Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also thank all members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for their participation in this inquiry. I thank the secretariat for their work and their assistance, particularly to opposition members, throughout the course of the inquiry. I also thank members of the public who came along to the hearings and made submissions. The reform of our electoral system, particularly as it relates to political donations, cannot be done in isolation. This specific measure smacks of a piecemeal approach. This point was made on many occasions as the bill passed through this chamber, and it was consistently raised by those who came before the committee. We on this side of the House—and I am encouraged by some but I hope to be encouraged by more on the other side—have a deep commitment to reform of this area. There is a crisis of confidence when it comes to political donations in this country. That crisis of confidence began and went into space—literally—with the illegal events at the Wollongong council involving ALP donors. That is what created this crisis of confidence. The community expects this issue to be addressed.

Senator Ronaldson in the Senate suggested—and the reference was made to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—that we take a wide-ranging look at this issue. I commend the chair on allowing that reference to combine with the reference from the Special Minister of State and be taken on by the committee to look at these issues in detail. As was made clear in the course of the inquiry, when you look at issues like this bill you have to consider their broader impact on the system as a whole. On this occasion we have not had the opportunity to do that. We have not had the opportunity in changing this area to understand what other changes need to be made and how these things can be balanced off to provide a better system that the community can have greater confidence in. This view was supported in the hearings. I refer members of the House to the report, which quotes Associate Professor Graeme Orr from the Democratic Audit of Australia. He said:

... it is very premature to do away with a form of encouraging small-scale donating at the same time as seriously considering, in a few months time, the banning of large corporate and organisational donations. That is going to lead to serious questions as to where parties get the money from and deductibility, or matching funds, is something that needs to be kept in the mix.

This discussion of the mix came up quite frequently, and it is the mix we need to look at. We cannot pursue this issue in a piecemeal fashion. We need to consider the total package of reforms. The reforms that so far have been foreshadowed in the Senate are also concerning because they largely deal with small-beer issues. Increasing the regularity of disclosures and so on may be another way of watching donations. It would seem we in this place like to watch lots of things. But watching cannot be the answer. We are talking about some serious illegal activity that has created a crisis of confidence, and we need a package of measures that ensures the restoration of public confidence.

Not only was this bill put forward in a piecemeal approach; the case for that failed to be made in the course of the committee’s inquiries. First of all, Treasury officials who appeared before the committee were unable to substantiate in any meaningful way the $10 million of savings. The assumptions that they made, while possibly logical in their construction, relied on base information that just did not exist. So the revenue savings of this measure were simply pulled out of the air. Fiscal necessity was the reason the bill was rammed through this House and referred off to the Senate and ultimately to committee. That has not been justified. We simply do not know how much this measure is going to raise. As a number of submissions made very clear, the total revenue that has been assumed to come from this measure will never eventuate. Secondly, the argument has been made about equity, but the equity arguments that have been made about cash deductions are the same equity arguments that are made against any tax deduction. If you were to put forward the argument for equity of tax deductions then you would also be denying work related expense deductions, which are widely available in the tax act and are preserved by this bill. (Time expired)

See this speech in context