries are being paid for every time an Australian goes to the supermarket. Where was that driven from? It was political donations to the Liberal Party from big business.

There have been political donations from developers and construction companies to drive out the right for workers to be able to collectively bargain effectively in the building and construction industry. On penalty rates, again, it is about big business transferring workers' wages to more profit. That is what you have to look at. You simply have to look at where the donations come from to the Liberal Party to understand what their political agenda is. On climate change, it was the miners driving the Liberal Party's political agenda. On negative gearing, it is the Property Council. We know exactly what is going on. On capital gains tax, it is the Property Council making donations to the Liberal Party. That is where the money is coming from, and that is where the Liberal Party's interests are. If you want to know what they are doing on policy, follow the money. That is how you will know what the Liberal Party are doing.

They run the argument that it is just about these bad unions putting money into the Labor Party. What about the Enterprise Foundation? What about the brown paper bag in the front of the Bentley up in Newcastle where there were party members picking up $10,000 in cash off property developers? Do not tell me there is no corruption coming through in the Liberal Party from property developers. What about the Platinum forum? What about Parakeelia Pty Ltd? What about the Liberal 500 Club?

When we win this next election—and we will—the first thing I will be doing in the Labor caucus is arguing for a royal commission into the corrupt behaviour of the Liberal Party and their donations. That would be the first cab off the rank.

John Madigan (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last year I moved a motion to establish an inquiry into political donations. I did this because the current regulatory framework is profoundly inadequate. As it stands, there is no limit on the amount private donors can give to politicians. Nor are there restrictions on who can donate, leaving it open to gaming operators, alcohol and cigarette companies, property developers, miners, banks, environmental groups and anyone else interested in influencing the political system to throw money at politicians in the hope they will do possibly do their bidding.

I will state that the vast majority of donors—individuals, companies, unions et cetera—are ethical and reputable, but some may not be. Although we have disclosure laws, the current threshold of around $13,000 is absurdly high and the timing over which disclosures must be made is way too slow. Furthermore, there are numerous loopholes allowing political parties and their benefactors to avoid disclosure. The outcome is a political system in which almost all players are funded by a combination of big business, unions, activist groups and a few wealthy Australians—that is, by sectional interests.

To think major donors may expect nothing in return is possibly naive. At the very least, they expect to have the ear of politicians. Ultimately, they are seeking influence over political decision making. This is plainly undemocratic. It renders what should be government for the people and by the people something else. Australians deserve transparency, not trials by innuendo about alleged behaviour. As the High Court observed recently, it compromises the expectation fundamental to representative democracy that public power will be exercised in the public interest. It is corruption of the political process, pure and simple.

As a result, the people we represent are rapidly losing confidence in our capacity to improve their lives. They think we have been bought. In 2014, the Lowy Institute found less than two-thirds of Australians and less than half of 18- to 29 year-olds thought democracy was 'preferable to any other form of government'. Furthermore, nearly a quarter of young people thought that 'in some circumstances, a non-democratic government can be preferable'. When asked why they did not see democracy as the preferable form of government, more than two-fifths said this was because 'democracy only serves the interests of a few and not the majority of society'. In a system that derives its legitimacy from the will of the people, this trend, if left unchecked, is an existential threat. Despite this, federal politicians have repeatedly failed to put a stop to this cancer on our democracy. Unfortunately, here, the fox is in charge of the hen house.

There is some hope for change. Sufficient numbers of my fellow senators voted to pass the motion I moved last year establishing an inquiry into political donations. The inquiry was referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, where it remains. However, to date, JSCEM has failed to call for submissions on the critical aspects of the inquiry it was commissioned to undertake. I have sought answers as to why this is the case but have been frozen out of the process. The terms of reference are clear. Their proper examination requires the committee to call for submissions and hold public hearings. Anything less would be a betrayal of the will of the Senate and, ultimately, of the people we all purport to represent.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was really interesting to listen to Senator Smith talk about corruption today. He did not mention his friend from the Liberal Party Mr Damien Mantach pleading guilty to massive amounts of stealing. Let's not forget that.

Let's look at what the Labor Party have done. Our policy states that we want to regulate political donations. Our policy states that we want to reduce the cap in the donations disclosure law. When last in government, we put up electoral reform that included looking at political donations. What happened? The Liberal-National Party, along with some of the crossbench senators, knocked that on the head. So do not come to us talking about corruption and political donations.

Let's look at where we are up to with this grubby little deal and what the Greens have traded away. Recent history demonstrates that, when it comes to deal making and economic credentials, the Greens party has well and truly got its L-plates on. They dipped their toes in murky water in a grubby deal with the government to disenfranchise around 330,000 part-pensioners. The Greens changed the asset test for these pensioners, cutting their household budgets, meaning they have less to live on.

On the last day of sitting in 2015, another dirty deal was done on the cheap with the government on company tax. Despite their rhetoric of being tough on tax, the Greens failed to gain any tangible transparency in their deal. It increases the threshold for companies, allowing them to continue to trade behind closed doors and avoid paying their fair share of tax. The explanation from the Greens leader was interesting. He said it was the best deal they could do at the time. The government was desperate to get that bill through, but the Greens failed to take advantage of that and settled for an inadequate deal. I would like to hear from the Greens about when they think the Australian parliament might have a better chance of getting a fair and transparent deal, in fact, the deal that Labor wanted to hold out for. Surely, that time is when the government is desperate to get a bill through. Quite frankly, I think a two-year-old having a tantrum would be a better negotiator than the Greens.

This latest dirty deal enables the government to pull the DD trigger and wipe out the crossbench. This deal will actually disadvantage the millions of Australians who choose to vote for Independents and small parties. There is nothing honourable in this bill, which has incorrectly been titled 'electoral reform'. There is only one change in this bill, and that is to gerrymander Senate voting.

Once again, the Greens have shown themselves to be either inept negotiators or so drunk on power that they missed the obvious opportunity for real electoral reform in the bill of the same name. Today they have the gall to front the Senate with their matter of public importance, and, guess what, it is about electoral reform! Suddenly, after the Greens had done their dirty deal with the government to wipe out crossbench senators, they come into this very place with an urgency motion calling for immediate action on political donations. I do not know how they can lie straight in bed at night! Perhaps not all of the Greens were in on the dirty deal with the government, but, however they played it with the government, they should have included this alleged urgent action on political donation reform in their dirty deal in return for supporting a move to wipe out the crossbench.

This stunt today by the Greens party, trying to salvage some political capital after they sold their souls to the devil on a bill which locks out any minority view other than their own, will be seen by the Australian public for what it is. It is a grab for power and a dirty deal done with a government that are clearly frustrated with the crossbench and Labor. It is much harder to get rid of us. It is easy to get rid of the crossbench in a dirty deal with the Greens, who cannot even negotiate to put political donations reform into the package they did with a government desperate to do a deal. Once again, they fail. They get a little way along, and then they just cave in. Well done to the government! They will not love you in the morning; they do not even love you now! I say to the Greens: you have been hoodwinked once again on major reform. You simply caved in. You sold your soul to the devil, and Australians will see straight through it.

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

I have been in this place for almost five years. I was an environmental lawyer for almost 10 years before coming here. The commonality between both of those roles has been what I think of as the corrupting influence of the big mining sector. I have often pondered why that is. When you look at the actual contribution that that sector makes to our employment, it is about two per cent, if that. The contribution it makes to GDP is minuscule. Why do these people have so much influence? I ponder that.

Every year, of course, we get the donations disclosure. We have heard that, in the last three years, both big parties have received $3.7 million from the fossil fuel sector—the big miners, the coal seam gas companies, you name it. That is only federally. There are more donations at the state level. We know that, at the federal level, Labor has received about $1.1 million over the last three years, the Liberals have got $3.3 million and the Nationals have got about $200,000. As I say, it does not include the $200,000 given by Santos to the Nationals in South Australia. What do the mining companies get for these generous donations? Well, they get their approvals, don't they? I have been tracking this. There has not been a coalmine refused under our federal laws in history. That has not been a coal seam gas project refused under our federal laws in history. You have to wonder why, given that the science is perfectly clear: we are in an age of global warming. These industries are damaging our land and our water. They are ripping apart our communities and they are threatening communities' health. Yet we have fantastic clean energy alternatives that are job-rich and do not trash the place. So why? Well, those donations speaks volumes. You have to wonder, if the renewable energy sector donated half as much, whether we would have seen the renewable energy target slashed in this place, with both parties ganging up to vote for that.

What else do they get for their donations? They get a massive pay-off. They get billions in fossil fuel subsidies. They get taxpayer handouts to the tune of about $14 billion over four years. They get cheap fuel. You and I do not get that; the big miners get that. They get accelerated depreciation on their assets and they get a tax break to do production and exploration. If you tally that up, you get about $14 billion over four years. That means that, for every dollar they are donating to the big parties, they are getting more than $2,000 back from the taxpayer purse. What a lark!

Of course, we want to abolish those fossil fuel subsidies and use that money for something useful, like health, like education and like acting on global warming. But it begs the question: what do the political parties get out of this cushy arrangement? Well, they get their multimillion-dollar war chests that they can use to fight elections to try to pretend they have some values or some principles, and of course they get the cushy jobs once they leave this place. I have a depressingly long list here of jobs held by former politicians who now work for the big mining sector. John Anderson, former Nationals leader and in fact Deputy Prime Minister, went to be Chairman of Eastern Star Gas. Mark Vaile became a director and Chairman of Whitehaven Coal. Martin Ferguson is now on the APPEA Advisory Board—that is the coal seam gas lobby group. Craig Emerson now works for Santos, another big coal seam gas company. Greg Combet went to be a consultant to AGL. Sadly, I am running out of time, but the list goes on.

What are we going to do about this? Ban political donations. They are corrupting the system. We have a bill before this place that I hope to bring on and debate very soon—and I hope we get some support, but I am not holding my breath—to ban donations from the mining sector, from property developers, from the alcohol industry, from the tobacco industry and from the gambling industry. Our democracy needs to be beyond reproach and, sadly, these donations are corrupting the system and leading to an absolute lack of faith amongst the public. That is why the vote for the major parties is so down.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the urgency motion, but, like my fellow contributors to this debate from the opposition benches, I also note that we are debating this issue today as part of a desperate attempt by the Greens political party to distract attention from the fact that yet again they have done a deal with the Liberal Party. Last time it was to let companies off the hook when it comes to tax transparency. This time it is to disenfranchise millions of voters. To distract us, they want to talk about political donations.

I will be really clear: I support reforms that make our political donations system fairer, that give voice to ordinary Australians and to the groups that represent them, and that lead to decision making that preferences the interests of the nation over sectional interests. That is not what the Greens stand for, however. It pays to remember during this debate what the Greens did the last time they had a hand in redesigning a system around donations, and that was the time they did another deal, on that occasion with the O'Farrell Liberal government in New South Wales.

In 2011 the Greens supported the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill in the New South Wales parliament. This legislation would have allowed only individuals to make donations, not organisations. The Greens like to talk up the fact that the consequence of this legislation was that it limited corporations' donations. However, everybody should understand that it also had hidden provisions that stopped not-for-profit organisations, member based organisations and sporting groups from participating in the political process. It meant that organisations like Unions New South Wales, like the Council of Social Service in New South Wales and like the Australian Industry Group were unable to allow their members to express a view in the context of a political debate.

One really wonders about the motivation of the Greens in signing on to legislation of that kind. What this legislation was really about was preventing organisations from running political campaigns against the government. The legislation would have hampered campaigns exactly like the Your Rights at Work campaign, where the union movement stepped up to protect workers' wages and conditions from an ideological attack by an arrogant government, an arrogant Liberal government. The legislation would have made it more difficult for nurses groups, for instance, to wage a campaign about the government's plans to cut health funding.

We need to understand the context of this, because we should be concerned about the influence of money on Australian politics, but collective action and collective campaigns are some of the only ways available for ordinary people to make their voices heard. The Greens New South Wales legislation would have allowed individuals to make donations of $2,000. Well, that is terrific—it is great for those individuals that have $2,000 sitting around. But let us be very clear: the nurses, the firefighters, the ordinary Australians that choose to take part in Australian trade unions do not have that amount of money sitting around—a lazy $2,000—waiting to donate it to politics. Instead, they pool what little money they have, what little they can spare, and they use unions and their member organisations to amplify their voices, to make sure the voices of the small people are heard in a very big national debate. The High Court recognised this and it struck down the Greens supported legislation as being an impermissible burden on the constitutional right to political communication.

I want to reiterate in closing that of course people on this side of the chamber are committed to a political system that is fair, transparent and modern and that gives people a chance to make themselves heard on the issues that impact on them. In my home state of New South Wales, our leader, Luke Foley, has taken decisive action, and New South Wales Labor will become the first Australian political party to disclose political donations as they come in, with that system to be up and running in 2017. There have been many problems in New South Wales—people on both sides of the aisle have compromised themselves—and that action is urgent and necessary. Corruption and influence-peddling is always unacceptable, but we should not forget that, when the Greens last looked at this issue, their answer was an unconstitutional attempt to deny— (Time expired)

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am encouraged by the fact that ordinary Australians are now just starting to understand how thoroughly corrupt politics in Australia has become.

I recently met the Prime Minister and when I raised the issue of establishing a federal commission against corruption, a federal ICAC, he dismissed the idea by trying to tell me that a federal ICAC was not warranted because there were not many opportunities in federal politics, compared with state politics, for corruption to occur. I almost believed that nice story from our PM—and I mean who wouldn't? As I looked deeply in the PM's eyes, he said with that low deep voice with that nice smile repeat after me : 'There's no corruption in federal politics—only in state politics. There's no corruption in federal politics—only in state politics. I was left with that fuzzywuzzy feeling of hope for a few days after my meeting with the PM that 'there's no corruption in federal politics— only in state politics.'

And then—what do you know?—Veterans Affairs Minister Stuart Roberts was forced to resign; we found out about the rich Chinese businessman having drinks with Liberal Party members and the $10,000 watches that were given out as gifts.

The same sort of thing happened after I wrote to former Liberal PM Abbott asking him effectively whether any people associated with the Liberal Party and mentioned in the Heydon Royal Commission secret reports were corrupt. And PM Tony Abbott wrote back to me, essentially saying that no-one in the Liberal Party was corrupt; and then seven days later we found out the Liberal Party President in Victoria had defrauded their members to the tune of about $1.5 million.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And that was the second time!

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Liberal Party of Australia is treating the people like fools on a whole range of issues, including corruption. They think that, because we did not go to their private clubs and do not wear the same school ties, we are not qualified—that we are idiots to be exploited, to be stolen from, spoken down to and ignored. I may not have the same qualifications that Senator Cash has, but I have every right to be in this place and I can spot and smell corruption a mile off and the stench which comes from those opposite, as Kenny would say, outlasts religion.

It is a well-known fact that the Liberals have taken millions of dollars from people closely connected with the Chinese communist government in election funding. The sale of iconic Tasmanian Dairy Company VDL to the Chinese company linked to the Chinese government shows a corrupt and negligent government process. When it comes to offshore corruption, the Liberal government have made the FIRB blind. Everyone knows after an ABC Four Corners report that our FIRB has failed to do its job properly and turns a blind eye to corrupt money.

I am calling on Labor to act in a principled manner and preference independents, including the JLN, before the Greens. That way, Labor, you will not only be talking the talk, you will finally be walking the walk.

Question agreed to.