To listen to the podcast, click here
Topics: same sex marriage plebiscite, donations to political parties, reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Senate.
E&OE …
MICHELLE GRATTAN:
Scott Ryan, you and Senator Brandis this week, met with Labor’s Mark Dreyfus and Terri Butler to discuss the proposed plebiscite. Yet the meeting ended in a total stand-off. Neither side suggested any sort of compromise. Is this now the end of the story?
SENATOR SCOTT RYAN:
Well, I hope not Michelle. Thanks for having me.
The meeting was called for a couple of reasons. One of which was that I’ve had a number of meetings with stakeholders to offer them an opportunity to ask questions about the technical nature of the bill and how the vote will proceed. But also, to hear from the Labor Party, and offer them the opportunity to effectively make suggestions and to say on what terms they would support the bill.
I can’t guess what the Labor Party has as their priorities, nor what they would put as conditions for their support. We have got a very detailed proposal out there. It’s the product of long consultation, a draft bill for a plebiscite that has a lot all the mechanical issues of a national vote covered and so really, in the words of the PM, the ball’s in Labor’s court to say ‘this is what we’d like to change to support the plebiscite’.
GRATTAN:
But in practical terms, neither side can really give much ground, can they?
SENATOR RYAN:
We’ve made it very clear that we will consider, in good faith, any proposal that Bill Shorten and the Labor Party bring forward. Bill Shorten said he didn’t have a problem with the plebiscite only a few years ago. We will consider, in good faith through the processes of government, if Labor brings something forward. The meeting was an opportunity for them to – even if they didn’t have the power to make formal suggestions – to actually say, ‘these are the terms upon which we want to come back to you in a week or two, or another couple of weeks’. We’ve got a proposal out there, it really is up to the other party in potential negotiations to say ‘this is how we’d like to proceed’.
GRATTAN:
Now, a betting person would have quite a lot of money now on this being defeated in the Senate. If that, as expected, happens, where does it go from there? Or does it go nowhere? Is there no chance of a Parliamentary vote this term?
SENATOR RYAN:
I’m not a betting man Michelle, firstly, I don’t think I’d be very good at it either. We took an explicit commitment to the election. It was a commitment that, in my view, is one of those that is very clear to the public, to have a national vote. It was the subject of a lot of public debate. We are committed to legislating for a national vote that will resolve this issue. That’s where we are putting our effort at the moment to seek to persuade individuals – in the case of the other day, the meeting with the Labor Party – of the opportunity to put forward conditions on which they’d support it.
We haven’t had an answer from them yet so I’m remaining a touch optimistic and hopeful that they may come back with something in the future.
GRATTAN:
But can you say, once and for all, that if there is no plebiscite then this issue cannot be reopened by a parliamentary vote before the end of the term?
SENATOR RYAN:
Well the Government’s position, and I think we’ve done this on a number of issues, is to stick to the policy we took to the election.
GRATTAN:
And that will hold? That’s glued in for the whole term?
SENATOR RYAN:
I think so.
GRATTAN:
Now were you surprised at the Newspoll, that suggests that people, who were previously very much in favour of the plebiscite, are having second thoughts saying ‘we will settle it in Parliament’ or at least more are saying that than are saying we should have a plebiscite?
SENATOR RYAN:
I’ve learnt not to be too surprised in politics. It’s one poll; there have been other polls that have said different things. It is not the basis upon which we are putting this case to the Parliament, the prime basis on which we are doing that is that this is a commitment we said we would do our best to legislate, we said we would try and ensure that Australian people could have a vote and importantly, our proposal means that this can be voted on as soon as is practicable, which are the words the Prime Minister said, which is February 11 next year, which means that we do have a rapid path to resolving this issue. It does engage the electorate. It does engage the community and I think that is the most effective way at ensuring this issue is resolved.
GRATTAN:
What about the community affected? The LGBTI community? You’ve had consultations with them. Their feeling certainly seems to have hardened against a plebiscite, would you agree with that? And how do you think feeling breaks?
SENATOR RYAN:
Well I’ve met with groups that represent all Australians. I’m always careful to say that one person, who might be a leader of a group, doesn’t necessarily represent every person within the group they’re claiming to represent. I’m not dismissing the representatives that I’ve met at all, but I don’t think that any one group, within the community on any particular issue that is the subject of democratic debate, necessarily has the ability to say, ‘well we don’t think this is the path’ and therefore that opinion is not open to debate.
I respect the views of those – and I’ve listened to them – those who are concerned about the impact of a public debate. I don’t agree with them. This country is one that has debated difficult issues very well , very effectively and I am not going to judge the great majority, the overwhelming majority, of Australian people who I believe act in good faith because of the acts of a small number that may not express public debate in terms the majority find appropriate.
GRATTAN:
But you would agree that of that community, the majority at the moment is against a popular vote?
SENATOR RYAN:
Of the groups that I have met with, there are views against a popular vote, there are views in favour of a popular vote. I have met with people who are in favour of it because they are strongly supportive, not only of the process, but also of the fact this will provide a speedy resolution of the issue. I will vote Yes at the plebiscite. I share the optimism of the Prime Minister about the result of the plebiscite. My job is to provide for a fair plebiscite and I have not had anyone, over the last two weeks, complain that the process reflected in this bill is not objectively absolutely fair.
GRATTAN:
If there is no popular vote, do you think the issue will subside for the time being or do you think that the agitation will be somewhat divisive and an irritant for the Government?
SENATOR RYAN:
With the proviso that I’ve learnt not to try and predict the future – particularly in politics – I think there is always the risk that if the Labor Party, and Bill Shorten said he was ok with a plebiscite only a few years ago, for partisan or short-term political purposes decide to not engage with us and offer up, for example, the terms upon which they would support the plebiscite, even for our consideration, then there is always the risk that it will disappear from the public agenda, even if temporarily.
We are going to stick to our policy, which we took to the election. I think, particularly with a policy like this, it is clear, concise, explicit and the subject of public debate, that that is the entirely appropriate thing for us to do to try and legislate for this plebiscite.
GRATTAN:
Now you also have oversight of the electoral system. Let’s turn to that, it’s a bit further down the track than your immediate issues with the plebiscite.
SENATOR RYAN:
But it always interests politicians.
GRATTAN:
I bet it does. You’ve announced this broad inquiry into various aspects of the electoral system and political donations, including foreign donations, which have come to the fore with the tension recently. Were you surprised at the remarks of the outgoing American Ambassador John Berry, who expressed some concern about the role of Chinese money in Australian politics?
SENATOR RYAN:
I wouldn’t say I was surprised, but I didn’t know about them coming, I didn’t expect it.
The point you make about foreign donations, I have included a specific reference to the electoral matters committee on this because there is, in my view, a lack of clarity when this has been debated publicly. For example, despite Labor’s promise to legislate on foreign donations, the bill that they had in the Parliament when they were in government would not have covered the political donations that have often been the subject of debate over recent weeks because they defined it in a certain way. The bill, or the proposal, brought forward by Andrew Wilkie uses a different definition of what would be a foreign donation and would apply in a very different way. So my specific reference includes foreign persons, foreign entities, foreign donations and foreign-owned subsidiaries because, for example, I’ve never heard a complaint about one of the car manufacturing companies, or a large multinational we might have like General Electric.
So the comments of the US Ambassador, I think, alluded then to the issue of state influence, as opposed to what might be corporate influence. I have no problem with corporate donations, in principle, and I think it’s important that before this debate proceeds, we are clear about what is the impact of what has been proposed, but more importantly, what specifically is the problem to be identified that people want to deal with for potential legislative change.
We have to identify what the problem is before we legislate to regulate it. The High Court has made that clear in recent High Court judgements with respect to political donation cases that came out of NSW.
GRATTAN:
In your ideal electoral world, would you prefer foreign donations weren’t part of the system, however defined?
SENATOR RYAN:
Well I don’t think there is a problem with a company like Toyota – I have no idea whether, off the top of my head, Toyota does make political contributions …
GRATTAN:
Probably not anymore.
SENATOR RYAN:
Well it’s got decades of involvement in Australia, employs thousands of people, has a large presence. I don’t think anybody’s got a problem with that. Or whether it be another, similar foreign-owned multinational with a presence in Australia. I’ve worked for one in the past. So I think we have to, again, when it comes to anything to do with electoral matters and restrictions on people’s political activities – and restricting donations is a restriction on political activity – that we identify exactly what the problem is that people are seeking to legislate.
One of the other points I’ve made when asked about this in Parliament is that I am not going to participate or support any measure that seeks to create an unfair playing field in political donations or political participation. The ludicrous positions of the Greens, to ban corporations that make a profit, but allow unions and non-profits to make political contributions is an example of that.
GRATTAN:
With the foreign donations, everyone seems to be getting their share – at least both sides – seem to be getting their share.
SENATOR RYAN:
I’m not preaching about it either, Michelle. I think there is clearly a need to specify what do people mean when they say foreign donation?
GRATTAN:
Now, on the question of the disclosure of donations, I think that there is increasing support, including from your own side from people like Arthur Sinodinos, for real-time disclosure. Would you agree that there is an emerging consensus on this and would you like to see that done?
SENATOR RYAN:
That’s also covered in the reference I’ve given the electoral matters committee. The current disclosure regime or approach was set up many years ago when technology was very different. Now I’ve indicated in the past that I think the movement of technology allows for more regular donation disclosures and I think that is something that I’m very open to looking at. However, we do also need to keep in mind that political parties are voluntary organisations. Different parties are structured different ways, so we need to ensure that the regime we put in place takes account of the fact that there are hundreds and hundreds of Liberal Party branches , for example, in my home state of Victoria that might only handle several thousand dollars each in non-election years, so we have to ensure, we don’t place too great a burden on what are, effectively, voluntary associations. But I do think technology allows us to consider more regular disclosure than the current system that is in place.
GRATTAN:
For all intents and purposes, real time? At least for the bigger donations?
SENATOR RYAN:
I don’t want to commit to anything specifically because I don’t want to inadvertently create an expectation that the small contribution to a branch of volunteers in one state somehow might need to be disclosed in as timely way as a more significant donation to a central organisation. But I think, as I’ve said before, that technology allows us to move to a more regular disclosure regime, the exact terms of which I think that is something the electoral matters committee is intent on looking at.
GRATTAN:
Malcolm Turnbull has reiterated his personal view that he would like, ideally, to see the donations just from people on the electoral roll, that corporations and unions were not donors. From what you said before, it does seem you don’t share that view. You said you were comfortable with companies donating.
SENATOR RYAN:
When the PM made those comments recently, he did also include the proviso that the High Court has made recent judgements in this area. There are a couple of cases out of NSW that mean that we have to identify an issue that the regulation of political donations, political speech and political activity is trying to address. What I’m indicating is that my starting point is that I am not convinced that banning all bodies corporate from making contributions is necessary.
GRATTAN:
Or even legal?
SENATOR RYAN:
I’m not a lawyer but I do think there are now, particularly with those two cases out of NSW, the Prime Minister’s original comments were from more than a decade ago, the High Court has since made two particular determinations that I think make that particular approach more difficult than people might have thought a decade ago, including myself.
GRATTAN:
In the wake of the election, there’s been a fair bit of agitation, I think, on your side of politics about the role of Get Up! in particular and these third-party campaigns, yet Liberals are always saying that business should be out there running campaigns and spruiking the Government’s side, what’s the difference, aren’t there double-standards here?
SENATOR RYAN:
The point I’ve made about this, and I’ve approached this from a key principles point of view, is that one of the reasons we seek transparency on political contributions – and it’s not just donations, it’s also things like affiliation fees and fees for other arrangements and services – is that we want to know who is influencing our political process.
Now political parties are granted two particular privileges under the law: one of which is to nominate and endorse people for Parliament and the other major one is public funding. We don’t just regulate the activities of political parties for those purposes, we regulate them to ensure that we know who is making contributions so that there is some transparency.
One of the big changes over the last decade has been the role of third-party groups, single-issue groups, in campaigning. Some of them are treated differently for tax purposes, they can have tax deductible gift recipient status, but it is fair to say they are not regulated to the same degree of transparency as political parties.
I’ve made it very clear I am not proposing a particular regime, but when I look at the United States, something that I have followed, they do have relatively tight regulations on candidates in some places, and political parties, but since the Citizens United decision, there has been a very different regime that applies to groups that are campaigning due to the constitutional protection of free speech in the US system.
So, what I have said is that I think we need to be careful to not inadvertently create a system whereby we regulate political parties and contributions to them, but we are not looking at the fact that third parties, single-issue groups can also have a direct and substantial impact on election campaigns, and therefore, election results. Without specifying any group in particular, I think we need to actually look at this from the point of view of who is having impact on political campaigns, who is undertaking campaign activity, and start from that principle and work back.
GRATTAN:
What you’re saying is that the situation of these groups, these third parties, should be transparent?
SENATOR RYAN:
Well depending on the group and depending on the regulatory regime they operate under and depending on some of their own voluntary behaviours, there are different levels of transparency that apply. At the moment, our system tends to be to regulate political parties and their associated entities because they are the traditional main campaign actors, so to speak, whereas I think we have to look at the change that’s happened over the last decade and see that they’re not necessarily the sole actors in a political campaign anymore. If we want to know what contributions are going into our political system then I think we do need to look at what is happening to other campaigning organisations.
GRATTAN: Of course, the contributions to an outfit like Get Up! are often quite modest contributions that would fall well under the disclosure regime for political parties.
SENATOR RYAN:
And that’s why, again, I’m proposing no particular model here, but I do think that it is important that we don’t have an inconsistency between some political actors and other political actors, in terms of transparency. Some donations to these groups are also actually quite large.
GRATTAN: Now clearly the vibe is there will be tougher authorisation requirements in future elections after some of the controversy over the Medicare texts and so on, but I wonder whether you think that truth in advertising is something that needs to be addressed? In previous years, I think the Liberals were very wary of this when it was called for by some on the different part of the political spectrum, but ‘Mediscare’ might have changed your view?
SENATOR RYAN:
Well it’s interesting that is included in the reference at the particular request of some of the crossbenchers – and I was keen to accommodate in the reference the minister gives as many particular issues that Members of Parliament wanted covered because the committee is a very important one. So it’s there for consideration and deliberation by the committee. My personal view is I require a lot of convincing, because in politics – unlike say in commercial transactions where we do have consumer law that protects people from misleading conduct – politics is a lot more about opinion and interpretation of fact. I think we need to be careful to not have a system that would end up in people needing more lawyers to argue the case of whether something is true or not that would distract from the fact that this is a political contest. I maintain an open mind, but I’d need a lot of convincing to go down the path of further regulating political speech.
GRATTAN:
Now just turning to the Senate, it certainly contains a very diverse and colourful …
SENATOR RYAN:
It’s long been that way, I understand.
GRATTAN:
… a lot of crossbenchers this time. What do the signs, the early signs, that in this Parliament, the Government can get along with the Senate better than it did last time?
SENATOR RYAN:
We are only two [sitting] weeks in. I’ve got to say that my dealings thus far, I missed the first week of Parliament due to a personal circumstance, in my dealings with members of the Senate crossbench since the new Parliament have all been very productive, have shown a willingness to talk. The reference to the electoral matters committee includes a number of issues that members of the Senate crossbench and the Opposition were keen to have included. I’ve found the mood to be one that is one that people are seeking at least, in the first instance, where there can be some common ground. We are not going to agree on everything, but I think if I could be a touch optimistic there seems to be an effort to find those areas where we might agree, rather than focus on the areas where we might not.
GRATTAN:
Just finally, I wanted to ask you about discipline in the Senate because, of course, the Government was rather shaken when it missed those divisions, lost those divisions, in the lower house. Christopher Pyne seems to have brought in a very tough, boarding school regime: monitors on the doors and so on.
When you are in minority in the Senate, there is always the problem with numbers to get things through and also have all your own people present. How does it work there? Do you have monitors stopping people racing off?
SENATOR RYAN:
As long as people aren’t reading about it, that means it is working. One of the things that is drilled into you from the first day you arrive in the Senate is that every vote matters because the government has never had a significant majority, even in the two years, from 2005-2007, when the Coalition government had a majority, it was effectively of one or two with an extra vote 39-37. So it is one thing that is drilled into you as a Senator and I have been present when one colleague did miss a vote …
GRATTAN:
What happened to him or her?
SENATOR RYAN:
It was not pleasant. But what happened was the Senate re-committed the vote, but this colleague needed to sit down and effectively apologise to the Senate and then have a little bit of a free character assessment on the floor of the chamber. I think there is also another thing in the Senate, which I’ve availed myself of in the last couple of weeks, which are – I’m not sure how long it goes back – there is a standing pair arrangement in the Senate that well predates my time, and, I’m told, is very long-standing. But I think it goes to that issue that the minute you arrive, you know that every vote matters. Also, without knowing the House as well, the votes can happen at any time, whereas I know in the House they can have periods where there are votes and periods when there aren’t.
GRATTAN:
So you’re saying they’re more slack down there?
SENATOR RYAN:
Not at all. I would not dare say that. All I would say is that us Senators know the importance of being there when the bells ring. It’s just a reflection of the fact that even before the current Senate and the one before, there’s never been a situation where either side’s had a significant majority in the Senate.
GRATTAN:
Thank you for your time today Senator Ryan.