Senator RYAN (Victoria) (13:18): I would like to address the issues raised by Senator Madigan; both the matters raised in the second reading debate with respect to these amendments and the matters he has just raised. I agree with him, initially.
While this is not my portfolio, I do represent it for the coalition in the Senate, and I agree with him wholeheartedly that we should not be calling players in the political process, or trying to remove their ability to participate by referring to them as, ‘nutters’—that was the word that I think Senator Madigan used—or ‘fringe players’.
That is not appropriate and it is for the people to decide. I do not believe it, and I sincerely believe that people on this side of the chamber do not believe that either. My record on belief in free speech, absent legislative controls—some of which exist in this country today—I think is testament to that particular view.
The coalition does not believe that these increases actually impose an undue burden. We do impose a burden on those who participate in the political process by being candidates in anything more than voting. We actually do impose a burden on citizens by virtue of compelling them to vote and compelling them to enrol—these days they do not get a choice in the latter.
We do impose a burden on those who participate in the political process by virtue of the registration system and the compliance regime we have for candidates. I would contend that, to many smaller groups in the community, the compliance regime is actually a much greater burden than the nomination fee. That is my experience, having worked in this particular area and having spoken to many community groups for a long time. It is something about which I have gone on record before at JSCEM hearings and estimates hearings when we have had these discussions with the AEC and indeed in this chamber.
So whether or not we impose a burden for participation I do not think is the question. We do that.
We talk about registering political parties and we have a requirement for a number of nominators to nominate someone if they are an Independent. There is the requirement to disclose political funding. All of those apply to candidates and to political parties. So the question before us with this legislation and what was before the joint standing committee was: what is the degree of burden that it is legitimate to impose?
I understand the frustration of Senator Madigan; I do actually have sympathy for the position of small parties. I note in this case that there are issues around the impact on the longstanding and legitimate smaller parties in this country. The Democratic Labor Party has been around in this country for coming up on 60 years. It has had members in this chamber for many decades. In fact, Senator Madigan’s election at the last federal poll was testament to the longevity of that political organisation.
I understand what Senator Madigan has just said—that there will be an impact upon him and his party. But we also have to be aware that there are other small groups who do not have that longstanding commitment or those bona fides with respect to the Australian political process. We do need to guard against groups that nominate purely in order to harvest preferences.
If I could refer to an example where I think this is causing a problem with legitimacy in the political process, it is in Victorian local government elections where, due to the lack of third party scrutiny and the sheer number of candidates and the ease of nomination, most people have absolutely no idea who they are voting for. You get a little booklet from the VEC.
There is not the same amount of information provided by the media, nor is there probably the same degree of community interest, I hasten to add, as there might be for federal politics. But it is also clear from anecdote after anecdote that there are examples in local government elections in Victoria of people running as what might be called preference vehicles. The little booklet goes out and they will nominate a how-to-vote card and recommend people vote a certain way and, due to the electoral systems often used, those preferences can be critical.
We have to guard, in my view, against this level of disengagement resulting in a similar event occurring at the federal level. We did make a change a while ago to the Electoral Act that prevented political parties nominating more than one candidate because of, in my view, a loophole—some may view it as an historic position—in the Electoral Act that allowed political parties to nominate more than one candidate at a particular election. In one famous example we had well over half-a-dozen examples—I think it could have been in double figures—of one particular party using that legal right and privilege to nominate more than one candidate at a by-election in the last parliament. I do not think, given the general, fair and reasonable community understanding of our political process, that that was a reasonable thing to do. I think the parliament acted reasonably to say, ‘Political parties get the privilege of nominating someone, but they nominate a single candidate.’ That was, again, an example of a burden that was imposed on political participants, but one which the parliament felt was reasonable.
On this particular example, I have had discussions with Senator Madigan. I think that these particular amendments are a reasonable burden, but I accept that they are a burden. They reflect the fact that we have logistical issues in managing the ballot papers for, particularly, the Senate in our larger states. It does not particularly apply to members of the House of Representatives.
I would also refer to the example that, when that threshold is reached, the money is refunded. That is not to dismiss the fact that I appreciate a cash-flow issue would apply to those who have to pay the deposit. It is true to say that the larger political parties are beneficiaries of substantial amounts of political funding. I do accept that point.
The alternative is a situation where a lack of confidence can develop, not through the actions of people in this chamber or parties or Independents represented in this chamber—I hasten to add and say as genuinely as I can—but through a number of groups that I have seen on Senate ballot papers over the last 10 years who have never appeared on another Senate ballot paper. They have been once-off groups.
It is pretty clear that there have been similar figures involved in multiple groups by multiple names where preferences have consistently gone in one direction. I do not think that adds to our political process, I do not think it makes it easier for the voters to understand who they are voting for and I do not think it adds to the legitimacy of the result. With all due respect, Senator Madigan, and I am trying to understand the situation as best I can, the coalition will be supporting the retention of the schedule as outlined in the bill.
Senator RYAN (Victoria) (13:27): It is fair to say that I have been called an economic rationalist quite often, Senator Madigan, including by some people on my own side, but I am not sure entirely what you mean. With respect to local government, I agree entirely with your point. I need to add that in Victoria the Liberal Party has never run candidates, nor has the party organisation had a role in local government elections. I have to put that on the record.
Liberals have undoubtedly run in local government elections, but the Liberal Party organisation has consistently chosen not to, despite the fact that some have said we are. Liberals run. Of that, I have no doubt. We have the Lord Mayor of Melbourne, who is a very open and prominent Liberal, and we have those Liberals all round the state, but the organisation has not. So I do think it is fair to highlight that.
I again hasten to add, Senator Madigan, that this is a burden. I accept that, and I was not trying to slur minor political parties. You say that this is the consequence of what I am saying—I am trying to choose my words very carefully—but I also suggest that it would be unfair to say that people have not tried to misuse various political processes over time to preference harvest.
I mentioned local government merely because I think that is where we have an example of preference harvesting or preference strategies being used which can confuse the voter because of various other factors.
The Liberal Party as an organisation—I say this clearly—does not have a role in local government elections, and in the foreseeable future, I understand, does not intend to have a role, while individual members of the party do.
Senator RYAN (Victoria) (20:54): I just want to briefly respond to Senator Madigan’s comments about my comments before question time. I actually agree with him. I hope I did not mis-convey the point that I was trying to make. He makes the point about legitimate collective bargaining, which is guaranteed in the Fair Work Act and in competition and consumer law. I am not challenging that at all. The point that I was making earlier, which Senator Madigan has responded to, was about where the money ends up and the means by which money that political parties get hold of is treated differently.
Senator Madigan rightly referred to tax deductibility not only of union dues but also of membership of professional associations or industry groups like the AiG or the Real Estate Institute or, for that matter, groups like the AMA. The difference is that those groups do not hand money to political parties as membership fees.
The point I was making, Senator Madigan, was in regard to the fact that someone who chooses to contribute money to the Labor Party through their union membership fees and then also through a donation or through their membership of the Labor Party more directly is availing themselves of two different tax-free thresholds. They are availing in terms of the tax deductibility of that money. The union money is deductible in one way, whereas the money for membership is deductible in another way. It means that in that all-important sense the money that unions hand over to the ALP is tax free, whereas the money that individuals or that corporates may hand over to another political party or, indeed, to the ALP itself is dealt with primarily, if it is above the deductibility threshold, out of post-tax income, which actually leads to a very different real cost of that donation.
The point I was making about the comments from that particular member of the Democratic Audit was that a structure which favours corporate membership such as the unions have—which is a corporate membership sense of the Labor Party, where the body is the member as opposed to an individual-based membership, which I understand the Democratic Labor Party and the Liberal Party have—is not equal tax treatment of the money that goes to political parties. It has nothing do with collective bargaining, and I do not wish to do anything about the collective bargaining space; it is purely about how the tax system treats the money that political parties get hold of.
I note that in Canada the tax system actually counts tax deductibility as part of the public funding amount, and all moneys that go to political parties that are tax deductible are treated equally. There are no different routes, whether it be by union membership fees or by donations. I think that is an important point.
We do not want to have an unlevel playing field with money in politics in terms of its legal treatment. I was not trying to make a point about collective bargaining in that sense at all. I think this could be resolved without having any impact on collective bargaining, because the examples you mentioned, such as dairy farmers and their collective bargaining with a milk processor—all those things—would be untouched. The issue here is about money that flows to political parties from what is rightly pointed out to be the historic arrangement they have with unions, but that should not give them a financial advantage over other participants in the political process purely via the tax system.
With respect to the contribution from Senator Rhiannon, I will not stand here and be lectured on transparency by a political party that does not allow the media into its national conference.
Senator Rhiannon: That’s not true.
Senator RYAN: That is transparency—how you form your policies. It is about how the Greens come up with the policies which they then put as a gun to the Labor Party’s head and force them to implement. It is about how the Greens come up with the policies that they use in their balance of power and negotiating position in this Senate to force onto the Australian people.
Real transparency, Senator Rhiannon, is not about someone who donates $1,000.50; it is actually about political party processes.
All the other political parties represented here are not afraid of transparency. They do not lock the media out of their national conference for fear that the truth about the extremist base of the party might actually be on the national news.
Transparency is as much about information about our operations and how we come to decisions, and that is something in which the Greens are profoundly lacking. I will not be lectured about transparency by them.