Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the debate was interrupted, I was saying that different political parties have different approaches and histories on this very issue, so I would suggest that we should not paint all political parties with the same brush on the issue of political donations. But I do thank Senator Lambie for providing the chamber with an opportunity to at least reflect on some of the proud history that federal Labor has in this particular subject.

Back in the eighties, it was former prime minister Bob Hawke who first introduced political donation disclosure regime reforms. It was Prime Minister Hawke's government that established an electoral commission, independent from government, that now publishes details about how political donations are managed and via a transparent register. Under the political donations regime established by federal Labor, donations over $1,000 had to be declared. It was subsequently a Liberal government that increased the threshold to $10,000 and linked it to $10,000. That's how we've ended up with the current disclosure threshold of $15,000.

It was also Labor's amendments while in opposition that linked public election funding to its campaign expenditure. These amendments prevent political parties from profiting off our electoral system. And, of course, it was Labor that acted to protect our democracy from foreign interference, forcing the then coalition government to ban foreign political donations.

But we know our task on political donation reform is not done. I think a significant theme out of the election last year was that Australians deserve far more integrity and transparency in our political system. Obviously a significant component of how Labor is delivering on this front is the National Anti-Corruption Commission, but further political donation reform is also important. I think that has been acknowledged by the Special Minister of State, Senator Don Farrell.

In opposition, it is important to note, we did bring forward legislation before the Senate to lower the disclosure threshold, back to a fixed $1,000, and required donations to be closed within seven days. This would have brought our donation laws in line with community expectations and given every Australian the opportunity to see who donates to politicians, before they go to the ballot box.

The Albanese government understands that political donation reform isn't just about doing what's popular in any given sitting period; it's about setting up an effective system that meets community expectations and can also withstand the inevitable political shifts and changes that occur in this place and across Australia more broadly. That is why this kind of reform is most effective and sustainable when it is implemented with broad support of this parliament.

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

S (—) (): Last week, we finally got to see how the 2022 election was funded and who filled the coffers of the big parties. It shows what it always shows: big money is running politics. While Clive Palmer's multimillion-dollar donation to his own party dominated the news, the Labor, Liberal and Nationals also raked in $240 million in funds. Donations to political parties continue to reap rewards for the donors. It's why we have weak safeguard laws and more coal and gas projects are being opened in a climate crisis. It's why reforms to hold the financial sector to account or to regulate gambling keep stalling. It's why governments continue to spend millions on consultants at the expense of the Public Service.

In some ways, a bigger story than the donations we know about is the donations we don't know about. The source of at least 30 per cent of donations to political parties remains unknown. That's just not good enough. Our current laws are full of loopholes to avoid transparency. Donors can contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars as 'membership fees' to party affiliated business forums and not report that as a donation. Donors can donate to affiliated bodies who then funnel the money to the party without disclosing where it came from. Donors can spend thousands of dollars on a dinner with the minister but it's not a donation if they think they got value for money from the event.

It's very easy to see how fossil fuel companies getting in the ear of the minister and getting massive public subsidies to keep destroying the planet think that they're getting value for money. Donations below $15,200 don't need to be disclosed at all, which inspires a lot of donors to make out their cheque to $15,190. Donors can make big donations to political parties and voters don't find out until 20 months later—well after the election.

We urgently need donation caps, to get big money out of politics. We need election spending caps to put an end to the arms race that makes parties so reliant on political donations, and we need reforms to ensure that all donations over $1,000 are disclosed in real time so that people know when they go to the ballot box who's pulling the strings of the parties they're voting for.

The Greens have been campaigning for decades to clean up our democracy, and we urge Labor and the crossbench to join us in supporting reforms to make sure that politicians work in the public interest, not the interests of their corporate big donor mates.

Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor has a proud history of political donations reform. As Senator Ciccone has mentioned, it was the Hawke government that established an independent Electoral Commission to publish details about political donations. It was the same Hawke government that first introduced the political donations disclosure regime and, under Hawke, political donations above $1,000 had to be declared. This was the status quo until a coalition government got into power and decided to link the disclosure amount with the rate of inflation, which caused the disclosure threshold to blow out to the current rate of over $15,000. What can I say? I'm not surprised at the coalition, but I am disappointed.

Nevertheless, Labor maintains its proud tradition of electoral reform in the pursuit of integrity and accountability in government, and it is this proud Labor tradition that I point out to Senator Lambie and others. The donation issue she is talking about is in fact one part of a much broader and deeper suite of reforms that the government is currently considering. These include: mandatory disclosure for donations over $1,000; real-time reporting; reforms to the funding of elections, including donation caps; and public funding for parties and candidates. All these matters are being considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and are things Labor has been talking about for quite some time.

Let's not forget that we took electoral and donation reform to the election in 2022, and we won. As the Special Minister of State has explain repeatedly, for our government electoral reform is about greater integrity and transparency for the Australian people, but it's also about consensus. The government wants to bring the Australian people and the parliament along with it when it comes to electoral reform, and in that spirit of consensus neither myself nor any other government senator is going to pre-empt the recommendations of the Electoral Matters Committee. That is what the committee is there for—to review issues like the one Senator Lambie is pointing to and then report back to parliament with its findings and recommendations. Once that in-depth process is complete and we have the policy work done, we can and will act on these matters. You don't have to believe me; you just have to look at the record.

It was Labor that forced the coalition government to ban foreign political donations in order to safeguard our democracy from foreign interference and it is the Australian Labor Party that goes above and beyond what is currently required by the rules. Our party discloses all donations above $1,000 federally because we respect transparency and accountability. In opposition, we brought legislation to the Senate to fix the disclosure threshold to $1,000 and require those donations to be disclosed within seven days. Of course, as is often the case with the coalition on matters of integrity, they chose not to support transparency and accountability. Instead, they chose to keep the matter—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, it's not personal; it's just political. They chose to keep the matter of donations hidden from the public. But the coalition are not the only ones standing in the way of electoral reform. Clearly, there is a major issue when Clive Palmer, a person that Senator Lambie is no doubt familiar with, can spend tens of millions on false and misleading advertising in a brazen attempt to undermine our last two elections. Clearly, there is an issue when a sitting prime minister—Malcolm Turnbull—can donate $1.7 million to his own party in an election campaign and not have to disclose that fact for over a year. So, it's clear that reform is needed around the issue Senator Lambie pointed to—not just around donation reform but also around spending caps and truth-in-advertising laws—but it has to be done right and it has to be done thoroughly, not piecemeal or rushed.

I look forward to the report from the Electoral Matters Committee and seeing what it recommends in relation to all these issues, because I know that the federal government—just like the Labor Party in every state and territory—takes donation reform and principles of transparency seriously. Just look at my home state of Victoria. The Andrews government—a Labor government—has introduced donation reform there. Donations from individuals and organisations are capped on a per annum and four-yearly basis. Foreign donations are banned. There is a regular and transparent reporting system, and the Victorian Electoral Commission is properly funded to manage the increased compliance obligation. I'm not saying the Victorian model is perfect in every way, or that it should necessarily apply to the Commonwealth, because I'm not going to be pre-empting the committee process. Rather, I bring up the Victorian example to show that it is Labor governments that lead on election and donation reform.

Actions speak louder than words. Let's remember who legislated for the National Anti-Corruption Commission. That's why it will be the Labor government that takes the next step in delivering on our proud history of reform to ensure integrity and trust in our political system— (Time expired)

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members of our community expect and deserve to be able to access a GP and medication that they need to without having to break the bank. We also expect that democracy works, where politicians work in the interests of the people who elect them and not in the interests of the corporations who fund their campaigns. Our public health services are, as anyone who is paying attention would be able to tell you, in crisis. The AMA predicts that the elective surgery waiting list will grow to 500,000 by June. That's nearly one in 50 of our community who will be waiting for elective surgery. Private health insurance has become, in many ways, a necessity in this country. If you need a dental care appointment, if you need mental health care or if you need even basic care in a timely fashion, then you often need private health insurance or you will be waiting and paying thousands out of pocket.

While many of us are despairing at the current crisis, there is one group of people and individuals who love the system just the way that it is: private health and pharmaceutical companies. They love the system so much, in fact, that they gave nearly $2 million to the Australian Labor Party and to the coalition in the last couple of years alone. It isn't hard to join the dots between our public health system being under-resourced and private health insurers and pharmaceutical companies lining the pockets of the major parties. The Greens want to see this place ban corporate donations so that companies like Medibank Private and Bupa don't get to influence the direction of health policy in this country. Let us have a health system for people and not for big corporations.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome this MPI from Senator Lambie. It is indeed a matter of public importance. Spending at the recent federal election was a record $439.4 million. Political donation reform is something that Australians want to see happen. I welcome the review that JSCEM is undertaking and the government's commitment to dealing with this. Clearly, we have to deal with this in Australia. Australians want more transparency around political donations and they want to have trust and confidence in our political system, knowing that decisions being made in this place and in the other place are in the best interests of Australians—of all of us—and not about vested interests. When you read through the returns, which we get months and months after the election, they certainly raise some questions as to why there are such large sums of money coming from gambling, alcohol, the banks and fossil fuel companies. Tragically, even tobacco is still a donor to the Nationals.

This needs to stop. We can stop it. It is within the power of the parliament to put in place changes that ensure that there are things like low disclosure thresholds and real-time disclosures. Technology has moved a long way, and it is possible for people, in a reasonable time frame, to see who is donating to elections while they're happening and not after the fact—sometimes six months after the fact.

Ralph Babet (Victoria, United Australia Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister warned on Sunday in a speech at the Chifley Research Centre that democracy was 'fragile', and so it needed to be 'nourished, protected, cared for and treated with respect'. That's what he said. Those were his words, and I agree wholeheartedly with the Prime Minister. But the PM's words beg the question, 'How, Prime Minister?' How do we nourish and protect democracy? Our system of government, where people consent to be governed, is fragile, because it is built entirely upon trust. People give their consent to be governed because they trust that their elected reps will be acting honestly and with integrity. How do you nourish trust? How do you build faith? The answer is transparency. Trust can only exist to the degree of transparency that is given.

The United Australia Party believes in full disclosure of all political donations, no matter how large or how small. The UAP has one donor, just one, and we all know who it is. You can like it or you can not like it, but at least you know. He's an Australian citizen. He loves this country. There's your transparency. That is not the case with the major parties, not the case at all. Some donations may not even be declared. Non-disclosure of donations—what does it do? It raises questions and it creates room for doubt, suspicion, mistrust—the very things that undermine our system of government.

If the Prime Minister truly wants to nourish and protect democracy, he will move to ensure that all political party donations are declared and are on the public record. Transparency creates trust. Trust strengthens democracy. If the PM meant what he said on Sunday about full transparency with regards to political donations, it's something he should embrace without hesitation. Any reluctance to do so increases doubt, suspicion and mistrust. Let's not undermine democracy.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One Nation supports greater transparency and more disclosure of corporate donations. However, we are concerned that moves to reveal small donations and political party membership will discourage greater participation by the Australian people in politics. It's often the case that even a passing association with the conservative parties will see individuals, businesses and organisations attacked by the woke and the loony Green left. For the Left, anything to do with the Right is illegitimate or downright criminal. They are incapable of tolerating any view that departs even the slightest from their orthodoxy and will try to destroy or ruin those who do. The Marxist Greens are the worst perpetrators of this intolerance.

What I have found from businesses who do support One Nation is that they are in fear of giving donations, because if the donations are exposed they will lose government jobs and contracts or be affected by the other side of politics, whether it's the coalition or Labor. There is a dilemma out there for the public. (Time expired)

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for discussion has expired.