Senate debates

Monday, 19 June 2006

Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2006

In Committee

9:36 pm

Photo of Bob BrownBob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I would refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title but, when it comes to the term ‘corruption clause’, I would not withdraw it, because I believe this clause will engender corruption. It is a dastardly piece of legislation to bring into this parliament. We have a Prime Minister who has inveigled business to be philanthropists. The effect of this will be an enormous, covert, hidden, secret, unaccountable, opaque—not transparent—passage of money from his big business mates, in particular, to his political party in the future without public accountability. It is a very serious matter.

I agree with Senator Carr that, in the main, we have had a credible electoral system. But this legislation plunges our electoral system into the depths of all sorts of potential sleaze—as Senator Faulkner would put it. These are terrible words to be using, but this is terrible legislation. We know about the large amounts of money that already flow under our current system from big corporations, in particular, and wealthy individuals to the political parties. We should be removing that, because it is done to gain favour. It is illogical—in fact, it is of questionable legality—for a corporation to be passing money across to any political party unless they can show that there is going to be a gain for their shareholders. Certainly under corporate ethics, in which boards are charged with getting a maximum return and to always act in the interests of the shareholders, it would be quite wrong to be giving political parties money unless there were a gain to be seen to be coming out of that. Of course, you would be daft to think otherwise.

Comments

No comments