Speeches

Senator Andrew Murray speaks on the Adjournment: Political Parties: Donations [8th Sep, 2003]
by Senator Andrew Murray

ADJOURNMENT: Political Parties: Donations
Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) (10.09 p.m.) —We all know that politics is a fiercely competitive business. Strong competition in terms of ideas is essential to a healthy democracy. Good political governance and ethical and honest politics are equally vital to a healthy democracy; yet politics has long been considered a dirty, sleazy and dishonest business. Surprisingly, it can also often be seen as anticompetitive.

Political competition is not subject to the Trade Practices Act, but competition law would take a dim view of standard practices in politics. Domination by a duopoly, predatory behaviour, anticompetitive activity, covert intelligence gathering and insider trading are just some characteristics of the political market. Four great protections from a rigged political market are a free, diverse and vigorous press; regular elections with a robust, open and truthful political contest; strong, transparent, independently regulated political parties and practices; and full, timely disclosure of political funding and resources. These protections are not fully developed in Australia.

Contrast the overt, open, up-front antagonism to One Nation of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Tony Abbott, with the covert nature of the ironically named Australians for Honest Politics. It is the covert that should be the target, not the overt. I agree that Mr Abbott's role is mostly public, known and disclosed. But what about the covert Australians for Honest Politics? The almost universal view of large numbers of the fourth estate seems to be that the end justifies the means—that it is okay to turn a blind eye to a fund hiding secret donors because it helped get rid of Hanson. That is a sad, bad and ultimately dangerous point of view.

It is a fact of life for minor parties that we have to deal with opponents who are better resourced, better connected, better established and more capable of visiting ill upon political rivals. It is also a fact of life that the major parties share a common interest in keeping minor parties minor. The Australian Democrats and One Nation have only one thing in common: they are minor parties that take votes from major parties. Both political parties have in the past been capable of marshalling over a million votes. Both have had their leaders and organisations assailed through a series of well-funded legal cases. A key difference is that private litigants in the civil courts pursued the Democrats—there was never criminal action—whereas One Nation's cases began in the civil courts but ended in the criminal courts.

Using the courts to tie up the resources of smaller parties in protracted, expensive legal action that also generates long-term negative publicity is a strategy that is electorally damaging to those parties. Nevertheless, the law has to guard against improper motives or purposes. Where politicians, political parties or their officials are pursued in the courts, the funding of those legal actions must be fully disclosed. The electorate is entitled to pass judgment on the use of our legal system for political ends. Justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. This is impossible if secret donations conceal who is financing the action.

It would seem unwise to automatically assume that the actors in these affairs have other than party political motives. There is some suggestion that the pursuit of One Nation was a moral crusade to draw attention to a defective registration rather than an exercise in competitive party politics with an intention to benefit a registered political party at the expense of another. Because the demise of One Nation or a lower vote for that party would benefit another registered political party, a case could be made that the trust was set up with that intention. The involvement of the same organisers and donors in like activity against another, unrelated, registered political party gives credence to that view.

The Australian Democrats had a similar experience to that of One Nation over seven years in the 1990s. The similarities are remarkable, to the point where at least one activist and one donor so far identified are the same. The action against the Democrats was so spurious that it was dismissed summarily in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, with Master Ng finding: `The plaintiff's case is so hopeless that it is doomed to fail.' This did not prevent the plaintiffs pushing their case and losing on appeal in the Supreme Court and the High Court. After years of litigation it was only in 2002 that the matter was finally disposed of in favour of the Democrats. In the meantime, political and organisational energies had been used up and financial resources wasted.

The Australian Democrats formed in 1977, 26 years ago. In 1978 a legal entity known as the Australian Democrats WA Division Inc. was formed to offer limited legal protection in WA to the name Australian Democrats. Thereafter, this incorporated body was allowed to lapse from usage and was inactive. Following their expulsion from the party, a number of persons gained control of this incorporated body, ADWAD Inc., and used it as a launching pad for a legal and political campaign against the Australian Democrats. They misrepresented themselves as the real Australian Democrats to the media. They publicly campaigned against the party. They pursued the party, its leaders and its officials through the courts for years on end. Political damage resulted.

WA Electoral Commission returns show one member of ADWAD Inc. donating over $160,000 over four years to their incorporated body, whose principal activity seemed to be litigation. You would need to earn at least $240,000 just to make such a massive private financial contribution. Either that member is exceptionally wealthy and free with his money or he is a front for others. It is hard to come to any other conclusion. WA electoral returns also declare a $13,500 donation from H. Clough McRae Investments. H. Clough is the same Harold Clough who has reportedly admitted donating to the Australians for Honest Politics. John Samuel was heavily involved in the Australian Democrats ructions and in ADWAD Inc. and has been reported as a prominent activist in the One Nation affair.

More links between John Samuel and Harold Clough were also suggested in an article on 30 August 2003 by Andrew Smith, editor in chief of the Fremantle Herald, in writing about the May 1999 local elections in East Fremantle in WA, where he asked whether there was `a shadowy Liberal Party dirty tricks unit, a “black ops outfit”'. The Australians for Honest Politics fund affair has therefore had the effect of identifying at least three separate instances concerning the Democrats, One Nation and East Fremantle where there is a coincidence of individuals and strategies. If these coincidences are underpinned by a pattern of behaviour intended to benefit a political party, that would be relevant to the issue of compliance with the act. Frankly, Mr Samuels and Mr Clough are of little interest to me. What does interest me is protecting our political and legal institutions from abuse.

The Democrats have no objection to legal actions against political parties, their officers and politicians being funded for a proper purpose by people other than the litigants themselves. We are, however, concerned that disclosure should be made in all appropriate circumstances. It seems to us that people who make contributions to entities taking legal action against politicians, political parties or their officers should have to disclose that contribution where there is a likelihood or possibility that they may make those contributions for the purpose of benefiting another registered political party. Openness and transparency are essential principles and protections in a democracy. That is the basis of existing disclosure laws in relation to campaign financing.

Legal campaigns against politicians, political parties and their officials should not be able to escape similar disclosure requirements. The electorate is entitled to know who is backing such legal campaigns. Requiring disclosure here is no different in principle to the disclosure required for political donations. Entities created to pursue legal action against politicians, party officers or political parties might well operate wholly, or to a significant extent, for the benefit of one or more unrelated registered political parties. We still do not know the full story about the funding and covert campaigns against the two minor parties. Without disclosure requirements that are comprehensive in scope and rigorously enforced, we will never know. That is just wrong.