Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I am happy to acknowledge the interjection from the senator. What we saw, and why eventually Labor brought in the change to the law, is that it became so onerous, so smelly in terms of how developers were interacting with the Labor government, that Labor, at the death knell of their time in government, brought in this legislation. We now know that people who were connected with the Liberal Party then came up with ways to accept the money.

When Senator Sinodinos was questioned by ICAC, when he gave evidence, his replies regularly were, 'I cannot recollect one way or the other'. Another response from him was, 'It was not a process I involved myself in.' He certainly had many phrases that would trip off his tongue to say that he was unaware of these things going on. Again, when you read the evidence, when you read the reports, you are left with the impression that when it comes to Senator Sinodinos we have not heard the full story. There are now more and more voices coming out talking about the need for political donation reform. And, while I have expressed concern at the failure of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister to take this up during the election period, people associated with their parties have taken it up. I pay tribute to former senator Mr Faulkner, because it is something that I know he really did try to advance. And I was very interested that just recently former Treasurer Mr Wayne Swan spoke about the possible adverse influence of overseas donations. So the voices are starting to build up, and the momentum is there for change. This is where we need leadership from both sides, for the opposition and government to actually act.

What is also very relevant when considering the momentum that is occurring around the need for reforms regarding political donations is a High Court case last year that was precisely about developer donations. Again, I have spoken about this before, and I will continue to use this case in this debate, because it is very significant in that the court analysed the very nature of corruption, the nature of political donations and the impact they are having. The case makes the point that corruption in Australia has largely moved beyond quid pro quo corruption to what the High Court describes as a more subtle kind of corruption known as 'clientelism'. This kind of patron-client corruption comes about when a politician or a political party becomes so dependent on the financial support of a wealthy patron that they—and these are the words of the High Court—'compromise the expectation, fundamental to representative democracy, that public power will be exercised in the public interest'. The essence of the problem we have here—