Senate debates

Tuesday, 2 February 2016

Adjournment

Henry, Ms Margaret, New South Wales Rail Infrastructure, Donations to Political Parties

9:43 pm

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

Margaret Henry, a wonderful community activist, sadly died in September last year. Margaret was a Newcastle transport and heritage advocate, a former Newcastle university history lecturer, a Greens councillor, an activist on big and small issues across five decades and a dedicated mother and grandmother.

Margaret's community activism kicked off in 1965, when she started Newcastle's—and possibly Australia's—first play centre. Fifty years later, in 2015, Margaret was still campaigning. She organised a protest picket line for Save Our Rail at Hamilton Street. Save Our Rail was a campaign that she helped initiate. She was one of the founding members in 1992, when that all-important organisation kicked off. It was successful from 1992 to 2015, when the O'Farrell government then started pulling up the rail line, which had been a policy at times of Labor, Liberals and Nationals. It was the Liberals and Nationals that put it into place. And Margaret fought it all the way along.

Like many dedicated Greens members, she started political life in the Labor Party. She joined in 1968. In 1980 she joined the National Trust and started decades of campaigning to save Newcastle heritage. She formed the Citizens Earthquake Action Group after the 1989 earthquake. One of the many famous—and entertaining, I have to say—stories shared among friends when Margaret died describes Margaret standing on a pile of rubble in the days after that earthquake. There she was, urging Novocastrians to think before destroying. What she had identified was that there were unscrupulous developers out to use this earthquake as cover to pull down some very unique heritage buildings—buildings that were able to be saved easily.

Professor Peter Hempenstall of the School of Humanities and Social Science at Newcastle university has made some moving comments about Margaret's years as an academic. He said:

Margaret taught two generations of staff how to allow student voices to be heard and to coax them into independent thinking, even if it came out uninformed.

He went on to say:

The university today rightly boasts about its equity and transition programmes – Margaret Henry was one of its flagship operators decades ago, in the 1970s and 1980s …

Margaret was so enthusiastic and so hardworking; always with a vision and really ahead of her time in so many ways. It was an absolute pleasure to know her.

Margaret Henry left the ALP in 1988 and a few years after that she joined the Newcastle Greens, running as a candidate in a number of elections. She served two terms on Newcastle council and was also a deputy mayor twice. As a councillor, Margaret involved herself in a wide range of committees and board work. She campaigned often on less popular issues, such as disability access, homelessness and migrant and refugee services. She also worked, in terms of her council work, on public art, library services and the art gallery, and on her great love, heritage. Another great love was campaigning for Aboriginal issues, in this case on council for an Aboriginal affairs officer and the establishment of the Indigenous Guraki committee. Margaret's work was so extensive. It was one of the things that I learnt with Margaret: when I was heading into Newcastle you could get a brief from Margaret about what the current issues were.

The final word does go to her loving partner, Keith Parsons. He said:

It is hard to imagine a Newcastle without her.

Margaret was a wonderful, generous and courageous woman. It was my pleasure to know Margaret, and my condolences go to her partner, her children and her grandchildren.

The New South Wales Premier, Mike Baird, is waging a war on trees—quite literally, a war on trees. It is extremely destructive, occasioning great hurt, and right now he is not stopping. In one suburb, Randwick, along Anzac Parade, 400 trees are being turned into woodchips. These are beautiful trees—trees that are habitat to an amazing array of birds, possums and an incredible number of insects. The biodiversity is considerable. Many of these trees are now being destroyed by 'Mike Baird's chainsaw massacre'. That is what the locals are calling it and that is what the supporters of the local residents, who have worked so hard to protect these trees, are saying about what is happening.

This is another ugly side of what sometimes goes down in Sydney. It did not end with the corrupt activities that we heard about in ICAC during the latter years of the former Labor government. There are still a lot of dodgy deals going on. Maybe they are not illegal, but I would certainly argue that they are very immoral. What we have here is this ugly Sydney story of compromised politicians, corporate greed and, in this case, the all-too-powerful Australian Turf Club.

These trees are being cut down for a new light rail service. Now, we should not have a competition between the trees and the light rail—there is no need at all. The light rail could easily be built on the other side of the road, right beside the Randwick racecourse, where so many of these people will be going who will use this light rail service. But the reason appears to have more to do with the Baird government spending public money to save ALTRAC, who are the owners of the light rail, some money in their construction costs. If that is not the reason then the Baird government should come out and explain why in 2015, when people know the value of these trees and when people are so passionate about this, they would cut them down and cause so much devastation.

I do congratulate the many residents, supporters and environment groups that have rallied in such numbers to try to save these trees. Allison Road resident Louise Boronyak-Vasco and five others tied themselves to one of the trees slated for destruction. Jeff Angel, long-time director of the Total Environment Centre, which has done outstanding environmental work in New South Wales over many decades, was one of hundreds of people who have rallied to save these trees.

Imagine that the Premier were standing here and what he would be saying. He would be saying, 'Everything's okay. We're going to plant more trees.' They are even going as far as saying, 'We'll plant eight more trees for every one that is cut down.' Planting eight saplings does not take the place of one grand, big fig tree that is home to so many unique creatures. There is just no comparison. Yes, we need more trees—we know that. But you do not cut down this great beauty—these beautiful trees that line Anzac Parade.

Understandably, passions have been, and are, running high where these beautiful, living, breathing creatures are being killed. One person likened it to me as 400 ghosts—he said, 'It will be like 400 ghosts tracking Mr Baird right through to the next election.' This area is in Turnbull country, and a lot of the frustration has been with the Prime Minister. People know that he does not have the final responsibility for how this light rail operation is going to occur, but what they do know is that Mr Turnbull is in the same party as Mr Baird and that they are political allies—why can he not represent his constituents, pick up the phone and actually make representations for them?

So I would like to share with you a letter that Josie McSkimming from Coogee wrote to The Sydney Morning Herald. It sums up the despair and the anger that so many people are feeling, and it is not going away:

My despair and frustration is increased by the impotence in being able to do nothing abut it. Emails to politicians, submissions to the light rail authority—nothing.

A desperate phone call to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's office (he is the federal member responsible) met a very terse and brusque response: "It's a state matter," I was told in no uncertain terms.

Turnbull and his people do not want to know about it. I've tried what an ordinary citizen can, but to no avail against the vested interests of those horse racing fraternity and their planned hotel and the complete intransigence of the government.

If you voted for Mike Baird, take note. I will never vote for this government again.

Josie McSkimming Coogee

This issue is not going away. The trees probably will all eventually be cut down. When you drive down Anzac Parade—which many of you who do not come from Sydney probably do when you come to the airport and drive around Sydney—you see it is a beautiful parade. The destruction is extreme. It is unnecessary and reminds us how extensively we need to organise to stop this war on trees. It is not just occurring in our cities. It is not just occurring at Randwick. It is right across the state because of the way the New South Wales government has changed the law.

It is time to end the farce of 1 February, which is the Australian Electoral Commission political donation disclosure day. I am not blaming the AEC. It is the law that is an ass when it comes to how our political donations are disclosed. This is not a day of transparency; it is actually a day when we are reminded how urgently we need electoral funding reform.

It really is a farce. If you were given a donation on 1 July 2014, it would have been disclosed yesterday, 19 months later. That is not transparency. We understand many people—possibly the majority of donations—come in under $13,000. Thanks to the law change under former Prime Minister John Howard, none of those donations have to be fully disclosed. I think it was Mr Ruddock, a Liberal MP in the lower house, who said it is a matter of privacy. 'These people have a right to give their money, and their details shouldn't be disclosed.' Again, it is a way to cover it up. Now, come 1 February, the cover-up is extreme. It is not a day of transparency at all.

We do need that reform in detail. Australia's arcane reporting rules and methods disguise millions of dollars which influence political parties and, I would argue, do interfere with the democratic process. Here are just a few examples of the lack of transparency. Buried on page 37 of Labor's disclosure is a payment of $110,000 from Woodside Energy. If you actually search for this as a donation on the AEC's website, it will not appear. Maybe you do not think that is surprising—I have already said transparency comes a poor second in this case—but you would think that, on 1 February, if it is about political donations, you would be able to find it. But the ALP have come up with a new category, which they are able to do. They are calling this a subscription, not a donation.

What sort of subscription costs $110,000? But it was not just Woodside Energy, which was listed as a $110,000 subscription. There were many others. I will just name a few. Clubs New South Wales apparently paid the ALP a subscription of $66,000. Santos paid a subscription of $27,500. Coca-Cola Amatil paid $27,500. What is the purpose? Why were these titles used?

I think one of the best ways to analyse this data is by looking at it in terms of the very important October High Court case on political donations that came down last year. This was a High Court case that came about from some of the scandals that ran amuck in New South Wales. I have spoken about it before and again urge Senators to look at it. This High Court case describes two forms of corruption in terms of how political donations are given. One they called quid pro quo corruption, the other the more subtle kind of corruption known as clientelism. On the quid pro quo corruption I will share with you a stand-out example of how they described that. This is a summary of what they said, not their description. It is where money is handed over for a very specific outcome to approve a specific development, maybe ignore an illegal betting syndicate, release a well-connected mate or help dodge an unfavourable environmental assessment.

Here is a donation. The owner of the Iwasaki resort, which is a proposed $600 million expansion of the Mercure Capricorn Resort Yeppoon, gave $55,000 to the Queensland LNP. Around the same time, they were waiting for the federal Department of the Environment to assess any national environmental impacts. Again, they do not know if there is any connection, but you can certainly understand why people become very cynical about how this works. And maybe it is an example of quid pro quo corruption.

As I mentioned, the other form of corruption that the High Court spoke about is a more subtle kind of corruption known as clientelism. This is how the High Court describes it. It is where:

… office holders will decide issues not on the merits or desires of constituents, but according to the wishes of those that have made large financial contributions valued by the office holder …

I think this is where you do see the value of 1 February data. It is very frustrating that it comes in so late and you certainly do not know about it before elections, but we do get some data here, and I think this is where you can join the dots with what the High Court is saying.

Let's look at some of the trends in the donations. The property and construction industry gave about $1.5 million. Remember we are just talking about the financial year 2014-2015. Roslyn Packer donated $100,000 to the federal Liberal Party. Santos Ltd donated just over $82,000 to federal Labor and just over $48,000 to the federal Liberals. The Australian Hotels Association is always a good regular. You can rely on them, usually for big donations: $180,000 to the Liberal Party and $150,000 to the ALP. Village Roadshow donated $176,000 to the Liberals, $12,800 to Labor and the trend goes on. You might ask: what is the connection? I talked about a more subtle kind of corruption. I would argue the standout example here is developer donations but we also see the same trend with the gambling industry, with the mining industry and with the alcohol industry where we have seen the weakening of laws that put restrictions on those industries to some extent. A weakening of the laws means those companies make more profits. The examples are there and we can document them very clearly.

It is time for electoral reform. It is certainly time to end the farce of February 1. It is not a day of transparency. We need to get the disclosure bar down to $1,000. We need to have real-time or near real-time disclosure so the public know where the money is coming from, and those reforms should be in place before the coming in election. But we also need to go further. We need to put limits on the millions of dollars that are coming into the whole political game, particularly coming into an election. I find those millions of dollars make that public deeply cynical. They do not want more attack ads on the television. They do not want more colour glossy leaflets shoved in their letterbox. I do believe we could restore confidence in how we operate and how the whole political process operates if there was less money sloshing around come election time and we had some real debate about our election platforms—that would be healthier.

So we need tight caps on political donations. The Greens would argue we need an end to for-profit corporate donations but we certainly need strict caps on election expenditure. Those measures, with transparency changes that really tighten up the current process and make it accessible for the public to learn where the money comes from and where it is going, would go a long way towards making Australia's democracy much more healthy.

Senate adjourned at 22:02