Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (2) to (6), (8) and (10) to (20) on sheet 5633 revised together, as foreshadowed in the second reading debate:

(2)    Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (lines 9 and 10), omit the item, substitute:

8  Section 12-5 (table item headed “political parties”)

Repeal the item, substitute:

(3)    Schedule 1, item 9, page 7 (line 13), at the end of the heading to section 26-22, add “by companies”.

(4)    Schedule 1, item 9, page 7 (line 14), omit “You”, substitute “Companies”.

(5)    Schedule 1, item 9, page 7 (line 15), omit “You”, substitute “A company”.

(6)    Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (lines 26 to 28), omit the item, substitute:

10  Subsection 30-5(1)

Before “making”, insert “an individual”.

(8)    Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 31 and 32), omit the item, substitute:

12  Subsection 30-5(1) (note 2)

After “gifts”, insert “by individuals”.

(10)  Schedule 1, item 14, page 9 (lines 3 and 4), omit the item, substitute:

14  Subsection 30-15(2) (note 2)

After “gifts”, insert “by individuals”.

(11)  Schedule 1, item 15, page 9 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item, substitute:

15  Subdivision 30-DA (heading)

After “Donations”, insert “by individuals”.

(12)  Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 6), after item 15, insert:

15A  Section 30-241

Omit “you” (twice occurring), substitute “an individual”.

(13)  Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 6), after item 15, insert:

15B  Section 30-242 (heading)

After “Deduction”, insert “by an individual”.

(14)  Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 6), after item 15, insert:

15C  Subsection 30-242(1)

Omit “You”, substitute “An individual”.

(15)  Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 6), after item 15, insert:

15D  Subsection 30-242(2)

Omit “you”, substitute “an individual”.

(16)  Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 6), after item 15, insert:

15E  Subsection 30-242(4)

Omit “You”, substitute “An individual”.

(17)  Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 6), after item 15, insert:

15F  Section 30-243 (heading)

After “deduction”, insert “by an individual”.

(18)  Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 6), after item 15, insert:

15G  Subsections 30-243(1) and (2)

After “deduction” (wherever occurring), insert “by an individual”.

(19)  Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 6), after item 15, insert:

15H  Paragraphs 30-243(2)(a) and (b)

Omit “you” (wherever occurring), substitute “the individual”.

(20)  Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 6), after item 15, insert:

15I  Subsections 30-243(3) and (4)

Omit “You” (wherever occurring), substitute “An individual”.

Just to remind the Senate, what we are doing here is supporting the intent of the legislation that the government has put before the Senate. These amendments are intended to restore the ability of individuals to claim tax deductions for donations up to a certain threshold made to political parties. As foreshadowed, we believe that any form of participation by people in Australia’s democratic process should be encouraged. This is, indeed, a public good. While we certainly support the intention of the government to strip tax deductibility entitlements from corporations and other entities, we believe that people should retain these rights. That is what these amendments are designed to accomplish.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate my support for these amendments and reiterate my position: I supported the second reading of this bill on the basis that I could support these amendments of the Australian Greens. I think it is appropriate that there still be a tax deduction for donations made by individuals—not corporations—up to $1,500 for all the reasons I set out in my second reading contribution but principally because it allows individuals to be part of the political process and because to get rid of the tax deduction all together would, I think, unfairly disadvantage smaller parties and Independents. With respect to the Labor Party, I think that the government’s bill would also give an inherent advantage to the Labor Party, regarding contributions made by the union movement direct to the ALP, in the sense that there would still be tax deductibility for union contributions, which would indirectly find their way to the ALP. I think this approach of the Greens is an appropriate one. I do not think it is appropriate for corporations to obtain a deduction. I think this is an improvement on the status quo.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As honourable senators will be aware, our strong view has been that this bill should never have come before this chamber and that this bill should have been pulled, pending comprehensive campaign finance reform discussions. This amendment bill is of the government’s own making, quite frankly, and the government must wear the outcome of it. It had the opportunity to make this bill part of the campaign finance reform agenda. I indicate that the coalition will be supporting the Greens amendments for a number of reasons.

The minority report on the initial bill in relation to this matter, the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008, quite clearly showed—as quite eloquently referred to by my colleagues Senators Birmingham and Ryan—that Treasury could not actually indicate what the savings were going to be in relation to this matter. It was a hotchpotch from the start. It was never, ever designed as campaign finance reform, as I indicated earlier.

The Labor Party refuse to acknowledge that, under their proposals, were this bill to go through, they would retain quite an extraordinary advantage, to the detriment of all the non-government parties. That, clearly, has been recognised by us and it has been recognised by the Greens. I again refer to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, JSCEM, discussion, when the committee had to decide whether it would indeed deal with this bill. Senator Bob Brown voted with the coalition for the committee not to deal with it. It should be part of comprehensive campaign finance reform discussions. The Labor Party committee chair, with a casting vote, refused to make it so. So the outcome for the Labor Party today, as I said before, is entirely of its own making, and it must wear it.

The reality is that, as has been indicated by a number of speakers today, it is totally inappropriate for the Australian Labor Party to get very, very large donations—in fact, $36 million, as shown by the AEC yesterday—via union subscriptions which are tax deductions in the hand of the person who paid the subscription. Of course, that is then passed on to the Australian Labor Party. This bill seeks to give one treatment to people sending subscriptions to a union—and then back to the Australian Labor Party—but someone who wants to participate in the political process because they are passionate about it, who does not send this money back via a union subscription, is not able to get a tax deduction. That is totally inequitable. It is self-serving and it is only designed to continue an advantage.

The Labor Party stands condemned for that in this day and age, when we are seeing a diminution of community involvement in political parties and voluntary organisations, as I am sure honourable senators both younger and older than me will be aware. Because of the pressure on people’s time, they are no longer involved. This was one way for the average Australian who did want to participate in the political process, at a very low level of donation, in the main, to have the same advantage of tax deductibility as those who were donating via other methods such as subscriptions to unions and other organisations.

Our preference would have been for this bill to have been taken out and made part of campaign finance reform, but we have been swayed by the Greens argument that now is an appropriate time to bring these amendments in. We have thought long and hard about this, given our approach to this bill over many, many months. We have reflected on it, and the fact that it is a chance for all—or maybe all; I am not too sure what others, apart from the Greens and Senator Xenophon, are doing—to protect, one would hope, forever the right of individuals to make a small contribution to a political party or an individual within the system which is tax deductible. It is the same opportunity given to their next-door neighbour who might be putting in a donation by way of a union subscription or another method. So, having given this due consideration, we will be supporting the Greens amendments.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just like to acknowledge the support of the coalition and Senator Xenophon for these amendments and, by way of that acknowledgement, add our voices to the fact that this is indeed very much the beginning of this process, not the end. It would have been better to have had these amendments going through the chamber tonight as part of a more integrated package that had been thought through very carefully, because this is crucial as it governs not only the way that we in here behave but also the process of democracy in this country. These amendments are a sensible measure that will get us a certain way down the track tonight, but we look forward to being part of the debate on the broader issues of campaign finance reform and electoral reform in Australia. I thank other senators for their support for these amendments.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support these amendments. The government’s election commitment to remove tax deductibility for political donations is reflected in the bill as it stands. Amending the bill to allow deductibility for individuals’ donations would significantly diminish the savings in this measure and create an inconsistency between individual and business donations which is not justified. The government does not believe that it is appropriate to allow tax deductions for individuals and businesses who make political donations and, as a result, cannot agree to the amendments.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is all a bit strange, isn’t it? Here we are, talking about treating political parties like charities. Giving a tax break for donations to political parties is a rort. Two-and-a-half years ago Family First moved an amendment in the Senate to abolish tax deductibility status for political parties and here we are today—we have Labor saying, ‘We don’t like tax deductibility for individuals but we do want it for our unions.’ You cannot have it both ways. At least the Liberals are consistent on this one. I do not know where the Greens are coming from, but, frankly, treating political parties like charities is an insult to charities. Giving a tax break for donations to political parties is just outrageous when you think about it. So, no, we do not support this amendment. It is sending all the wrong signals to Australians—that you can get a tax break by donating to political parties. It is treating us politicians like charities, and we are not charities. Political parties are self-interested and they should not be treated like charities. So Family First will not be supporting these amendments.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Australian Greens amendments (2) to (6), (8) and (10) to (20) on sheet 5633 revised, as moved by Senator Ludlam, be agreed to.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (lines 4 to 7), ITEM TO BE OPPOSED.

(7)    Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (lines 29 and 30), ITEM TO BE OPPOSED.

(9)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 9 (lines 1 and 2), ITEM TO BE OPPOSED.

(21)  Schedule 1, item 16, page 9 (lines 7 and 8), ITEM TO BE OPPOSED.

(22)  Schedule 1, items 19 and 20, page 9 (lines 19 to 22), ITEMS TO BE OPPOSED.

These amendments are in the spirit of those that we have just voted on, so I do not intend to go into them in detail apart from to pick up on a point that the minister raised, which is that what we are doing here is setting up an inconsistency in donations between people and corporations, and that is exactly what we intend.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Family First amendment (1) on sheet 5708:

(1)    Page 9 (after line 25), at the end of the bill, add:

Schedule 2—Amendment of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

1  After section 294

Insert:

294A Limit on election funding

                 In section 294, the entitlement to election funding is limited to a maximum of $10,000,000.

This puts a limit on election funding to a maximum of $10 million, which will mean that the amount any political party can receive back from taxpayers is capped at $10 million. To try to put this in simple terms, at the last federal election the ALP got $22 million from taxpayers. The Liberal Party got $18 million of taxpayers’ money. That is a heck of a lot of money. Taxpayers were getting excessive television campaigns and mail in letterboxes and they were sick and tired of it. If they knew they were footing the bill for it, I think that they would be saying that there was something wrong with the system.

So Family First is saying: let us put a cap of $10 million maximum on the election funding that taxpayers have to put in for any political party. That will peg back the $22 million that Labor got back from taxpayers. So, there is a $12 million saving there. For the Liberal Party, at $18 million, there is $8 million saved there. So basically there is $20 million saved. Think of what $20 million taxpayers’ money could be spent on other than excessive television ads and mail drops. That $20 million could be spent on all sorts of things for the community, and I went through those in my speech before. That money could be spent on 57 dedicated breast cancer nurses. That is what $20 million would get. Rather than seeing more mail stuffed into our letterboxes and more advertising shoved down our throats on television, $20 million could be used for investing in more teachers or it could help the poor. I think that most Australians would say that that sounds a better deal than spending $20 million more of their funds when political parties are really spending enough as it is. I urge all senators to support the Family First amendment to limit to $10 million election funding to any political party by the public purse.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition will not be supporting Senator Fielding’s amendment, but I will say that Senator Fielding has obviously raised an issue that needs to be discussed at some length in this campaign finance reform process. I would have preferred that discussion to take place in the context of that process, but I can understand that Senator Fielding has been moved to do that because the Labor Party themselves have not, in my view, done the right thing with the deductibility bill. That should also have been part of this wide discussion.

Back in March of last year, Senator Fielding supported the coalition motion on a reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Part of that was the appropriateness of current levels of public funding provided for political parties and candidates contesting federal elections. This is a debate that has to be had and it should not be done in isolation. It should be in toto. I agreed with Senator Ludlam when he said that this is just the start of the process. The coalition believes absolutely that this is just the start of the process. It needs a commonsense approach to an issue that the Australian community believes is a serious one, and quite rightly so. It will require the goodwill of everyone in this place. In fact, we are charged with the responsibility of putting in place a campaign finance reform proposal that restores some faith in the process to the Australian community and provides a workable solution to an issue that I think is of concern.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why don’t you start by declaring Cormack.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find it quite unbelievable that Senator Conroy has interjected in relation to this matter. Sometimes it is smarter to say nothing than to toss in a throwaway line. I appreciate that his recent ‘marriage’ to Senator Carr in Victoria has probably clouded his judgement a little bit. In fact, if it had happened to me it would have completely clouded mine.

I think it is extraordinary that we had evidence this morning that the federal Labor Party rejected a donation of $499,980 from the wife of Mr Stanley Ho but that the New South Wales division of the Labor Party was quite happy to accept—taking a figure off the top of my head—something approaching $600,000 or $800,000. And where did that money end up? In the finances of the federal Labor Party. So do not talk to me, Senator Conroy, about foundations. Please, jump up and tell the chamber that there are no foundations run by the Labor Party that are providing administrative support to the Australian Labor Party, because you know as well as I do that that is patent nonsense.

That sort of interjection is actually standing in the way of a sensible approach to this issue. We have all acknowledged that there is an issue and we all acknowledge that we have got to do something about it—or we can play games. You were prepared to sit back and accept $61.4 million in funding from the union movement between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2008, and then you come in here with legislation that is designed to protect union donations going to Australian Labor Party coffers but that denies tax deductibility for ordinary Australians who want to participate in the political process. The level is very small, but they are passionate about it. I think we have got a clear indication of who wants campaign finance reform and who does not. I suspect that it is this side of the chamber and the Greens and Family First and Senator Xenophon, but it is not the Australian Labor Party. So either we approach this sensibly or we have churlish and childish interjections about who is doing what.

I am backing the side that thinks we need to do something. I am backing the side of the Australian community, who think there is something terribly wrong with our system. They have watched the Wollongong sex and bribery scandal and they know that if we do not do something the only ones who will suffer will be the Australian community. But we have got this tax deductibility bill that does not resolve the Wollongong sex and bribery scandal.

Let us have a sensible discussion about where we are going to take the campaign finance reform agenda. Let us work together, which I think we are capable of doing, and let us get an outcome that is an appropriate legacy to restore some confidence in the system, because I think that confidence has, quite frankly, disappeared. It is incumbent upon us to do something about it. But when you are protecting your funding base by bringing in legislation that is designed only to maintain a difference in ability to raise funds, I do not think you are terribly serious about it. If it is trying to entrench a differential between the Australian Labor Party and every other political party in this country, I think the Australian Labor Party needs to have a good, long, hard look at itself. There is no point in going through processes such as the green paper and protesting that you are engaged in this process when today, 24 hours after the AEC released its figures for last year, you are prepared to debate in this place a bill with which you are trying to entrench that differential. It really does beggar belief. So let us do this properly and acknowledge the role of political parties and individuals within the political system and let us acknowledge that they do require funding to maintain their activities. Let us sit down and work out the best way of delivering that which restores some confidence back into the system for the Australian people.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that we do not support Senator Fielding’s amendment. The government are committed to introducing fundamental reform of Australia’s political finance regime. This reform process is progressing, with the first electoral green paper on donations, funding and expenditure, which was released on 17 December 2008. That paper looks at all issues surrounding how political candidates and parties are funded, including whether donations should be banned or capped and what level of public funding is appropriate. The question of public funding is more appropriately dealt with through that process.

Given his interest in the issue, the government would encourage Senator Fielding of Family First to make a submission on the green paper by the 23 February deadline. The government will be consulting with Senator Fielding, as well as the opposition and other parties and senators, as it develops its response to the political consultation.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that I do not support Senator Fielding’s amendment because I believe that is best in relation to the whole issue of political donations and contributions and in terms of public funding as well. I think that what Senator Fielding has raised is an important point: that we need to look at the overall total levels of expenditure for campaigns. Whether or not we go down the path of the Canadian model is one of the options that has been discussed in the green paper. My principal reason for opposing this is that I believe that the bill is confined to the issue of tax deductibility of political donations and the sentiments of this amendment ought to be dealt with in a bill that covers the substantive issue of levels of campaign funding in terms of public funding and overall expenditure. That bill will hopefully be before this place in the not too distant future.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is very important for those people who are following this debate to fully understand there is only one political party in Australia that actually thinks it is an absolute rort and a joke for tax deductibility status to be given to political parties. No other party here today wants to stand against that. In fact they are all tiptoeing around the issue. This particular amendment is also dealing with another rort. I will read out again this material from the Australian Electoral Commission’s website. It is under ‘Public funding paid’. In 2007 in public funding $22 million of taxpayers’ hard-earned money was paid to the Labor Party; $18 million was paid to the Liberal Party. How much is enough? Well, I think $10 million is enough for any political party to put across their point of view. We are turning people off by advertising so much and putting out letterbox drops during an election campaign. It is too much. We could save $20 million. We could use that $20 million of taxpayers’ money which could be saved by capping and stopping any political party from getting more than $10 million from the public purse. We could spend that $20 million on teachers and nurses and on all sorts of things.

This rort should not continue. I make it clear to the rest of the senators that Family First will oppose this bill for the two reasons that tax deductibility should not be there for any political party and that we should be capping the public funding of campaigns according to some reasonable position. So I am making it clear that Family First will vote against this bill. If the coalition members can muster themselves into this chamber, this bill will be defeated tonight for the reason that we have got to stop this rort now.

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.