Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to address the first of the subject matters of which Senator Webber took note here this afternoon, particularly with respect to Senator Brown’s lack of disclosure of relevant interests to the Register of Senators’ Interests, dealt with in the document that has just been tabled.

Recently, Senator Brown disclosed that his RJ Brown Forest Account, Wielangta Fighting Fund, had received $17,000 in five anonymous donations. They were in the amounts of $10,000, $5,000, $1,000 and two of $500. When this was exposed, Senator Brown traced the donations and subsequently provided the names—only the names—of four donors. But, in reality, no-one knows who, for instance, ‘Michael Emery’ is—someone who anonymously gave Senator Brown $10,000—or who most of the other donors are. Senator Brown still says that he has not been able to trace who gave him $1,000. To comply with the spirit of the disclosure regime, Senator Brown should give not just the names but also the addresses of all donors to his fund. If he cannot say who anonymously gave him the $1,000, my view is that he should also donate that amount to consolidated revenue. I also draw the Senate’s attention to a privacy consent on the Wielangta Fighting Fund’s website eGive, or donations page, which allows donors to have their name and contact details withheld from the fund. Surely this is contrary to the spirit of the Senate’s disclosure regime.

Another issue concerns Senator Brown’s failure to disclose the purchasers of his ‘personal effects’ at a fundraising auction last February. In an article reproduced on the Bob Brown Wielangta Landmark Trial Website, Senator Brown boasts that, while takings for the auction were anticipated to be between $35,000 and $50,000, a sum much larger was obtained, namely $75,000. He goes on to boast that this was because of a donation element in all the bids. In other words, Senator Brown effectively obtained donations of $25,000 to $40,000 but has failed to disclose the identity of the ‘donors’. The inflated prices paid for the Brown memorabilia included $700 for a constituent’s letter and $1,000 for a circular rock. This rock was reportedly returned to Senator Brown. How can this not amount to a gift of $1,000? Why should the donor not be disclosed? Because fundraising auctions can be a means of laundering donations, the Australian Electoral Commission requires political parties to disclose successful auction bidders and their bids. Surely Senator Brown should do the same to the register.

Another concern is the tardiness of Senator Brown’s disclosures. His disclosure, received by the Register of Senators’ Interests on 26 May 2006, details over $160,000 in donations to the Wielangta Fighting Fund between 1 July 2005 and 30 April 2006. Donations received as early as July 2005 were not disclosed until January 2006. For instance, a $20,000 donation from Tara Hunt, a Canadian living in the United States, on 25 August 2005 was not disclosed until 20 January 2006—that is, nearly five months later. And donations made as early as January 2006 were not disclosed until May 2006. Incredibly, on 31 July 2006, Senator Brown belatedly disclosed a $12,500 loan made to him some 18 months earlier, in January 2005. Senate resolutions require changes of interests to be notified to the register within 35 days of the change occurring. While some latitude has traditionally been shown towards senators who have missed the deadline by even a month or two, I am not aware of a senator being so tardy in disclosing so many items.

In light of the above cases of Senator Brown flouting the spirit of the disclosure regime, I welcome the move by the Committee of Senators’ Interests to examine whether the current definition of gifts is appropriate. I particularly welcome the committee inquiring further into the need for mandatory identification of donors of registrable gifts. In other words, Senator Brown’s inadequate disclosures and stretching of the rules have necessitated the consideration of new, tighter rules.

The senator’s hypocrisy on disclosure issues makes his actions less excusable. Not only has Senator Brown vociferously opposed the government’s electoral reforms—while himself accepting $17,000 in anonymous donations—he has failed to live up to the standards he has himself espoused. In May last year, somewhat presciently, he told the Senate:

... when an error like this is made, the one who makes it—it may be me next; I do not know—ought to come into the Senate and give an explanation. There is a general understanding not only of the common obligation we have to abide by standing orders but also of the frailty of the system insofar as it is easy to overlook something. But overlooking a $6,000 gift to a senator and then studiously overlooking it in the wake of it having been drawn to public attention shows something other than just an oversight. This was not an oversight; this has been a studied breach of the rules for some months now. It concerns me greatly that it appears that it will go through to the keeper.

That is the end of the quote by Senator Bob Brown. I say Senator Brown should live up to these standards. I therefore call on him to abide by the letter as well as the spirit of resolutions on the disclosure of senators’ interests by: firstly, disclosing who gave him $1,000 in cash on 20 December 2005, or donating this amount to consolidated revenue; secondly, disclosing the names of bidders whose successful bids—in excess of $300—raised $75,000 at an auction of his personal effects held on 2 February 2006, noting Senator Brown’s own words that there was a ‘donation element in all the bids’; and, lastly, providing the addresses of both donors to the RJ Brown Forest Account, Wielangta Fighting Fund, and of successful auction bidders.