Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to reintroduce this bill today, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2022, and to continue our efforts to get big money out of politics. If passed, this bill would stop dirty industries with a track record of seeking to influence decision-makers through donations: the fossil fuel, banking and defence sectors, and the pharmaceutical, liquor, tobacco and gambling industries. It would stop them from making political donations to buy outcomes to suit them. This bill would also limit the amount that can be donated by individuals and all other entities to $3,000 per electoral term, minimising the opportunity for anybody's big money to buy outcomes.

There has never been a more important time for donation reform. Our democracy is in trouble. Public trust in parliament and politicians is at an all-time low, and the community feel less and less confident that their representatives represent them, as opposed to the corporate donors. It's no wonder. In the past decade, $230 million have flowed in corporate donations to the Labor, Liberal and National parties from the likes of the big banks; from industries like mining, defence and big pharma; from property developers; and from alcohol, tobacco and gambling companies. These are just some of the industries that have paid the Liberal, National and Labor parties to put their private profits ahead of the needs of our community. These industries are not donating millions of dollars because they believe in the institution of strong democracy. They are donating because it gets results for them.

The Greens have maintained the Democracy for Sale website for over a decade, tracking publicly disclosed political donations and putting the spotlight on influence peddling. In 2018 the Senate Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations laid out examples of the nexus between donations made by industry bodies and public policy outcomes or project approvals. The cosy relationships and the proximity of donations and policy outcomes that boost industry profits suggest undue influence. The community continues to pay the price through climate inaction, propping up destructive gambling practices and governments that refuse to make corporations pay their fair share of tax so that everyday people can get the education, health care, dental care, and income support that they need. Until we break the hold of dirty donations over the big parties—over all parties—big corporations will keep winning and the community will keep losing.

Recognising the corrosive influence of donations from the development sector and the influence that they had on planning policy, infrastructure and development, the Queensland and New South Wales governments have legislated to restrict political donations from property developers. The High Court has upheld those regulations, and this bill seeks to extend those to the federal arena, but it also recognises the influence of other key industries.

Since 2012, the fossil fuel and resources industries have donated over $9 million to both of the major political parties. The Australia Institute estimates that, in 2021-22 alone, Australian governments handed out $11.6 billion in subsidies to fossil fuel giants in things like grants, loans, cheap fuel and accelerated depreciation. That was $1.3 billion more than in the previous year, despite there being a COVID crisis that saw so many ordinary Australians struggling to make ends meet—what a great return on investment. Rather than turning off the tap in the most recent budget, the new Labor government gifted $1.9 billion of new money for gas in the Northern Territory, on top of continuing the nearly $40 billion in Morrison government fossil fuel subsidies, including $40 million for fuel tax credits enjoyed by that industry—again, a very good return on investment for fossil fuel donors and a terrible deal for the climate and the rest of us.

Generous donations bought a Liberal government at the time that was completely paralysed by the words 'climate change' at the same time as the Australian community was facing a future of more extreme bushfires, crippling droughts and floods. Donations continue to cloud the judgement of the Albanese government as new coal and gas projects keep getting approvals and public money. The gas industry donates millions of dollars, so it was no surprise when the former Prime Minister appointed his gas industry mates to a National COVID Coordination Commission without even needing to declare their conflicts of interest. It was also no surprise that the commission ultimately called for a gas led recovery that directly benefited the gas industry, despite strong support for a renewables led recovery from scientists, economists and policy analysts. Again, the community lost the opportunity for a sustainable recovery, because governments are beholden to fossil fuel donors.

The cozy relationships and financial support have led to a situation where, despite overwhelming scientific and economic evidence, we will not even reach the weak 43 per cent emissions reductions targets unless we end our attachment to fossil fuels. The Albanese government refuses to rule out any of the 113 coal and gas projects that are currently under consideration. In fact, they continue to hand out public money to support destructive new projects in the Beetaloo basin, Scarborough and more.

We saw the bullying tactics by the Minerals Council kill the Rudd government's mining super profits tax, and now we're seeing the Minerals Council use the same tactics against the Queensland Labor government's current plans to get resources companies to pay more. Those threats only work because the major parties rely on donations. The possibility generous donations will be withdrawn is the leverage the industry uses to keep governments in check.

The banking and financial sector is also a regular contributor and beneficiary. The sector has donated about $76 million since 2012 to both sides of politics. That support secured them immunity for some time, despite the evidence of customers being ripped off around the country. Both of the major parties had to be dragged to the banking royal commission—something the Greens had campaigned for since 2014—following scandal after scandal and public backlash over their inaction. How much faster would the commission have happened if the Liberal, National and Labor parties weren't on the payroll of the banks? Would we have seen stronger action in response to the scathing royal commission report?

The gambling industry is another significant donor to state and federal political parties. Their influence can be seen in the deeply entrenched support for poker machines throughout Australia, including exemptions for clubs from COVID restrictions, even when so many other venues suffered and despite the human suffering and toll that the gambling industry wreaks on ordinary people.

Property developers also continue to throw their donations weight around while fighting against planning restrictions or tax reforms or stronger environmental law. In Queensland, a destructive proposal for a canal estate within the Ramsar listed Toondah wetlands that are the gateway to Minjerribah—as Meanjin folk know Stradbroke Island—should never have gotten past the first hurdle. The federal environment department recommended that the project be rejected as clearly unacceptable. Yet the property developer, Walker Corporation, was a generous political donor and—hey presto!—the minister then allowed the deeply flawed proposal to proceed through the assessment phase. It was not rejected at the outset, as the department had suggested it should be. The minister at the time, who was Mr Frydenberg, even explored the possibility of changing the Ramsar boundaries to accommodate the proposal. We have the documentary evidence of that. I live in hope that the new environment minister will finally reject this destructive proposal, but the local community should never have had to fight so hard and for so long against such a clearly unacceptable development.

These are only the donations that we know about, none of which has been illegal. It doesn't include the money paid to attend business forums or 'cash for access' meetings. It ignores the exorbitant subscription or membership fees, and it doesn't include money funnelled through representative and fundraising bodies. Regardless of the source or the amount, the obvious expectation from industry is that donations will return results. They're buying outcomes. This feeds the public perception that decisions in this place are made improperly, with self-interest and with the interests of donors or mates consistently overriding the public interest.

In banning political donations from those industries that have a history of seeking to influence policy decisions, this bill implements a key recommendation of the Senate Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations. It would make it an offence for a prohibited donor to make a donation or solicit another person to make a donation on their behalf. It would also be an offence to accept a donation from a prohibited donor. Another committee recommendation that this bill seeks to implement is to limit other political donations to $3,000 in an election term, or $1,000 per year. As the High Court recognised in McCloy v New South Wales, the uncontrolled use of wealth to influence decision-making compromises equal participation in democracy. By aggregating and capping political donations made by any person or entity, this bill seeks to level the playing field and avoid those with more money getting greater access to decision-makers.

The bill will limit donations made for political purposes but is not intend to limit donations made to third parties to support their non-campaign activities. The important work done by civil society organisations, many of them charities, must be allowed to continue. We will continue to call for the introduction of electoral expenditure caps to balance the participation of civil society organisations in the political process. This bill complements other reforms to strengthen the disclosure regime that the government has finally committed to acting on, including lowering the disclosure thresholds and requiring real-time disclosure of donations, so people aren't waiting 18 months to find out who's buying who.

The Greens strongly support these measures, but we recognise that transparency alone will not remove the corrupting influence of political donations. The 2022 election results confirm that the Australian public want more transparent and representative governments that act in the public interest. This bill is an important first step towards getting big money out of politics and restoring public confidence in our democracy. If we are committed to enhancing the democratic process—which is, surely, something that every parliament should regularly turn its mind to—this should be a priority. This bill does not stifle debate or prevent individuals from donating a small amount to support a political party; it bans donations from industries that have become associated with having a corrupting influence on how we work as decision-makers. It will return democracy to the community. Democracy should not be for sale to the highest bidder, and it's about time that we banned those big corrupting donations to political parties and capped the amount that anyone can donate to support a political party or grouping of their choice.

I commend this bill to the Senate.