Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A letter has been received from Senator Lambie:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted for Senate discussion:

Australians have the right to know who's funding Australia's political parties, even if the parties don't want them to.

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 to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

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

Australians have the right to know who's funding Australia's political parties even if the parties don't want them to. I shouldn't have been surprised last week, which I wasn't; you'd think I would be surprised by this place and the greed, but here we are. We've just found out how much money everyone took from big business and corporations during the elections. We found this out eight months after the election is done and dusted, yet we're talk about transparency. This is great! Too bad for the public if there are nasty surprises. They have to wait until after their elected people get elected.

Australians deserve to know who's funding parties even if the parties don't want them to know—especially if they don't want them to. The major parties don't want you to know who's funding them. That doesn't pass the pub test. What have they got to hide? You deserve to know who is buying political influence in this place. When someone claims to be independent but then accepts thousands of dollars from big business, you have to ask: What strings are attached to that? Who are they really here to represent? We all know these donations aren't usually made from the goodness of their hearts. They always want something in return; you owe them. Candidates have got to be kidding themselves if they say those donations don't come with conditions attached. Let's be honest: no-one wants to upset the person that bankrolls their seat. Australians should know whose purse strings are backing the candidate before they head to the ballot box. The Jacqui Lambie Network released our donation information during the election, and we've got a much smaller team than they do, so why can't they do the same job? I can tell you why: we stick to our guns, and we don't take money from the big boys.

Tasmanians deserve to know that no one is buying our seats. Every donation that comes through the Jacqui Lambie Network comes from small individual donors. It comes from the little old lady on the street who gave me five bucks for a coffee. It comes from volunteers who dream of a better future for Tassie and better representation in parliament than we have now. I'm so grateful for every single person who gave me and has always given me those $5 and $10 small donations because I can tell you, they add up. I'm very grateful. Because of you, we got Tammy elected. We earned it. We didn't buy it. Tammy went out there and spent every weekend, every bit of time she had off, going around Tasmania when she could—she earned it, just like the network is supposed to.

Like everyone else, I'm sick to death of hearing about these fundraisers that buy seats for thousands of dollars in the name of fish-and-chip lunches. Let's be honest. Last year over $137 million was donated by just 10 individuals—10 people! That's 77 per cent of all political donations made in 2022. That's influence. That's ten very big influencers you have now influencing parliament. Honestly, the lengths these parties go to in order to pull the wool over your eyes about their donations is ridiculous. Currently, any donation over $14,500 needs to be disclosed. But don't worry! Have no fear, because every day you can give 14,499 bucks—every day of the year—and that does haven't to be disclosed. There's no backing it up together the next day—you can do that every day of the week if you want. If a business or union is giving lots of $10,000 to a political party, you should know about it.

It doesn't take blind Freddy to see what we need to change in donation rules around here. The major parties continue to drag their feet on it, but I will drag them kicking and screaming to get things changed. Real-time donation disclosure—and there's no excuse not to have it—lower thresholds and aggregate donations are just the tip of the iceberg, but they make a huge difference. I'm sure Australians will be very happy to see this transparency going on.

Some people have asked why there was no information on the Jacqui Lambie Network from the Australian Electoral Commission donation disclosures. I can tell you why: we don't take money from the big boys. Tasmanians deserve to know that no one is buying our seats. We've actually earned them. That's what we do. I've always promised you that, and we do that. That will never change. You will never, ever be able to buy or influence the Jacqui Lambie Network, otherwise my time in here is up.

I'm so grateful to every single person that has given us a $5 or $10 small donation because it has come from the people who really believe in what we do and know that what we're doing is right. Because of you, we got Tammy elected, and that is great. I'm very grateful for that, and we will continue on that line. We will lead by example, and hope that one day before I leave this place political donations are not sitting there to buy influence in this chamber. That is where we're at. That is a lack of trust in the Australian people. You guys are coming in for transparency and trust, and so far there's nothing about political donations—nothing at all. Seriously! Start with that. Then you start with your transparency, and you will get your trust. It's as simple as that.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I get into the full topic at hand, on a slight tangent—Senator McAllister, stop looking at me like that!

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

Someone's listening!

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Someone is listening! It makes a change. I want to talk about the upcoming referendum. I welcome the government's claim that it will support a yes and no pamphlet being sent out to every Australian household. Regardless of your position on the voice, it is very important that any constitutional change is carefully considered. To us on this side of the chamber, that means three particular things in relation to that bill that Labor have proposed. The first is that there should be a yes and no pamphlet, because that goes to people's households. Evidence supplied by the Electoral Commission said that during the election up to 40 per cent of Australians campaign got election information from written material sent out by the Electoral Commission.

The second is that there should be an official 'yes' and 'no' campaign to help with the compliance that comes with receiving donations. Political parties are professional bodies but, contrary to sometimes popular 'misopinion', are not particularly well staffed and don't have hundreds of people working for them. Indeed, in my own LNP in Queensland we have about 10 people working for us, three or four in the compliance section. Sometimes political parties do make mistakes when they are lodging their returns. Those are always unintentional mistakes, and the ECQ and the AEC understand that. That's why it's very important for the upcoming referendum that there is an official 'yes' and 'no' body that can assist with the receipt of donations, to ensure that the donations received comply with the federal laws that cover donations; in particular, to ensure that foreign donations are not received.

The third is that we think there needs to be a change to the government's legislation, which also comes under the subject of donations, so that there is equal public funding for the 'yes' and 'no' cases. It would be disappointing if a government that talked about goodwill and the country coming together sought—as a cynic might suggest—to gerrymander a result by restricting people's access to information that would enable them to carefully consider the changes to the Constitution, a document that essentially is the backbone of Australia. We need to make sure that any changes improve Australia, rather than leading to deleterious changes as such.

The position of the National-Liberal coalition is that we obviously do support the current regime. We do support the view that Australians should see where donations come from and rules should be complied with in a timely manner. We don't see the need to change the current regime. People who donate money over a certain threshold are publicly identified. My experience in Queensland is probably similar to Senator Lambie's. She may not believe this, but my party is funded by good old raffles. At every meeting we go to—and Senator Scarr is the same—if we don't turn up with a raffle prize we get into trouble.

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

And you can't win the raffle.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you can't win the raffle.

An honourable senator: You've got to re-donate it.

You've got to donate it back.

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

Re-draw.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There has to be a re-draw. You've also got to make sure you've got cash on you. That is how branches are actually run. What we should be doing is making it easier for people to get involved in the political process and easier for them to support the political movement of their choice, rather than making it harder.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak on the matter of public importance that's been raised here in the Senate. Before I talk about some of the history of political donations reform, I want to say at the outset that government senators completely reject the assertion that's being made here by Senator Lambie, which is that all political parties have the same history and approach to political donations. Over the many years that we were in opposition we brought a number of reforms to this place to try to make the system of donations a lot more accountable and transparent.

The assertion, too, is that members in this place and the other place engage in some form of corruption. I think Senator McGrath made the point about engagement with the local branches and the members of our respective parties, whether it be through raffles, sausage sizzles or other forms of political donation, and how we raise money in the lead-up to an election campaign—there's no secret about that. I know so many hardworking candidates who unfortunately weren't elected at the last election and who will put their hand up again. They'll put six months of leave on the table to go out and run for the party because they believe in the movement, they believe in the cause and they believe in representing their local community. They'll do so by having raffles. They'll do so by having sausage sizzles. They'll do so by going to local community groups and raising money, and there is nothing wrong with that. But different political parties do have different approaches and histories on this issue of political donation.

I suggest, Senator Lambie, that we should not paint all political parties with the same brush on the issue of political donations.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to order agreed earlier today, the Senate is about to move to the consideration of disallowance motions but will return to this matter at the conclusion of that consideration, and you will be in continuation.