Speeches

Senator Andrew Murray speaks on the Adjournment: Political Parties: Donations [3rd Mar, 2004]
by Senator Andrew Murray

ADJOURNMENT: Political Parties: Donations
Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) (6.57 p.m.) On Thursday the Senate will vote on whether to refer an inquiry on electoral funding and disclosure to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The Senate will be asked to resuscitate an inquiry that was constituted in August 2000 but lapsed at the 2001 federal election. That inquiry was long overdue then, is even longer overdue now, and is a matter of great public interest. It is not least a matter of great public interest because this election year will see several tens of millions get flushed out of the pockets of shareholders of companies and members of unions into political party coffers, often without the direct permission of those shareholders and members.

Yesterday I asked the Special Minister of State this question:

With the exception of small donations, does the minister accept that the fundamental principle that should govern the disclosure of political donations is that whoever makes a donation should be identifiable?

The answer should have been yes, but the minister could not say yes because, while the principle is absoluteand supported, as far as I am awarehe knows the law expressly permits donors to be hidden. I then asked him:

Does the government recognise that keeping donors' identities secret has the potential to encourage corruption in politics?

Again, the answer should have been an unequivocal yes. The minister knows that can be the effect of secrecy, but the law allows secrecyand secrecy means potential corruption could exist. I asked him:

What steps does the government propose to take to ensure that those individuals, organisations or companies who donate secretly via trusts, foundations, clubs and fundraisers are disclosed?

We are talking about multimillions of dollars here, not thousands. Listeners to the minister's answers can check the Hansard for themselves. In theory, the minister showed a willingness to consider reform proposals. In practice, he knowsand I knowthat his hands are tied. Even if he wanted to, he is not allowed to make Australia's political donations laws much more open, much more transparent or much more accountable because his political masters will not let him. That state of affairs will continue until such time as there is sufficient public, political and media pressure to make the system more open, more transparent and more accountable.

Political parties need money badly, and they are reluctant to do anything that impedes the flow. Ever since the first political donation changed hands, money has been used to influence electoral outcomes and the process of government. Whether, when or if money dictates the next step, the exercise of undue access and corrupting influence is much harder to determine. If that is an inescapable reality, the question is then not how to stop it but how to control it and to minimise it. As I have said before: corruption best flourishes in the dark, in secret. The more open and accountable our political system is, including the financing of politics, the less the chance of corruption. I make no apology for raising this issue and these themes again and again inside and outside parliament. I make no apology for constantly repeating the message. If power can corrupt, so can money.

Australia is a country that is justifiably proud of its standards but, high as they are, those standards can go higher. When I last looked, that amazing organisation Transparency International had Australia 10th or 12th in the list of countries on the Transparency International corruption index. Australia was among those countries measured as the least corrupt, but above Australia were the Kiwis, the Scandinavians and quite a few other countries. So while we are at the clean end of international measures of corruption, we are still regarded as having some corruption. And I suggest to you the first place to ensure corruption never gets a hold is our political system. I am not just referring to the federal system; I am referring to all levels of government.

The fact that ordinary Australian citizens view large political donations with suspicion because of what they see as an obvious link between money, politics and policy should sound alarm bells. The influence of money on politics raises the spectre of money politics. While money politics insinuates itself into the democratic polity in various and often hidden ways, a key artery is through political donations. The way in which that artery can be exposed is, of course, through proper disclosure. This year's release of the parties' annual returns by the Australian Electoral Commission gives us, in theory, a glimpse into the finances of political parties. But if you have a look at the summation of all those returns, it is impossible to say how much a party has raised in donations each year; it is almost impossible to supply a list of donors each year and it is certainly impossible to establish the identity of donors. It is very clear when a union or a corporation makes a donation as to who has made the donation; it is not at all clear when a trust, a foundation, a club or a fundraiser does it, or any of those entities behind which donors can hide. But returning to the lack of clarity that results from the legislation we have, in theory the total receipts for the last year would be well over $80 million for all the political parties. But that is theory. There are so many interdivisional transactions and sources of income which are not from donations that it is very difficult to find out how much money is actually raised by donations. All we know is that it is tens of millions of dollars and we know it certainly does not reach the figure I just mentioned of $84 million.

The dramatic financial inequalities between the main parties is not the issue. There is a sharp line of funding demarcation with the Labor, Liberal and National parties on one side, and the Democrats and the Greens on the other. And apart from the notoriously well-funded CEC, whose returns for 2002-03 showed they raised approximately $1.5 million, all other participants in the political process seem to be pretty well beggars at the donations table. It is not the issue that the Labor, Liberal and National parties' funding per vote is massively greater than funding per vote received by the Democrats and the Greens, for instance. It is not the issue that those parties have much larger war chests to fight the federal elections. What is at issue is that all the parties I have mentioned, particularly those five, have immense influence in our political process. So while funding is actually absolutely vital, necessary and essential for the operation of political parties, what we do have to take care about are any donations that may have strings attached and any donations where influence is undue, hidden or of a corrupting nature.

Recent episodes serve to highlight the role of money in politics. There have been controversies which have affected the Liberal Party and the Howard government. There have been controversies which have affected the Labor Party and their circumstances. There have even been controversies in the past with the Democrats. There are principles we need to establish to protect the political process. It is not a question of finger pointing; it is a question of laying down principles and standards which give us the protections we need.

I get singly disturbed when I see a vehicle such as the Australians for Honest Politics fund created because I do not know who lies behind it, where the money came from or what the motives were. I happen to know that a couple of the individuals concerned have been at this game for 15 years, including putting their legal knife into the Democrats. It is a pretty mischievous outfit. I get concerned when I see major developers, major constructors and participants from both the employee and the employer sides heavily involved in donations which can materially influence outcomes, in particular in the construction industry. I get concerned about donations from the ethanol industry and what effects that may have. The message I am trying to put across is that the parliament has to accept that this is an issue of great concern to the population of Australia. It does need an inquiry (Time expired)

Senate adjourned at 7.07 p.m.