Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Mr Acting Deputy President Brandis, as you are also a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, you would be only too well aware of the concerns that I have expressed about the government’s proposals, and I would like to take this opportunity to highlight to the broader chamber the nature of those concerns.

The opposition is particularly worried about these proposals—coming, as they do, as part of the legislation that is listed for debate on Thursday. It will cover not just these funding questions but also matters relating to changes to enrolment practices and the operations of what we on this side of the chamber call ‘the Australian ballot’. I am particularly worried that this government is attempting to fundamentally undermine the premises of Australian democracy as we have experienced it for many years in this country. I am disturbed that the government is seeking to fundamentally challenge the principles of the Australian ballot. We have been able to argue internationally that it is a benchmark for the proper operations of electoral law.

I am particularly concerned that the measures in this report relate specifically to money. This is a device by which this government will allow into the Australian electoral system the intrusion of the sort of dirty, big money politics that we see in the United States. We are seeing the Americanisation of the Australian ballot by these devices, which will allow a cloak of secrecy under which people can hide the manner in which they donate to Australian political parties. The six areas of greatest concern are the proposed changes to the thresholds for disclosure; the questions of tax deductibility; the nature of the disclosure regime; the capacity to allow big money to come in from overseas and be hidden; the audit arrangements; and, of course, the ancillary consequence of that: the capacity of the Electoral Commission to effectively monitor the situation.

I am worried that these proposals will mean a major change in the way in which electoral laws in this country are administered. These principles go to the fundamental notion that you do not have to be a millionaire to be elected to this chamber. If you look at the distribution of personal wealth in the United States Senate and compare it to this chamber, you will see a stark contrast. I think that is very much a measure of the difference between the approach taken in the American electoral system and that of our electoral system. In this country there are real opportunities for people without substantial private means to be elected: they are able to participate in elections and become members of this chamber. I am very worried that, when these laws are introduced, you will see a major change in the political culture of this country that will directly aid the conservatives in this parliament.

You are going to see the proposed changes to funding and disclosure strenuously opposed by the Labor Party. We are particularly concerned that the proposals here will mean that individuals will be able to make donations of up to $10,000 in secret. You can see that, through these arrangements, if individuals are clever about the way in which they present their money, they will in effect be able to make donations of up to $80,000 by spreading their contributions across the Commonwealth. It will reach the point where an $80,000 donation can be hidden from public disclosure. There will be occasions in this arrangement whereby the tax deductibility will be changed—so, instead of $100, you will be able to go to $1,500.

This is a recipe to allow millionaires to dominate the political system in this country, and the Labor Party will strenuously oppose these arrangements. There are arrangements whereby fundraising bodies and trusts, such as the Millennium Forum, are able to hide substantial contributions. Those activities will now be enhanced under these arrangements. We will see situations where anonymous donations can basically be laundered through the political system in such a way as to provide direct assistance without public scrutiny. The Liberal Party has for generations maintained the view that donations to political parties are essentially a private matter. I say that nothing could be further from the truth. The question of who actually pays the bills is a fundamental political issue and there ought to be proper disclosure about these questions.

There could be no clearer situation than the one we see with overseas donations. These proposals will allow for there to be a much higher level of overseas contributions to Australian electoral systems under the covers—under the counter. Foreign donations should be subject to quite stringent disclosure regimes. In fact, I think there is a substantial argument for the banning of foreign donations to the Australian political system. Think about some of the examples of recent times. There is Lord Michael Ashcroft, from the United Kingdom, who donated $1 million to the Liberal Party and filed a return with the AEC for 2004-05. The AEC could make no proper investigation of the authenticity of the information provided in that return, because Lord Ashcroft listed a foreign address on it. The AEC has repeatedly made the point that there has to be a tightening up of the laws in these matters so that we can make sure we know exactly where the money is coming from, and so that individuals or corporations do not hide behind identity-of-donor arrangements which, of course, keep from the Australian public basic information as to the amount of money they have been given.

So I say there is a serious issue here about the capacity to tighten up these laws. But what are we seeing? A proposal contained in this report which goes to allowing much higher levels of donations and to allow that to be done in secret. If you think about it, if you are going to have arrangements such as this, there is naturally a need to have a very stringent audit arrangement. What do these proposals do? They weaken the capacity to ensure that donations in excess of $25,000 are open to compliance orders by the AEC. We have a whole series of measures now being taken which fundamentally act to subvert the Australian ballot and the capacity for public disclosure, and which are clearly aimed at providing a cloak of secrecy for big money to be able to influence the political developments in this country.

The AEC does need appropriate powers and appropriate resources to ensure that there is effective regulation of political donations and that disclosures of those donations are made in a manner which is clearly authoritative and adequately resourced so that there are proper audit arrangements in place. I am very concerned about, and this report highlights, the dangers that are made prevalent by these proposals. What we are seeing is the Liberal Party, with control of this chamber, being able to pursue their long-held quest to undermine the Australian ballot and to provide an opportunity for their mates with the big money to be able to influence the outcome of elections. I am very concerned that now they have the capacity to impose those views on the Australian electoral system.

The recommendations endorsed by the majority report failed to address the majority’s fundamental responsibility to ensure that Australian ballots are kept clean and that we do not have dirty money dominating our political system. Instead, we have impediments being placed to ensuring that those objectives are met. I am very worried that these arrangements will in fact be carried by this chamber. I want to assure the Senate that we will be fighting these proposals vigorously and will make sure that the public understands precisely what the Liberal Party’s and National Party’s plans are in terms of the corrosion of democratic values in this country.