Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Today I introduce the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021.

The Bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Electoral Act) and builds upon the significant reforms to the funding and disclosure regime to improve the consistency of the regulatory treatment of all political actors.

Reform is necessary to support the integrity of Australia's electoral system, by ensuring that Australia's world-class electoral funding and disclosure regime is consistent, and continues to provide transparency for Australian voters.

Annual Donation Disclosure

This Bill will provide consistency in the regulatory treatment for political donations received by parliamentarians. It is important that all parliamentarians, once elected, are subject to the same level of public accountability through disclosure of political donations to ensure ongoing transparency between election cycles.

The Bill will require parliamentarians who raise political donations directly to lodge an annual return to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) relating to gifts they received during the financial year. While political parties submit annual returns each and every year, in the absence of such structures elected independents have no annual disclosure obligations to the AEC at all. This reform removes the double standard currently in place.

The returns will apply to gifts given to members of the House of Representatives and Senators for a federal purpose - that is, for the purpose of incurring electoral expenditure, or creating or communicating electoral matter. The Bill will not require a parliamentarian to submit an annual return if they have not received such gifts during the relevant financial year, or if a gift has previously been reported in a candidate or Senate group return, or in a registered political party annual return.

Additionally, the disclosure obligations for donors will also be amended to require gifts for a federal purpose to a Parliamentarian that are, in total, equal to or above the disclosure threshold, to be reported in the donor's annual return.

Foreign Donations

This Bill will also ensure the consistent application of the foreign donations framework to members of the House of Representatives and Senators.

Under the measures in this Bill, Parliamentarians will be prohibited from receiving a gift for an amount equal to or greater than $1,000 from a foreign donor, or receiving a gift of more than $100 from a foreign donor for the purposes of electoral expenditure or creating or communicating electoral matter.

This means that Parliamentarians will be subject to the same foreign donations regime as when they are candidates for election, which is the same as other political actors such as political parties, Senate groups and political campaigners.

This amendment is necessary to support the integrity of Australia's electoral system by ensuring that foreign money is kept out of Australian elections.

Extending the disclosure period for candidate and Senate group election returns

The Electoral Act has long recognised that a range of political actors participate in Australian elections. This Bill makes several changes to the regulation of political actors, which are necessary to keep pace with modern campaigning practices and to ensure foreign donations are appropriately restricted.

The relevant disclosure obligations applicable to candidates and members of Senate groups will be extended to the period which is six months prior to the person or group announcing their candidacy or nomination in an election. This amendment increases transparency of the funding of election campaigns, removing the incentive for candidates to deliberately delay their announcement of candidacy in order to avoid financial disclosure obligations.

The extension of the disclosure period for candidates and Senate groups will also apply to the foreign donations framework. Under these provisions, a candidate or member of a Senate group must take "acceptable action" in relation to foreign donations within 6 weeks of the date of the gift, or the announcement of candidacy or nomination.

"Acceptable action" is a defined term under the Electoral Act and means that the candidate or Senate group that has received a gift from a foreign donor must return, repay or divest themselves of the value of that gift.

Conclusion

This Bill demonstrates the Government's commitment to improving the transparency and accountability of those involved in political finance and election campaigns.

These amendments strengthen the safeguards against foreign influence in the Australian political system and helps to ensure that political campaigning that targets Australians cannot be paid for by foreign donors.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021. Labor will be supporting this bill. The bill contains necessary measures to ensure that members and senators are covered by our political funding and disclosure laws.

In 2018 this parliament agreed to important reforms to enhance transparency and protect our democracy. It was Labor that successfully fought for a ban on foreign donations to be included in the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018. We knew that we had to act to protect our democracy from foreign interference, but this government had to be dragged kicking and screaming into banning foreign donations. It took two years for them to act after Labor introduced our own bill to protect democracy. Because of the reforms Labor achieved in 2018, registered political parties, candidates, Senate groups and political campaigners are unable to accept donations over $100 from foreign sources if they are intended to be used for electoral expenditure or any foreign donation at all over $1,000. However, there is an inconsistency in the way the funding and disclosure framework operates with respect to parliamentarians once they are elected.

This bill will extend the ban on foreign donations that applies to parties, candidates and political campaigners to senators and members of the House of Representatives. It will also align the donations disclosure obligations of serving parliamentarians with those that apply to candidates and to political parties. While candidates for an election are unable to accept foreign donations and are required to submit a return to the Australian Electoral Commission which details their donations and electoral expenditure, this obligation ceases 30 days after the return of the writs. That means that anyone in this place who receives donations personally during their term in parliament is not required to disclose them. It also means that there is a loophole which would allow serving parliamentarians to accept donations from foreign sources. This bill will close that loophole. Now, given the prohibition on parties and candidates accepting foreign donations, it would be surprising if anyone in this place were taking gifts from foreign citizens or entities. That would be going against the spirit of the donations reforms that were enacted in 2018. But the ban should of course be extended to elected members of this place. It's illogical for it to cease 30 days after a candidate is elected. The ban will apply to gifts received by sitting parliamentarians from the commencement of the act.

The other change the bill makes in relation to foreign donations is to prohibit candidates from accepting them from six months prior to either the date of their nomination or the date that they announce their candidacy, whichever is earlier. This will enhance the integrity of our democratic processes and put candidates on a level playing field with elected representatives. This bill will further align the obligations of parliamentarians with those of political parties by requiring them to provide an annual return to the Australian Electoral Commission detailing political donations they personally receive which are over the disclosure threshold. Most donations received by parliamentarians who belong to a political party would be received on their behalf by the political party. The political party must then disclose the detail of those donations each year to the AEC. However, there is currently no obligation on parliamentarians to disclose donations personally received. That means that donations received by parliamentarians who are not members of political parties are not required to be disclosed. That is not right and will be corrected by this bill. Parliamentarians who do not personally receive donations will not be required to provide a return to the AEC. Annual returns will need to include the total value of all gifts received by the parliamentarian during the year; the total number of persons who made the gifts; for each gift over the disclosure threshold, which is currently $14,500, the value of each gift; the date on which each gift was made; and the name and address of each donor. A parliamentarian's return must be provided within 20 weeks of the end of the financial year.

The bill requires parliamentarians to provide an annual return in relation to each financial year from 2020-21 whether the gifts were made before or on or after the commencement of the act—that is, the bill will have retrospective application in relation to gifts received personally by parliamentarians during the 2020-21 financial year. Returns for the 2020-21 financial year will need to be provided within 30 days of the act's commencement, and annual returns will be published on the AEC's website. Candidates will also be required to disclose donations they personally receive during the period of six months prior to the date of their nomination or six months prior to the date of them announcing their candidacy, whichever is earlier.

A similar provision will apply to Senate groups, who will be taken to be a group in an election from six months before the day members apply to be grouped on the Senate ballot paper until 30 days after polling day. These changes will substantially improve transparency and, along with the ban on foreign donations, will put candidates and elected representatives on a level playing field.

There is so much more to be done. If this government really wanted to improve transparency, it would be supporting Labor's proposals to lower the donations disclosure threshold from the current $14,500 to a fixed $1,000 and require donations to be disclosed within seven days. These simple changes would mean that voters have this information when they go to cast their ballot and not have to wait up to 18 months to find out who is funding political parties, as is currently the case.

There are other reforms that would enhance our democracy which the government should be committing to. The government should be providing more resources to the AEC to increase enrolment and turn out. There should be reform of electoral expenditure laws. The government should be establishing a powerful and independent national anticorruption commission—a three-year-old promise left languishing. It should be addressing the spread of dangerous misinformation and disinformation and making laws to prevent governments from pork-barrelling in marginally held seats, and the Prime Minister should be requiring members to disclose secret donations that can't be hidden by a blind trust.

Despite Labor's ongoing calls for increased transparency, the government has not taken any action on real-time disclosure or on lower donation disclosure thresholds or on any other measures. Instead, in the final two sitting weeks of the year, possibly the last of this parliamentary term, the government has finally decided to pursue some form of electoral reform. Labor will support this bill, despite it being a late and imperfect attempt at increased transparency.

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

The government maintains that this bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021, along with the political campaigners bill that they rammed through yesterday, is all about transparency. But they were saying the quiet part out loud when they introduced the bills. Government members have been explicit about their targets: the 'voices of' movement, the Climate 200 group, the OpenAustralia Foundation, They Vote For You. The government are not after transparency for their dirty donors. They're not after transparency for beneficiaries of blind trusts or for meetings with lobbyists. They just want to tie up all those whose activities call out the government or who threaten their electoral prospects. They want to scare off the competition. They want to discourage new voices from putting their hat into the ring for election.

The Greens will always support more transparency, but let's be real about who the government is targeting with this particular bill. On its counterpart bill, the political campaigners bill, Jason Falinski MP said the government was trying to 'turn the rock on all the cockroaches lurking in the dark of Australian democracy'. He said the government wants to prevent parties from campaigning:

… in the shadows, in the darkness, where no-one can see them, where no-one knows what they're up to, where no-one knows, really, who's backing them.

Yet this government's donors love to lurk in the darkness. They wield influence away from the light. They have secret meetings. They exploit the loopholes that allow millions in dark-money donations.

This bill will increase transparency, and we support it for that reason, but it will not shine the light where it most needs to go. In the long list of electoral bills that the government have put up over the last few sittings—I think it's eight now and counting, many of them rammed through without inquiry or proper debate—they've still failed to address the core issues that the public are concerned about. If the government were actually serious about transparency, they would ban dirty donations. As the Greens bill proposes, they would cap donations to no more than $1,000 from anybody, whether it's an individual, a corporation or any sort of organisation at all. That's what needs to be done.

If they were really serious about transparency, they would lower the donations disclosure threshold and they'd require real-time reporting. If they were serious about transparency, they would bring in election spending caps—something that they've also refused to do. If they were serious about transparency, they would stop the revolving door of lobbyists in MPs' offices. And, if they were really serious about transparency, we would have seen the bill for a corruption watchdog that this government promised more than three years ago, before the last election, and that has apparently become a non-core promise in a way that would make John Howard proud.

These are the reforms that Australians actually want to their electoral system. This is what the Australian people deserve to get their democracy back—to get it back from the vested interests and the corporate donors who run both big parties and who engineer the system to get the political and legislative outcomes that suit their private bottom lines, never mind what the rest of the community wants or deserves.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I totally reject and repudiate Senator Waters's contribution. Anyone who contributes to the Greens, in Senator Waters's self-righteous world, is doing noble work, contributing to a great cause, promoting the cause of humanity. Anyone who donates to the other side of politics, be it the Labor Party, the LNP or the Liberal Party, has a vested interest or is a corporate donor—it's dirty money, a dirty donation. That's just an absolutely absurd characterisation of how the political system works in this country. I'll rise to defend Senator Kitching and Senator Ciccone from the Labor Party. I'm absolutely certain that their judgement, in terms of any legislation that comes before this place, will be guided by their conscience and will be guided by their intellect and reason, which are outstanding in both cases, and that they will make a decision on the basis of what they consider, constructed on the foundation of their strongly held values, to be in the best interests of the country. I can say the same about my very good friend the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister Payne. I've known the minister for a long, long time—I won't say how long—and I know that the minister has always been guided by her values and her desire to assist the public and promote the public interest. My good friend Senator Davey, with whom I've had the pleasure of working since 2019 and who was a fierce advocate for rural communities prior to coming to this place and continues to be a fierce advocate for all those communities, is totally uninfluenced by the issue of donations. I simply do not accept and I totally repudiate the characterisation which Senator Waters seeks to present in relation to the mechanics of how our political system works.

In relation to the specifics of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021, it actually came as a surprise to me, prior to introduction of this bill, that there was this loophole, this gap, this lacuna, in terms of how our electoral disclosure laws apply. This bill will address two very important gaps in terms of that legislation, the first in relation to foreign donations. As I'm making this contribution, I should say that nothing I'm saying here should in any way reflect on my good friend Senator Patrick. I'm absolutely sure, in all of these matters, that he conducts himself with great decency and integrity and I don't question that in any way. I suspect Senator Patrick was not aware of these loopholes either, because he would never seek to exploit such loopholes. As I said, the first of the two loopholes which are addressed in this bill is in relation to foreign donations. It can't be the case that someone outside of this place, before they announce their candidacy as an independent, can accept some sort of financial contribution from foreign stakeholders with respect to a future candidacy that hasn't yet been announced. That simply should not be permitted to happen. That loophole needs to be closed, and there needs to be a level playing field in terms of how all participants in the political system deal with foreign stakeholders. This bill achieves that, with an appropriate look-back period with respect to any financial contributions which were received by candidates.

The second point is with respect to the disclosure period for candidates. Again, it should be a level playing field. We should all be treated equally, whether we come from the National Party, the Liberal Party, the LNP—in my home state of Queensland—the Labor Party or the Greens or whether we are Independents, crossbenchers. We should all be treated equally in terms of disclosure periods. That disclosure period should be calibrated appropriately so that someone is not incentivised to delay the announcement of their candidacy in order to avoid disclosure of donations. So there needs to be a look-back period. I think that's entirely appropriate.

No doubt there are other issues in relation to the funding of our political parties and political candidates that other senators in this place will wish to contribute on, but, on the specifics of this bill, I suspect the vast majority of us agree that these are two gaps in our current system that should be closed. On that basis, I commend the bill to the chamber.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst I will be supporting the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021, for many of the reasons pointed out by other contributors, including Senator Scarr, there are other loopholes that also need to be closed, or other reforms that need to be looked at, and my amendments seek to do that. In relation to the mention I got from Senator Scarr, I don't think he was suggesting in any way that people ought to look at me; it is just that he was talking about Independents, and I was the only Independent in the chamber. He is acknowledging that now.

Senator Scarr talked about doubts being expressed about who is and who isn't donating to different parties and whether they are all corporate donors for one party and all environmental donors for another party. I think the point is: if we have disclosure that's at a low level, we don't want to burden mums and dads who want to contribute to a party, who look at a party and say: 'You know what? I like what they do. I want to help that party get re-elected.' That is as opposed to, perhaps, a very large donor who says, 'I want to own that party.' There is a distinction, a line, where an accusation can be drawn. But right now our disclosure threshold sits at $14,300, and that is way too high. That does give rise to an accusation that access is being bought and influence is occurring. That needs to be addressed. It's not a matter of these donations coming in. Let other people see where those donations are coming from so that they can make better claims when they're advocating their particular concerns. If we are seeing very large donations coming in from mining companies to the Liberal Party or to the National Party, let's see that. Let's not have innuendo and claims being made.

That's why I have an amendment that seeks to lower the threshold to $1,000, so we don't capture the mums and dads—there is a lot of burden involved in that. No-one would suggest that someone who is donating a few hundred dollars would ever be trying to buy access or influence. But certainly above that level the question starts to arise. So why not reduce the disclosure threshold to $1,000? It's my view that it should also be in real time. We're in a world now where real-time disclosure is not difficult to do, and that would allow the electorate to be completely informed as to who is receiving what money—how much, who it's from—when they're receiving it.

In reality, as I said, I'd like it to be real time. My amendment doesn't go there, and the reason it doesn't is that I know there's no support for it in either of the major parties. What I am happy to report is that the Labor Party does support a disclosure threshold down to $1,000. I'll just read from their website. They say:

Donations of over $14,300 are subject to disclosure under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

This is the reason we require your personal details when making a donation. However, the Australian Labor Party has a policy of disclosing all donations over $1,000.

I'll be very surprised—or maybe I won't be surprised because I gave the opportunity last night for the Labor Party to vote for their own policy, but they decided not to.

Senator Scarr, to be fair, on your side of the chamber, you need to be looking at your own policies and you should be adopting these policies because they're about transparency, they're about confidence in our democratic system. I am up here having a go at the Labor Party because they're not supporting their own policy, but I'll happily have a go at the Liberal Party and say: it should be your policy; it ought to be your policy. I hope you take that to the party room, because I know you are a senator of great integrity. Whilst you might not be able to express your views outside the party lines, I'm hopeful that you share my views. I hope that when my amendment is moved the Labor Party will in fact support their own policy. So, let's cross our fingers and see what happens there.

I will be moving another amendment during the committee stage. We know that people come to dinners with prime ministers, ministers or influential politicians and will pay a ticket price of $10,000 to have a private audience. Whilst that practice may take place, I think you have to be open about it. I know there are a lot of companies that have policies that say they can't make political donations. So, they rock up to these events and they pay a ticket price—not a donation from their perspective; it's a ticket price. No-one is ever going to front up to a meal and get a $10,000 plate—that's not going to happen; that's not what's happening. People turn up and they get a nice meal—there's no question the meal and the wine would be nice.

Senator Scarr, the nice thing is: you can come round and visit me at any time and you don't have to pay a cent. That's the way I like it for everyone and that's the way it should be. You shouldn't have to buy any access at all. Senator Scarr, you are welcome to pop round to my office and even for us to go and have dinner at some stage—I'm sure I would enjoy that.

At the moment we have people turning up to dinners, and the price is reflective of who's sitting at the head of the table: if it's the PM, it's a big price; if it's a cabinet minister, it's slightly less; if it's an assistant minister, less again; and, if it's a hopeful, it's less again. I'm not sure where Senator Scarr is placing his pricepoint, but that's wrong, guys. If that's going to happen, disclose it. That's what needs to happen.

We need to have rules in place that require disclosure. I'm not asking people to go outside the rules. The rules are established, and everyone therefore plays within the rules; however, the rules are wrong and we've got to change those rules. So I will be giving people an opportunity to vote for my second amendment, which I didn't talk about yesterday because there was a gag debate after a dirty deal was done by the Labor Party. Actually, it was a dirty and really silly deal: one of the things they got out of the deal yesterday was to get voter ID knocked out of the legislation list at the expense of charities. That's what happened yesterday, if anyone didn't notice. The Labor Party did a deal with the coalition, at great harm to charities, so that voter ID was taken off the legislative table. Actually, if they had simply done the numbers, I had indicated I wasn't supporting it, Senator Lambie had indicated she wasn't supporting it and Senator Griff wasn't interested in supporting it on this side of an election, that's for sure. The government didn't have the numbers, and so the Labor Party sold out charities to get something that was already the case, and that was that the voter ID legislation wasn't going to make it through the parliament.

Unfortunately, we couldn't talk about that last night because it was all gagged. Therefore, I also couldn't talk about my amendment. Just to describe what my amendment does: basically, it says that if you have a dinner—I'm not trying to stop anyone having a dinner—and the proceeds of the evening are a reasonable margin above what the cost of the delivery of the service is then you have to declare the ticket price as a political donation. That's the way it should be.

Let's bring some transparency to this whole regime. A whole bunch of people just lost confidence in this building, both here and the other place, because they feel as though we can be bought. Part of the reason they feel that way is because of all the secret ways in which political parties raise their money, and we have to change that.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be remiss of me in this contribution on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021 not to talk about the general issue of electoral reform. I do commend the government and I commend all parties who want to ensure that our democracy is the best that it can be. I acknowledge Senator Patrick's contribution there and acknowledge his interest in particular areas of transparency relating to how government works and also to how political parties operate.

I want to stand up in defence of political parties. When we talk about political parties, this is the issue: everybody thinks that political parties are powerful, well-oiled and well-funded machines. In fact, I can talk about the Liberal National Party in Queensland. It has a membership of 12,000 or 13,000 people. That's the party—they're voluntary members of the party. Our headquarters in Albion has fewer than 10 full-time staff. We have a receptionist—hello, Michelle!; we have a state director—hello Lincoln!; we have someone who helps Lachlan—hello Declan!; and we have other people who work in compliance—10 staff.

Now I'm not going to bash the unions and pick on the unions, but every single union in Queensland has more staff, individually as a union, than the Liberal National Party. My party is not some well-funded, well-oiled, powerful electoral machine; it's a party of volunteers. It's a party of 13,000 individuals who have joined up. It's a party of tens of thousands of people who are strong supporters but who may not sign on the dotted line of a membership form; but they're happy to help out on polling day or to deliver material and spread the message. And it's hundreds of thousands of people who vote for the Liberal National Party.

I'm sometimes agog at other politicians, who represent parties in this place, when they attack my party. To me it shows their failure to understand what it means to be a member of a political party. It means that I, as someone who has an interest in the future of my local area—I live on the Darling Downs, so I go and will join the Warwick branch of the Liberal-National Party. I go to meetings that are held in the CWA hall in Warwick. Occasionally I might go to the southern electorate council meetings, which is in the state electorate of Southern Downs—with Stanthorpe, Warwick and Goondiwindi. I will go along there with other people with similar interests.

We're in the federal electorate Maranoa. Maranoa is 42 per cent of Queensland. It effectively goes from Cunninghams Gap, which borders the Southern Downs and Scenic Rim—it goes from the border of New South Wales and goes to Kingaroy and then goes straight up to Longreach. It's 42 per cent of Queensland. One electorate in Queensland is larger than many countries in Europe. We've people there from Kingaroy, Warwick and Longreach who are very different. They have different perspectives on life. But they share beliefs and values in relation to what they think is best for their country, so they join a political party. I'm sure it's the same for other political parties.

What annoys me and frustrates me—this is a general comment—is that we want to burden volunteers. We want to burden people with all this compliance. Do you know what the worst job to do in a political party is at a branch level or at state level?

Thank you, Senator Scarr. The worst job in any political party unit—the Liberal-National Party—is to be to be treasurer. Avoid it at all costs! It's a nightmare of a job. I'm not just saying that because I got four per cent in maths and can't add up; it's because—

Thank you, Senator Payne. I'm going to ignore that. I don't want to have take my boots off to count. It annoys me how many burdens are put on treasurers. It's such a terrible job. Suddenly you have people who want to make their local community—Warwick, Southern Downs, Maranoa—a better place to live. They've got to come to terms with all these streams of pages and feet-high piles of documentation. We should be making it easier for people to get involved in politics. We should be making it easier for people to join political parties and get involved, not making it harder. What we are seeing across this country is this distaste for political parties. The immediate thing is that anyone who joins a political party is in it for their own gain, is in it to make themselves richer and better. I look at Senator Scarr, who is here, Senator Davey and Senator Payne; I look at the branch members in my party units; I look at the cars in the car park, and they belong to normal people. They run businesses—some are retired, some people want to become politicians, some people want to run for council. They're not rich people. They're not in it for themselves. They're in it because they want to make society a better place.

I think we should always support people who want to join political parties. Unfortunately, a narrative has developed in this country where if you join a third interest group suddenly you are so holy. You are so pure because you join this third interest group. You join some local, green action group and suddenly you're the first cousin of the Dalai Lama, whereas, if you join the local political party, you're seen as Satan's second child. I think that is wrong. I am proud to stand up for the political parties. I am proud to stand up for branch members across this country who join a political party.

I encourage people to join my party, the Liberal National Party—lnp.org.au, if you're interested. You can download the membership form. It's pretty easy to join. Please come along to a branch meeting, and please come back to a second one after that. Get involved, because there is a real fight on in this country in terms of the battle of ideas.

I know some on the extreme Right and the extreme Left talk about convergence. They don't use the words 'convergence theory', but I will. There is the convergence theory of politics that the Labor Party and the Liberal National Party are coming together. I strongly disagree with that theory of politics. I think at the next election there will be a strong choice between who will be in the Lodge.

I strongly oppose Mr Albanese becoming Prime Minister. I don't want him to get into the Lodge. I don't want him to go to CurtainWorld and decide how he is going to redecorate the interior of the Lodge. I don't judge him on his interior decorating taste, his sartorial fashion or anything like that. What scares me about Mr Albanese is the policies that he will take to the next election, because we heard in the Senate yesterday Senator Rice talk about a power-sharing arrangement between the Labor Party and the Greens. That should scare people who are listening in today. 'A power-sharing arrangement' is code for a coalition government.

So the choice at the next election will be between Scott Morrison leading a coalition of the National Party and the Liberal Party, a coalition that has served this country for so long and so well—and particularly over the last two years it has kept Australians safe—and a coalition of Anthony Albanese and the Greens. That is a real choice. If you do change this government—and we're talking about political parties here—it means that the Labor Party will be in power with the Greens, and this country will change and, in my view, change for the worse.

So it is important that we do defend those Australians who join political parties. It is important that we don't allow people who want to get involved in politics to be ostracised and tainted. It's important that we don't allow the media to say to Dawn Scrymgeour—and Senator Scarr will know her well; she's an honorary life member and the doyen of the Warwick branch of the Liberal National Party—'Because you have spent the last 30 or 40 years of your life supporting the Liberal National Party, you are a bad person.' That is rubbish. I think Dawn Scrymgeour is a good person. I think all people who join political parties, even those who join the parties opposite me here, do so because they want the country to go in a certain direction. They're not doing it because they want to personally gain.

I think we need to redirect the conversation in Australia away from this tainting of party politics. We are not 17th century England, where you had very loose coalitions of people who would come together based on personal interests or on single issues. We do have a choice between cohesive ideologies. On this side it is of smaller government, lower taxes and greater freedom. I will let the Left talk for themselves, but on that side they are for government having an increasing role in people's lives. Essentially, we believe in freedom and the other mob don't. That is how I put it in McGrath-speak.

I do support legislation that will bring about a level playing field between political parties and other interest groups. I also do support legislation that does improve transparency. We need to make sure that we're not thinking about some political party that have their headquarters in a gleaming high-rise in Collins Street, Melbourne.

That's not a political party—thank you, Senator Scarr. Yes, the Liberal-National Party headquarters are in Albion, at the Albion Fiveways; they're above an Indian restaurant.

A government senator: It's a good restaurant!

It's a very good restaurant.

Thank you, Senator Davey. And, yes, we did sell Bjelke-Petersen House, and we got a good return on Bjelke-Petersen House, and then we bought a place—

I'm not going to go into the property history of the Liberal-National Party, Senator Davey; you've put me off! Interjections are always disorderly; that one was particularly disorderly.

The Liberal-National Party has very basic headquarters. But what makes my party—our party, on this side of the chamber—stronger is the membership. It's those people who will pay their $100 or so each year to come along to a branch meeting. What that is—and, yes, it's the ratification of the minutes of the previous meeting; yes, it's a discussion amongst people—is a coming together of people who have a shared belief in the system and a shared value system. What we should be doing, as a parliament, is making it easier for people to stay in a political party or to join a political party, and making it easier for them to want to stay in that political party and continue to participate in politics and in party politics. I will always stand up strongly for party politics, because I think that it is through that stability of party politics—of that great split between those on the left and those on the right—that there is a choice between who governs each state or territory or who governs this country for Australians to make; there is a choice for Queenslanders to make. And that choice is one that I believe is, at the coming federal election, going to be so important for how this country goes forward.

I'm someone who is very strongly supportive of further electoral reform. Yesterday in this chamber I introduced a private member's bill on optional preferential voting and the Robson rotation because I believe that that will make it fairer for voters. It's so they can decide who to vote for and not vote for. I believe the Robson rotation will make it fairer for candidates, so candidates do not benefit from the donkey vote. I hope that this Senate and this parliament will give due consideration to that bill, because that bill will make the coming federal election that much fairer for all Australians. I also hope that voter ID is brought in to this country sooner rather than later.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all those in this chamber who have contributed to this debate. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021 builds upon reforms to the funding and disclosure regime that have been applied over recent years to improve the consistency of the treatment of all political actors. It will extend the application of the existing foreign donations framework to current sitting members of the House of Representatives and senators, from the period at which they formally announce their intention to seek re-election through the full length of their parliamentary term. It will require parliamentarians who receive gifts for a federal purpose directly—that is, for the purpose of incurring electoral expenditure or creating or communicating electoral matter—to lodge an annual return to the AEC relating to gifts received during the financial year, and it will extend the period for which a person is taken to be a candidate by an additional six months for the purpose of the disclosure period for candidate and Senate group returns and for restrictions on receiving foreign donations.

This is to support the continued integrity of Australia's electoral system by ensuring that Australia's world-class electoral funding disclosure regime is consistent and continues to provide an appropriate balance of transparency for Australian voters. Once again, I thank those in this chamber for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.