Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a statement about the forthcoming election and the attempts by some to try and heavily influence, if not buy, their way into some sort of power arrangement here in Canberra. There has been a long tradition in Australia, like in many other countries, of wealthy people seeking to influence elections for their own benefit or for vested interests. This was a key theme in the establishment of the United States and their constitution, and it has been a feature and a problem in our society. When I think about the predecessor party of the Liberal Party, the United Australia Party, which I think, bizarrely, has re-emerged in some form in recent times, the people who were associated with that particular party made the point at the time that the UAP was deeply flawed because the people that were writing its policies were its key donors. Of course, the constitutional obligation of all the members and senators in this place is to perform their duties in respect of their constituents, not in respect of their donors or their key supporters.

Sadly, the emerging so-called 'Voices of' groups—and one of the key groups, the Climate 200 fund, is proposing to spend $20 million to try and buy a few seats in this place—have started to channel this UAP from yesteryear. The reason I say that is that they are proposing to fund candidates and they are proposing to engage in this election without providing, in many cases, the true disclosure of who their donors are; and, given their very threadbare policy agenda, we will have to assume that, beyond the very legitimate issue of climate change, it is pretty much a blank canvas to be populated by their donors after the election if they are successful.

Climate 200 and their associates are focusing only on a few people, predominantly classical Liberals in inner-city areas. They are proposing to tell people in these areas that there are only one or two issues that face the federal government and the nation. One of those, of course, is climate change, which is a very legitimate and important issue and something that we should do more on and we are doing more on. But the point is whether the 'Voices of' groups will be like the Labor Party, in that the Labor Party is principally funded by the unions and by the super funds and, as a result of that funding, they get to write the policies of the Labor Party. The Labor Party's policies on industrial relations and superannuation are not written by people in this place; they're written by the vested interests down at Trades Hall or down at the super funds billionaires' building down in Melbourne. That is a reality, and you only need to look at the evidence of their advocacy on super in the last few years to see that the Labor Party would rather deny workers of Australia a pay increase in order to give them a higher super contribution, which is rather remarkable. That is where I think we are heading with this Climate 200; we're going to find that these invisible people are going to be pulling the strings.

If you want to come into public life, you've got to be prepared to take a few hits. That's how it goes. We are all prepared to take the hits when we stand up in this place. There are people, like Mr Holmes a Court, who want to fund candidates and want to get involved in all sorts of murky court cases, and that's not how the system can work. These people—Mr Holmes a Court, Mr Staindl, Mr Poulton, Mr Yates—have been involved in a disgraceful attempt, which I first addressed in this place back in September 2019, to bring about a citizenship challenge against the Treasurer. It's probably one of the most disgraceful things that's happened in public life in my lifetime—to suggest that a family that had their citizenship cancelled by Nazi Germany should be dragged through the courts, effectively, to prove that their citizenship wasn't cancelled by Nazi Germany. Mr Holmes a Court and Mr Poulton and Mr Staindl and Mr Yates—a number of whom are actually Holocaust deniers—have been involved in this disgraceful performance, which we've recently seen conclude.

Mr Staindl has been asked to cough up 400 grand, and he says he doesn't want to pay it. He said:

I undertook this dual citizenship challenge because I felt betrayed by my representative.

He felt betrayed by his representative whose family escaped from Nazi Germany! He goes on to say that he would like to see the government look upon this—and, I assume, pay for it—just like any other dual citizenship challenge. As if this was just any other dual citizenship challenge! This was about an anti-Semitic case brought forward against a family that escaped Nazi Germany and went on to produce Australia's first Jewish Treasurer. It's an absolute outrage.

This is not just my assessment. The ruling of the full bench of the Federal Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, was unanimous. They made pointed reference to the backdrop of 'catastrophe and anti-Jewish violence and terror' and noted:

The niceties of proof of the production or issue of documents … can be put aside when one recognises the realities of 1949 …

The big risk for all of us is that we forget things like the Holocaust. That is why the work that has been done to ensure that these things aren't forgotten is some of the most important work.

I think it is very regrettable that someone who wants to pull the strings in the next parliament at some level, Mr Holmes a Court, has been involved with this outrage. As was said in the Financial Review back on 20 February 2020: who was sitting in the Court of Disputed Returns when this disgraceful challenge by Mr Staindl was brought against the Treasurer's eligibility to sit in the parliament? It was Mr Simon Holmes a Court, the founder of Climate 200. You've got to ask yourself: why would he be doing that? Why would he be playing games with Holocaust deniers and weirdos? If he's prepared to do that then what sort of weird and disgraceful behaviour might we see in the next parliament? What might we see if people like this are allowed to purchase, or endeavour to purchase, seats in the next parliament with threadbare agendas and wads of cash?

It is part of the game. If you want to be in public life and you want to try and influence the direction of the country, then people will, rightly, look at your record. This person's record is disgraceful. The people who have been involved with this challenge, which is based on anti-Semitism, are not run-of-the-mill average citizens. They have been engaged in holocaust denial; they've been writing books about it. These are disgraceful people, and Mr Holmes a Court wants to associate with them. I hope that fair-minded people consider all these facts and consider the people who are standing behind these murky bodies when they cast their ballot later this year in the election.