Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on report No. 11, Funding and disclosure: inquiry into disclosure of donations to political parties and candidates, by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. We have seen the government’s amendments in the form of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2006, passed in June. That saw, amongst other things, a lifting of the disclosure threshold for political donations from $1,500 to $10,000—taking a massive leap, which will be indexed to CPI. The disclosure threshold has already risen from the $10,000 level to $10,150.

We know that one of the arguments put forward by the government to support this massive increase was that the original figure of $1,500 had been devalued by inflation. That argument fell flat because, when you use that argument and apply the rate of inflation and calculate the new threshold, it does not come anywhere near $10,000; it comes to around $3½ thousand. This argument that ties the disclosure level to inflation completely misses the point as to why the disclosure level was fixed at the relatively low figure of $1,500. It was because: ‘disclosure of political donations does a lot for our democracy. It demonstrates the transparency and the independence of the system that we use to produce our elected governments. We all have the right to know who is donating to whom and how much they are giving. In fact, beginning disclosure at a relatively low level is a real and effective counter to perceptions of influences being bought or traded for political donations. In short, it is in all of our best interests to have it.’

Many on this side of the chamber, including me, highlighted the real reasons for the government’s changes as being the government wishing to hide the dollars and deny the vote. We know that this was the basis for these changes; we know that this was for the base political advantage of the Liberal Party and that it was an exercise in boosting Liberal Party coffers. It was all in secret: funds delivered to the Liberal Party without the knowledge of the public. We know these changes will erode the transparency of the electoral system and that, using this system, up to 80 per cent of the receipts disclosed by the major parties in 2004-05 would have disappeared from the public view, and an additional $17 million would have been secretly received by major parties.

While it might be easier to raise funds under the cover of darkness, it is in the interests of neither the Australian people nor our democracy that donations to political parties are hidden from the public eye. The Labor Party has said all along that these changes were part of a plan for the Liberal Party’s mates to be able to donate in secret. But do not just take my word for it; let us have a look at what the Liberal Party themselves are saying.

I draw the Senate’s attention to a newspaper article in the Age which was headed ‘Liberals woo new corporate donors: Firms advised of laws that limit scrutiny’. The article exposes a letter from the then Honorary Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party, a Mr John Calvert-Jones, to corporations, urging them to take advantage of the new laws—laws designed to allow companies to make donations without the need to declare the donations and to allow more political donations to be made anonymously. Mr Calvert-Jones, as detailed in the Age article, urges companies to dig deep. The article goes on to say:

The letter advises would-be donors of the recent changes to electoral laws which allow more donations to be made secretly.

Of course, this was not the first time the federal Liberal Party and Mr Calvert-Jones had exposed the real intent behind the changes, letting the cat out of the bag. I suppose I should say ‘brown paper bag’, but I will not. No, the Liberals were extolling the virtues of the changes well ahead of the changes even being passed into law. It was reported back in February that the federal Liberal Party sent out 1,000 pamphlets to leading company directors. The Sydney Morning Herald reported:

The party had made clear to the directors that the Government will loosen electoral rules that required disclosure of donations above $1 500 for corporations and $100 for individuals, and increase tax deductions.

Well, you might be wondering how Mr Calvert-Jones went with his fundraising drive to boost Liberal Party coffers. But I cannot tell you, and unfortunately the Liberal Party have made sure that you and I and the Australian public will never know; but that was the whole point of these changes. While I cannot tell you how well he went, I was very interested to note in a newspaper article—albeit only a very small one—that a Mr John Calvert-Jones was given a lovely appointment for three years to the Council of the National Gallery of Australia by the federal Minister for the Arts and Sport, Senator Rod Kemp, only weeks after stepping down as the Liberal Party federal treasurer. I can only assume he did very well—very well indeed. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.