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

I move amendment (1) on sheet 1527:

(1) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 26), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 4 — Disclosure threshold

53 Subsection 287(1) (definition of disclosure threshold )

Omit "$13,800", substitute "$1,000".

54 Subsection 287(1) (note to the definition of disclosure threshold )

Repeal the note.

55 Subsection 287(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of third party )

Omit "the disclosure threshold", substitute "$10,000".

56 Section 321A

Repeal the section.

Just so that everyone understands what this amendment is about—and I did talk about it in my second reading speech—this amendment basically and very simply lowers the disclosure threshold from $13,800 to $1,000. That, I think, is a proper transparency measure. I note that it is Labor Party policy that there should be disclosures above $1,000, and so I'm looking forward to their support when we divide on this.

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

I'd like to take the opportunity in the committee stage to make a few remarks about the way that my party has approached the electoral reforms that have been before this chamber over recent days, before turning to the substance of the amendment proposed by Senator Patrick.

The government, of course, has had an entire term to progress reforms to our electoral system, had it wanted to. But, as is so often the case with this government, it has deferred, delayed, done very little and then introduced a set of bills very late in the piece. At the centre of those bills, as everyone will be aware, was a proposal for voters to have to provide ID at the polling booth. There were other measures proposed in the bills, including reforms to the obligations for those who engage in political campaigning. Labor was quite clear about both of those measures in particular. We did not support voter ID, because of the impacts it would have on marginalised people. Our view is that Australian democracy is for everyone. It's important that everyone has an opportunity to participate. It is especially important that people on the margins of society have no impairments to their participation, and it was on that basis we did not support the voter ID reforms proposed by the government. We made that very clear—publicly—and I'll come back to that. We also didn't support the approach taken to disclosures for political campaigners for a range of reasons, which we set out at the time.

I make the obvious observation that, regrettably, I am giving this speech from this side of the chamber. It would be my preference to give it from the other side of the chamber. Indeed, at the next election, I hope that the Australian public looks at this lazy, tired government, which is presently occupying the other side, and decides to kick it out. If we want real electoral reform and if we want to protect our democracy, through establishing a national anticorruption commission, through improving disclosure arrangements for donations and through a raft of other measures to make sure that as many Australians as possible are enrolled and participating in our democratic system, then I'm afraid we'll have to wait for a Labor government, because there's no energy or enthusiasm for that on that side of the chamber.

But here we are. We're not yet at an election; we're here in this chamber, and the fact that I am giving this speech from this side of the chamber has other implications. When legislation comes here, we don't automatically have a majority in this place to stop it. It hasn't been at all clear what the position of many members of the crossbench has been on the matters that I've just referred to. I'm not going to name individual crossbench members. How they behave here is up to them. But Labor will always do our best to get the best outcome for our democracy in this chamber of scrutiny and review. We are pleased that, after conversations with us and no doubt with others, the government withdrew its voter ID bill. We are also pleased that the government agreed to change the threshold for disclosure for political campaigners and made other changes to that legislation. We don't like that legislation, but that is a better outcome than what was proposed by the government—legislation which we had consistently said we opposed. As I say, it really wasn't clear what the crossbench were going to do on that question.

I run through that because I do object to the characterisation placed on Labor's decision-making by a number of contributors to this debate. There is in fact no shame at all in negotiating towards an outcome that enfranchises marginalised people. There's no shame in negotiating and advocating against a bill that would absolutely have excluded many First Nations people from participation. And there's no shame in negotiating amendments to a bill that imposes obligations on charities and not-for-profits to improve it. That's because, as far as we could tell, based on the stated positions of people on the crossbench, those things were going to come through the chamber unamended. It's on that basis that Labor seeks to improve legislation here. It's all very well to throw barbs later, after the fact, but if people had really wanted to oppose and block these things then they might have made their intentions clearer a little sooner.

I turn now to the amendment proposed by Senator Patrick. As Senator Patrick pointed out, we have always had a policy that supports increased transparency of donations and lowering the disclosure threshold. It was in fact the Hawke Labor government that first introduced our donations disclosure regime. It's a great example: a Labor government and improved transparency in democratic arrangements. And here's the contrast: the Liberals, under John Howard, jacked that up. They jacked up the level of disclosure and linked it to inflation. You can give tens of thousands of dollars to a political party and don't have to disclose it under this crowd. That's not our position. We have two bills currently before this Senate to lower the disclosure threshold to $1,000 and to introduce real-time disclosure of donations. That would improve things; that would make a difference. We fully support the principle of amending the disclosure threshold.

However, we won't be supporting the amendments of Senator Patrick and Senator Lambie today. We believe, despite the election-eve changes to the electoral act introduced by the government, that genuine electoral reform should be done in a consultative manner. It should be done by reviewing the operation of the Commonwealth Electoral Act more broadly, rather than through these kinds of last-minute amendments. It's on that basis that we won't be providing support today.

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

I'm very disappointed, but not surprised. To summarise what Senator McAllister said: 'We support Senator Patrick's amendment in principle. We have our own bills in this place that, of course, sit as private members' bills.' They won't necessarily get through this place and, certainly, if they get through this place they won't get through the other place.

We have a piece of legislation here that the government wants to pass and to which we can attach this relatively simple amendment, which lowers the disclosure threshold to $1,000. There's a provision in this amendment to make sure that it doesn't burden people. If someone makes a $5,000 donation they don't have to disclose it themselves, but the political party does. It's been carefully crafted so that only if you're a person who makes a donation above $10,000 do you also have to contact the AEC. Political parties have to disclose anything above $1,000.

I just find it really difficult. The proposition here is that we could change the disclosure threshold to $1,000. It's Labor policy and they have bills in place, but they don't want to do anything because they're not in government. This shows why they don't deserve to be in government. They have to stand up for what they believe in; they have to cast their vote in such a way that moves things in a better direction. The perfect is the enemy of the good! This is a good amendment—they've said so themselves—yet they're going to vote against it! That just tells me that they're disingenuous. They don't actually believe in it.

Everyone who is looking at the Labor Party now and trying to work out whether they would vote for them ought to understand that they don't have the courage in opposition to give effect to their own policies. Of course, when they get into government, what confidence do we have that they'll then implement those themselves? What confidence do we have that the Labor Party, who are shying away from supporting their own policy when the opportunity arises, would in fact implement those policies in government?

In order to be in government you have to demonstrate, first, that you're a strong opposition. And they are not: they are a weak opposition. They could simply vote for this and make a change—it's not perfect, but it's a change that brings about good and is their own policy. Duplicity is what we have here, and weak, weak leadership.

Mr Albanese ought to be picking up the phone to Senator Wong and saying, 'You have to vote for this, because this is good policy; this is the direction we want to take the country in.' But no: they're going to sit here and say, 'It's all going to be much better when we're in government.' Do you know what? I saw this happen just prior to the last election in relation to ISDS. Against its own policy, the Labor Party waved through some ISDS provisions on a piece of legislation related to free trade agreements, saying, 'We're going to undo this when we get into government.' Guess what? You didn't get into government, and there's no guarantee that you will this time. But, if you vote for my amendment, you will bring about change that you know is good change.

But you have no courage. You have no conviction. People are seeing how hollow and how shallow the Labor Party is in opposition, which gives rise to the question of why they would vote for you in an election, when you exhibit those characteristics. There's no excuse for your not voting for this, Labor; there is no excuse at all for not voting for this. This will end up being a micky—and for those listening who don't know what that is, it's when we know that the Labor Party and the Liberal Party are voting together, so not everyone from their side needs to turn up and vote. We saw that yesterday when this vote was put. I think there were about two or three Labor Party people in the chamber. I think most of them are—rightfully—ashamed at the position taken, whereby the Labor Party doesn't even back its own policies. So, let's get on with this. Let's put this amendment to a vote and let's see how the Labor Party behave.

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

The Greens will be voting for these amendments from Senator Patrick and Senator Lambie to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021 to lower the donations disclosure threshold, because we don't think big money should be secretly running this place. I share the concern that's just been expressed about the so-called opposition not actually voting for what is in fact their policy. Now, I can't stand this government. I think their agenda is woeful; I think it hurts communities and it hurts the planet. I want a change of government. But it is very difficult when the opposition refuses to oppose and refuses to take a stand on what they say is their policy. I want you to be better. I think the whole country wants you to be better. I want to see you in government, but I want you to stand for something.

This small-target strategy just means you actually don't stand for anything, and that's not what the country needs. We've got an awful government here that's used successive bills to try to silence charities, to try to suppress candidates from running, to try to suppress voters—which, thankfully, they've now dumped, because they weren't going to get it through, because the crossbench stood firm on that. We now see a very mild amendment that just says 'disclose' all this money that's getting tipped into your coffers by big corporates; that's all it does. It doesn't even say, 'Don't take the dirty money'; it just says 'disclose' when you get it. Of course, the Greens would want it to go further, and our bill says you shouldn't be able to donate massive wads of cash to political parties, because it corrupts the system. But I'm extremely disappointed to hear that the opposition will not be voting for what is actually their own policy.

That's exactly why you need the Greens and, frankly, the crossbench in here. It looks like we'll be in a minority government after the next election, and I hope that's the case, because I want this government gone; they've been absolutely awful. But you will need the Greens and strong crossbenchers to make sure the Labor Party actually stands for something and delivers on something. They're choosing today to not even deliver on their own policy. A small-target strategy means you stand for nothing.

Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment on sheet 1527, moved by Senator Patrick, be agreed to.

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

by leave—I, and also on behalf of Senator Lambie, move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1528 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 24, page 6 (line 10), omit the item, substitute:

24 Section 302V

Before "Returns provided under this Division", insert "Gifts totalling more than the disclosure threshold that are made by a single person to the same member of the House of Representatives or the same Senator during a financial year for federal purposes must also be disclosed in a return provided to the Electoral Commission.".

(2) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 26), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 5 — Proceeds of events

57 Subsection 287(1) (definition of regulated entity )

Omit "section 314B", substitute "sections 314AED and 314B".

58 Subsection 287(1)

Insert:

cost of an eventmeans the sum of amounts incurred for or in connection with the event by the person or entity who held the event.

proceeds of an event means the sum of amounts:

(a) received by the person or entity who held the event; and

(b) derived directly or indirectly from the event.

shared event cost: see section 287ABA.

59 After section 287AB

Insert:

287ABA Meaning of shared event cost

(1) The shared event cost of an event is the cost of the event, divided by the number of persons who attended the event.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the number of persons who attended an event does not include a person who was present at the event only for the purpose of providing services, including but not limited to catering, entertainment or security services.

Example: The cost of an event was $10,000. 110 persons were present at the event. 10 persons were present only for the purpose of providing catering, entertainment and security services. 100 persons attended the event. The shared event cost is $100.

60 Section 302V

After:

Gifts totalling more than the disclosure threshold that are made by a single person to the same registered political party, State branch or significant third party during a financial year must also be disclosed in a return provided to the Electoral Commission.

insert:

If a gift of more than the disclosure threshold is made with the proceeds of an event meeting certain criteria, the return provided by the person who made the gift must include the details of persons who contributed (or on whose behalf a contribution was made) to such proceeds.

61 After subsection 305A(4)

Insert:

(4A) For the purposes of this section, if:

(a) a gift was made that was wholly or partly derived from the proceeds of an event; and

(b) the proceeds of the event were equal to or more than 115% of the cost of the event;

the required details of the gift are also:

(c) the name and address of each person who made a contribution to the proceeds of the event of equal to or more than 115% of the shared event cost; and

(d) the name and address of each person on whose behalf a contribution to the proceeds of the event was made of equal to or more than 115% of the shared event cost.

62 After subsection 305B(3)

Insert:

(3AA) If:

(a) a gift was made that was wholly or partly derived from the proceeds of an event; and

(b) the proceeds of the event were equal to or more than 115% of the cost of the event;

the return must also set out:

(c) the name and address of each person who made a contribution to the proceeds of the event of equal to or more than 115% of the shared event cost; and

(d) the name and address of each person on whose behalf a contribution to the proceeds of the event was made of equal to or more than 115% of the shared event cost.

63 S ection 314AAA

Before:

Returns provided under this Division are published by the Electoral Commissioner, on the Transparency Register, under section 320.

insert:

Regulated entities (including registered political parties and their State branches, candidates, members of groups, significant third parties, third parties and associated entities) provide returns each financial year to the Electoral Commissioner setting out details of certain events held by the regulated entity, including the proceeds of the event and the names and addresses of those who contributed (or on whose behalf a contribution was made) to such proceeds.

64 Before section 314AF

Insert:

314AEE Annual returns relating to proceeds of events

(1) This section applies if:

(a) a regulated entity holds an event during a financial year; and

(b) the proceeds of the event are equal to or more than 115% of the cost of the event; and

(c) the proceeds of the event exceed the cost of the event by an amount equal to or more than the disclosure threshold.

(2) A return for the financial year must be provided in accordance with this section by:

(a) if the regulated entity is a political entity, significant third party or associated entity—the agent or financial controller of the political entity, significant third party or associated entity; or

(b) if the regulated entity is a third party—the third party.

Civil penalty:

The higher of the following:

(a) 120 penalty units;

(b) if an amount is not disclosed under paragraph (4)(b) and there is sufficient evidence for the court to determine the amount, or an estimate of the amount, not disclosed under that paragraph—3 times that amount.

(3) The return must be provided to the Electoral Commissioner within 16 weeks after the end of the financial year.

(4) The return must specify:

(a) the date of the event; and

(b) the proceeds of the event; and

(c) the cost of the event; and

(d) the name and address of each person who made a contribution to the proceeds of the event of equal to or more than 115% of the shared event cost; and

(e) the name and address of each person on whose behalf a contribution to the proceeds of the event was made of equal to or more than 115% of the shared event cost.

(5) The return must be in the approved form.

(6) Subsection 93(2) of the Regulatory Powers Act does not apply in relation to a contravention of subsection (2) of this section.

What this amendment seeks to do is make it transparent that, when people turn up to a dinner and they pay a large fee—a fee that well exceeds the cost of the dinner—then that must be disclosed as a donation, and the threshold is 115 per cent. If 100 people turn up to a dinner and the amount of money raised is $10,000, then the shared cost of that dinner would be $100 each, just by dividing it up. If, in fact, you made $20,000, then the people who participated and paid more than the proper cost for the dinner would have to be registered as donors to the party. No more $10,000 dinners with the Prime Minister, without at least that being disclosed.

Australians have a right to know if someone turns up to a dinner and they are paying to sit at a table with the Prime Minister. They might have 10 or 20 people there, all paying $10,000. No-one can realistically suggest that those people are receiving a meal that's worth that amount of money. They're actually buying access, and that ought to be disclosed.

It may be the case that this is disclosed through the political system. Of course, it wouldn't hit the current threshold of $14,300, but this amendment would make sure that, indeed, it is disclosed. I'm not suggesting parties may be doing something untoward in terms of at least registering these as donations, but the public have a right to know who is paying for access to prime ministers, ministers, influential senators and MPs. I hope that the chamber will support this.

Again, the Labor Party say that they're interested in electoral reform. I note that in the last division, which was about voting for Labor's policy, only three Labor senators turned up to vote, because they're ashamed of the conduct of the leaders of their party in this chamber in not supporting their own policy, of them saying, 'Let's sort that out when we're in government.' So let's just see whether or not there's a change in relation to this. Let's see how many Labor senators stand up for transparency in this next vote.

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

The Greens will be supporting this last amendment. Anything that increases the transparency of the influence that money has on this building and the decisions that emanate from it is a good thing. We would like to see donations capped at $1,000 for everybody. We do not think that big money should play a role in our democracy. This doesn't do that, but it is a small step in the right direction, so the Greens will be supporting it.

Progress reported.