Wednesday, 6 April 2022

Motions

Political donations

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (14:56): I move:

That this house notes that:

(1) it is critical for public trust in democracy that impartiality in government decision-making not only exists but is seen to exist;

(2) weak donation laws undermine the public’s trust in Victoria’s political and bureaucratic processes, by creating perceived conflicts with the flow of money and undue influence in government;

(3) donations from sectors who rely on the issuing of government permits is highly problematic for public trust;

(4) a political donation is defined as a gift of money, services, loans, guarantees or property;

(5) the following donations are not currently categorised as gifts:

(a) donations made through attendance at party fundraisers;

(b) annual subscriptions to political parties registered in Victoria;

(c) annual levies to political parties registered in Victoria;

(6) subsection 5(2) of the NSW Election Funding Act 2018 relating to political donations specifically states that ‘an amount paid by a person as a contribution, entry fee or other payment to entitle that or any other person to participate in or otherwise obtain any benefit from a fundraising venture or function (being an amount that forms part of the gross proceeds of the venture or function)’;

and calls on the government to broaden the definition of ‘donation’ to include income from party fundraisers, corporate sponsorship of business forums, annual levies and membership fees over $1000 per year.

I thank Ms Maxwell. At a time when public trust in politics is at an all-time low and the public claims lack of integrity in political and bureaucratic processes, if Victoria is to get serious about regulating the undue influence of money in government, we must strengthen our laws to deliver more transparency and reform our political donations practices. I have raised this matter before in the house. There is a perception of corruption from donations by certain industries, sectors of our economy who donate to certain parties yet who also rely on the issuing of government permits from those parties. It is highly problematic for public trust. Powerful industries can corrupt our democracy. Both Victoria and Australia are lagging behind almost all the other advanced democracies when it comes to regulating corporate influence. It is not unrealistic to conclude that a politician or party would not want to upset an industry that is funding its election campaign. As well as favourable treatment, these donations buy big corporations access to politicians that ordinary people would never get. Left unchecked this cycle will get worse. We need strong protection and uniform laws to protect us from harmful practices. The High Court has described this as offering quid pro quo corruption, a subtle kind of corruption where politicians decide issues not according to the public interest or the wishes of their constituents but according to the wishes of the donor.

The Grattan Institute has highlighted the need to know more about who donates to our political parties. According to the AEC, in 2021 the two major parties declared income totalling more than $150 million, but declared donations make up only 9 per cent of this. This must raise the alarm bells. What happened to the other 91 per cent of donations? That is over $136 million unaccounted for. Yes, this is federal, but the same thing happens in Victoria. In Victoria most political parties’ incomes are undeclared. They fall into the messy bucket called ‘other receipts’. These include money contributed through fundraising functions—money paid by individuals and corporations clearly intended to support the party. Tickets to fundraising dinners and memberships are not counted as donations under our weak electoral laws, even though they serve exactly the same function as a direct contribution to a party. According to calculations done by the Centre for Public Integrity, our political parties have received $4.5 billion since 1999. This includes $1.38 billion with no apparent source, so that each of the major parties ends up receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in unexplained wealth.

On a federal level, in 2017 Woodside Energy appeared before a parliamentary committee and gave the Australian public a glimpse into what a corporate membership to either the Liberal or Labor Party buys them. This sort of corporate membership is worth some $110 000. It gives the purchaser access to briefings, including forums, dinners with the Prime Minister, tickets to drinks, briefings on the federal budget and more. Now, I ask: does anyone think that such corporate membership should continue to be excluded from transparent reporting?

In today’s motion I address the issue, an issue of great concern to Victorians: the issue of undisclosed donations. How can we have a transparent and accountable system where so much party income is from unexplained origins? In Victoria our current donation definitions are far too narrow and create loopholes. We need definitions of donations or gifts which include party fundraisers, subscriptions, membership fees and corporate sponsorship. As noted in my motion:

(5) the following donations are not currently categorised as gifts:

(a) donations made through attendance at party fundraisers;

(b) annual subscriptions to political parties registered in Victoria—

some expensive subscriptions are out there, I will say—

(c) annual levies to political parties registered in Victoria …

We would all like to know how much our politicians pay to their parties for a seat. When it comes to dinners, lunches, fundraising events et cetera we need a more encompassing definition like in the New South Wales Electoral Funding Act 2018, which states that political donations include:

An amount paid by a person as a contribution, entry fee or other payment to entitle that … person to participate in or otherwise obtain any benefit from a fundraising venture or function …

These loopholes mean major donors can hide from public scrutiny and voters cannot be sure who is really backing political parties.

Despite consistent calls for donation reform over a decade, both major parties continue to resist the public need for greater transparency. The Human Rights Law Centre have also raised this issue in a powerful document called Selling Out: How Powerful Industries Corrupt Our Democracy, covering extensive issues across the gambling, tobacco and mining industries. The summation from the document is that:

Corporate influence in our politics is distorting our democratic processes. We need to hit reset on our democracy and reform our laws to ensure our politicians respond to voters, not vested corporate interests.

They say that:

Current breakdowns of proportions of party income by source are a murky mess.

I have also raised the issue in the house before of property developer donations and their influence over planning policy and development decisions. Greater transparency and accountability are urgently needed. Research by the Australian Conservation Foundation revealed that the gas industry companies were the biggest fossil fuel industry donors in 2020, around the same time as the gas-fired recovery was announced. What a coincidence, eh? Would you believe it!

The Australia Institute says this reflects a wider trend that sectors’ donations correlate with the election cycle and also with project approval and debates on key industry policies. The strengthening of our donation laws is supported by all the independent integrity agencies. The Accountability Round Table says that:

… the present system provides real opportunities for corruption and the temptation to corrupt.

“The process creates a situation where persons who wish to engage in corrupt behaviour are given every opportunity, and the political party concerned becomes indebted to the people who made donations.”

They say donation laws must be transparent, with the objective of ‘ensuring a reduction in undue influence’.

The Centre for Public Integrity have the same message and say:

It is critical for public trust in democracy that impartiality in government decision-making not only exist but be seen to exist.

And:

Current disclosure regulations allow the majority of political donations to be hidden.

Anthony Whealy QC, the centre’s chair, said:

We need urgent reform to clean up the undue influence of money in politics …

In an article just last week in the Guardian Catherine Williams, research director at the Centre for Public Integrity, when addressing political fundraising events, said:

The difference between the cost of running the event and the fee—

charged—

needs to be explicitly captured as a donation. That’s how they do it in New South Wales.

We believe we should do the same thing here. Catherine Williams also highlighted the need for caps on election spending, for ministerial diaries to be published and for the expansion of IBAC’s powers.

Deborah Glass, the Victorian Ombudsman, said:

There can be little doubt that the lack of transparency in political donations and the lack of limitations on who can make those donations in Victoria creates an environment in which allegations of improper conduct can flourish …

Whether they are substantiated or not, whether such allegations are legitimately made or are made for political mischief-making as is often claimed, is not the point.

Ultimately, they create a perception that politicians can be bought, which reduces public trust in government.

State politics has often been tainted by crooked donations. Just last month the Independent Commission Against Corruption made findings of corruption against people including former New South Wales Labor MP Ernest Wong over attempts to conceal a $100 000 donation from a Chinese billionaire apparently left behind in a shopping bag in party headquarters by accident. And there is evidence here in Victoria of hidden donations. In 2020 the Victorian Liberal Party’s fundraising arm allegedly diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of contributions into a federal campaign fund in what looked like an attempt to sidestep more strict local disclosure rules. This is a well-known backdoor method for hiding large undisclosed donations, making them through the federal arm of any party organisation. IBAC was told during hearings into the Casey land scandal how John Woodman, the allegedly corrupt property developer, avoided publicly disclosing his $70 000 contribution to Enterprise Victoria in 2019 by splitting the payments into $10 000 lots and donating them from multiple different companies. Enterprise Victoria’s former executive director Amy Sullivan said splitting contributions in this way was ‘not uncommon’.

Victorian MPs have also been identified attending fundraisers where funds have been allegedly raised to enable branch stacking. Is it okay for high-profile identities to grow their power base using their publicly elected roles to host fundraisers which raise cash which is then used to help them gain control over preselection and internal party processes? It may not be deliberate, but it does demonstrate how MPs can be, maybe unwittingly, caught up in events that raise money for unethical purposes. Self-confessed branch stacker turned whistleblower Anthony Byrne said it was common knowledge amongst attendees that dinners held by Labor groups were used to gain cash for paying for other members’ subscription fees.

Regardless of what IBAC’s recommendations are in the coming weeks, it is obvious to blind Freddy that our weak laws do not curtail these types of activities. The sums of money involved are not small change; they are more than sufficient to buy influence and create incentives for politicians to reward donors. They encourage a sense of expectation for donors, including substantial corporations. It is the anticipation of a profitable result from government that drives corporate giving to politicians.

Many speak about the system in Canada and how we should use it as a benchmark. In Canada only people on the electoral roll can donate and only to a maximum of 1675 Canadian dollars per year, and that is aggregated to all parties’ constituency associations and independent candidates. This ensures that citizens are central to the electoral process and prevents corporations from dominating political debate during election campaigns. It would really be something if we could achieve something like that. They also have caps on campaign expenditure. You could say Canada’s lower level of public funding does not seem to have harmed Canadian democracy. Indeed the reforms have decentralised fundraising and hence control of political parties, something that Victoria’s rank-and-file branch party members should welcome.

And it seems that this is what the voters want. In South Australia the new leader, Peter Malinauskas, said in a pre-election promise that he would ban all political donations. He also said this is:

… the single biggest thing we can do to restore public trust in our democracy.

It seems that their voters agree. Political parties are private entities in the centre of the public realm of democracy. They occupy a pivotal position in our political system and should be obliged to greater levels of transparency about their sources of income. As we head towards election 2022 we must ask ourselves what kind of democracy we want: one that can be bought by those with the deepest pockets or one where, through appropriate regulation, equality of participation is protected? The barrier to reform is not lack of solutions or even lack of community support but lack of state leadership and political will.

Community support for donation reform is high. Elaine from Warrnambool sums up the current situation well:

What will it take for the major parties to act?

Given the millions of dollars in declared donations and the mega-millions of undeclared donations, we have to wonder whether we … have a … election or an auction … In an election, we get what we vote for. In an auction, the biggest bidders get ownership and use of whatever they have bought.

… Is either of the major parties likely to do anything voluntarily to stem this flow of dodgy funding?

I seriously hope so. It is time for integrity and transparency, and I commend this motion to the house.

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:12): I also rise to speak on Mr Hayes’s motion. There is a lot to unpack in that. I will do my best to address many of those issues raised in the time that I have allotted to me, but I doubt that I will be able to cover them all. I will start by just saying that I think there are a lot of issues there that are conflated between federal and state jurisdictions. I will come to that a little bit more in a moment, but I want to just basically begin by saying that the government does agree—and there is a lot in it that I disagree with—that public trust in democracy is important and that weak donation laws undermine that trust. That is why in 2018 we took action to implement the strictest and most transparent donation disclosure laws in Australia, and it is something that we stand very proud of, because we led the country in doing that.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr TARLAMIS: Mr Finn, you can interject, but you were opposed to it at the time and we had to drag you kicking and screaming to do it. You can interject all you like, but we did it and you did not. You did not support it. We did it, and we stand proud of having done it.

We reject the assertion that the donation laws in Victoria are weak. They are the strictest in the country. It is all very well to point to elements of other systems like New South Wales and talk about how you might like this and you might like that, but it is important that you look at the system in its entirety and look at whether or not it is effective and whether or not it covers all the aspects in terms of what it does.

What we did in Victoria is we looked at the entirety of the system so that we could ensure that we were picking up all elements in terms of the donation system, so that we could cover off on not just political parties but third-party activities as well and so that we could shut down alternative loopholes and stop the money from flowing between third parties and political parties. We made conscious choices to try and put in place a regime that was effective and would be able to regulate the system so that it was stopping that flow of funding. Basically it ensures that Victorians know who is making donations and who is receiving political donations. It includes real time, and it effectively applies to individuals and corporations and stops them from buying influence within Victorian politics.

The measures include a political donation disclosure and reporting scheme with currently a $1050 disclosure threshold that is indexed and requires real-time disclosure; caps on political donations, currently at $4210 per election cycle—that is a four-year period; bans on foreign donations; caps on anonymous donations, currently at $1050; ensuring that bodies and organisations involved in political fundraising or campaigning are also held to the same restrictions and scrutiny, including the requirement that they submit annual returns to the Victorian Electoral Commission; and stronger penalties for breaching the laws as well as anti-avoidance mechanisms.

It basically means that regardless of whether you are an individual, a small business or an organisation, whether you are a large corporation or a wealthy individual, the laws apply to you evenly. I think it needs to be reinforced that the cap that applies currently at $4210 over a four-year period applies to everyone—individuals and corporations.

Mr Finn: But not unions.

Mr TARLAMIS: Actually, it does, Mr Finn. Unions as well as organisations are capped at $4210 for the four-year cycle, so it does apply to them. It does apply to them in terms of donations. It does, so you are wrong. Yet, again, you are wrong.

Mr Ondarchie: So they cannot run a campaign then?

Mr TARLAMIS: No, they can. Like any third-party campaigner, they can run a campaign. The Minerals Council of Australia or anyone else, your friends that want to run individual campaigns, can run campaigns as well. They can run them in their own name so there is transparency. The whole system is designed so that there is transparency. People can see who is campaigning, who is spending money and what they are saying, so there can be a weighting attributed to it and the voter can make a choice as to who is saying what, attribute a weighting to that and see whether they accept that argument. That applies to everyone across the board. But if people do want to engage in that space—

Mr Finn interjected.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Mr Finn!

Mr Ondarchie interjected.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Mr Ondarchie! Do not force me to stand. I do not feel like it. But can everyone just let Mr Tarlamis get on with this?

Mr TARLAMIS: What you fail to recognise is that anyone who wants to engage in that political space is required to establish a state campaign account. Any funds going into that account must be subjected to the donation requirements and the caps, and any expenditure on the campaign must come out of that account also. So it is fully transparent, and they must supply an annual return to the electoral commission as well. That way that organisation can enter into that space, regardless of who they are, and they can campaign. It is fully transparent and badges them so the public can make a conscious choice as to the messaging that they are seeing, know who is conveying that messaging and choose whether or not they believe it and want to accept the argument.

It is transparency out there for all to see. It was never there before, it is fully accountable and the caps apply across the board. This argument has been brought to this place on a number of occasions before by Mr Hayes and others—that we should not have this system that applies equally across the board to everybody and that we should simply ban people like property developers. If we had gone down that path in 2018 and simply banned property developers to the exclusion of anyone else, who decides who is captured by the donation scheme and who is not? Do we just on an ad hoc basis bring people in that we think we should be targeting? This applies to everybody equally across the board. The threshold is sufficiently low that no-one can purchase influence whatsoever.

It is interesting that Mr Hayes cites Canada as a model and talks about the Canadian cap and says we should be looking at the Canadian model. He said, I believe, if I heard correctly—and correct me if I did not—that in Canada the cap is $1680 per year. Well, if my calculations are correct, that would mean that over a four-year period they could donate $6720. Well, funnily enough, in Victoria you can only donate $4210. That means you can actually donate more under the Canadian system than you can under the Victorian system, so now you are actually advocating for a model where you could donate more money.

Your motion also talks about the New South Wales system. Well, under the New South Wales system you can donate $6700 a year, so that means $28 000 or something like that, but they do not have real-time disclosure either.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Order! Mr Tarlamis, through the Chair. Thanks.

Mr TARLAMIS: Sorry. Through you, Acting President, New South Wales also do not have real-time disclosure, and there are a number of other mechanisms that they do not have as well. This is the problem when you look at systems on an ad hoc basis and you cherrypick from different systems to talk about ‘It’d be nice to have that’ or ‘It’d be nice to have that’.

What we did in Victoria was try to establish a holistic system that went across the board and covered off all aspects. We knew that we were going from a system where there were effectively very few donation requirements in place. We were subject to what was happening at the federal level, which was an absolute joke. That was a big move and a big step, so what we did was put in place—it is in the legislation—and built in a review mechanism that would take effect one full cycle after the new donation system was in operation. So one year after a full cycle of the reforms an independent body would conduct a review to have a look at what had worked, what had not worked and what other things could possibly be done. That is due to take place after the next election, and I look forward to that review because I think there are changes that could be made and need to be looked at as part of that donations system. Absolutely these sorts of things can be considered as part of that review, but you do not actually start tweaking a system before it has been able to run its full cycle, because it will have unintended consequences when you start playing around with a system that has not had an opportunity to run its full cycle.

I personally believe that we should be looking at things like caps on individual expenditure. We have seen what is happening with Clive Palmer at the moment, where he is spending an absolute fortune. We need to be looking at these sorts of things. I think there is synergy between truth in political advertising, some of the recommendations that were made in the Inquiry into the Impact of Social Media on Victorian Elections and Victoria’s Electoral Administration report and how that links up with some of the third-party activity in donations. I think there are some synergies in that sort of stuff, and I think this independent body can look at those sorts of things. There is some important work that needs to be done, but this was an important reform that was carefully considered; we spent a lot of time on this reform. It took us a number of years— (Time expired)

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (15:22): What a joy it was to listen to Mr Tarlamis. Certainly the government put up somebody who knows what they are doing. I think he actually wrote the legislation, so he absolutely knows what he is talking about, and indeed to an uninformed bystander he almost sounded reasonable. But when he talked about transparency, well, I was chortling away to myself, if not guffawing just a tad, because when anybody from this government talks about transparency we know they are having a lend of us, because this government we know will take you to the cleaners at the drop of a hat. They are not big on telling anybody what they are doing, and they will take taxpayers money at the drop of a hat for their own purposes.

We heard Mr Tarlamis tell us about the caps on this and the caps on that: ‘Only $1000 a year’ and ‘The unions can’t give us any more than the business community does’ and all that. He told us about the caps, but what I want to know is whether the caps include the $15 million that has gone into employing 154 spin doctors to promote their Big Build program. That is what I would like to know—$15 million there. Does the cap include the $80 million—$80 million of taxpayers money, I might say—that the government is spending on advertising that is grossly political? The Auditor-General has found you with your fingers in the till—

Mr Tarlamis: On a point of order, Acting President, on relevance, I am not sure what relevance that actually has to the motion that is before us.

Mr Ondarchie: On the point of order, Acting President, I remind Mr Tarlamis and others that Mr Tarlamis talked about transparency in his contribution, which absolutely gave Mr Finn the opportunity to talk about transparency in government, which he is doing right now.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Order! I would like Mr Finn to maybe talk about political donations and stuff. I understand about the transparency thing, but if we took it too far, we could talk about window glazing and stuff like that, so how about just speaking on donations?

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Windows are transparent—you were getting so far off the track.

Mr FINN: I knew a bloke that worked as a window-dresser at Myer once. John-Michael Howson I think was a window-dresser at Myer, wasn’t he? A while back.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Let us get back on track, Mr Finn.

Mr FINN: To get back to the motion at hand, the fact of the matter is that a great deal of what Mr Tarlamis spoke about was transparency. He said the whole thrust of the donation caps and this motion is about transparency. If you going to talk about transparency, you have got to make sure that it stacks up. As I said a moment ago, I want to know if that transparency allows us to see the $15 million that they spent on spin doctors and the $80 million that they spent on advertising.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Mr Finn, government expenditure is not part of this. It is about donations and things like that. Let us just keep it on track, please.

Mr FINN: Acting President, I am disappointed that you did not have a similar view when Mr Tarlamis was speaking. He was allowed to speak about transparency, but I am not, and that seems to me to be a little bit odd, a little bit inconsistent. But I am not one to criticise the Chair. As the house would know, I would never do that.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): I am trying to keep a straight face right now, Mr Finn. Let us just move on.

Mr Ondarchie: On a point of order, Acting President, I draw your attention to item (1) of Mr Hayes’s motion today, which I will read to you:

it is critical for public trust in democracy that impartiality in government decision-making not only exists but is seen to exist …

Mr Finn is going to that in his contribution today about government advertising and lack of impartiality. I think he is quite on point, Chair, and I ask you to review your decision.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Reviewed. I am still going to stick to it.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Would you like me to call the President, Mr Ondarchie?

Mr Ondarchie: I have not asked for that yet.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Sorry, I thought you were. Mr Finn, let us keep it going, if we can.

Mr FINN: If you can give me some notes on what I am allowed to say and what I am not allowed to say, that would be a very good thing, because I am going to stick at the motion.

As Mr Ondarchie has said, the first point of Mr Hayes’s motion makes it very, very clear that there should be impartiality and indeed it should not just exist but be seen to exist. So what I want to know is: where is our—what is it—$95 million? I have not even got to the union contribution as yet, because the unions kick in millions of dollars to Labor campaigns, as we know. They might not be in the funds of the ALP. They might not have their own Aldi bag stashed with cash, but they certainly contribute vast sums of money, as we have seen in previous years, to running campaigns in support of the ALP. We have seen that time and time again. I have absolutely no doubt it will happen again in the federal election and again later this year in the state election.

What we have seen in fact with this motion that Mr Tarlamis went on about at very great length is an attempt—I do not know how successful; we will find out in the fullness of time—by the government to nobble the opposition. That is what this government has done, and it is certainly in total contravention of impartiality in government decision-making. It does not exist, and it is seen not to exist. Anybody who knows anything about it will see that. Despite the charm and the smoothness of Mr Tarlamis, the people out there—people listening to this debate today—will know. People listening to this debate today are educated people. They know the scams that the Labor Party pull off. They know what they are like.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Order! It is getting hard to hear Mr Finn, which is a very unusual thing. Can everyone just keep it down. Mr Finn, as you were.

Mr FINN: Thank you, Acting President. I was just talking about the scams that the Labor Party pull at election times. People out there will understand when I talk about that.

I can certainly sympathise with Mr Hayes’s motion. Sadly I cannot vote for it, but I can sympathise with his motives, and they are pure. They are pure motives, unlike Mr Tarlamis’s motives—look, he is just devastated. He is just devastated over there, I can see.

Mr Tarlamis: You’ve broken my heart.

Mr FINN: He is a sensitive new-age man—a SNAG, that is right. He is a sensitive new-age guy over there. And the fact that he wrote the legislation with a pure heart—if you believe that, fair dinkum, you will believe anything. Well, he knows what he has done. He has nobbled the opposition, and he said he is very proud of that, as indeed are the Labor Party—and they gave you your reward, comrade. They gave your reward. And there you are, sitting over there, lording over all, and that has got to be a good thing for you, I am sure.

But we have to come back to this point: if we are going to talk about the transparency of legislation, if we are going to talk about the transparency of our donation caps and so forth, it has got to be a two-way thing. It cannot be just affecting one side of politics. It has got to affect both. Unfortunately at this point in time it is kicking the opposition fair where it should not be kicked, and the government is getting away with murder—not for the first time, I might say. And that is the way they operate. That is the way the Andrews government operates. They will get away with anything that they think they can. They will try it on, and that is what they have done with this legislation. As I say, despite the attempt by Mr Tarlamis to sell us a crook chook, that is the reality. The reality is the reality, and we cannot get away from it.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (15:32): We know that both of the major parties are able to manipulate legislation and to manipulate the system to their advantage. And I know that I heard Mr Finn crying poor and Mr Tarlamis saying, ‘We would never do that’. However, we know both of you take advantage of whatever opportunity you can. It is avoidance, not evasion—is that right? There is that very fine line between what is legal and what is not. So I am happy to lend my support to Mr Hayes. I think the motion picks up on Reason Party policy, and I think probably a lot of us on the crossbench would have similar policies. In fact we did some work on this, and certainly during the debate in the last term we worked with Mr Tarlamis and obviously Mr Jennings on trying to find a pathway forward that did give us the system that we as a community deserve and we want.

We want the public to trust in us, and when the public does not, that is when it is really hard to bring them along with change. And as we saw, the Centre for Public Integrity only two weeks ago released a paper called Integrity Inadequacies, and that was particularly focusing on Victoria. They said that our state frameworks were falling short when compared to other jurisdictions. They went on to say that there might be a dinner where Mr Gepp is the lead speaker and people are spending thousands of dollars to hear the wise words of Mr Gepp, but we know that the parma on offer at Mr Gepp’s fine dinner did not cost thousands of dollars. So the difference between the cost of running the event and the fee needs to be explicitly captured as a donation, and I think this is certainly what Mr Hayes was going to in his contribution today and also in his motion. That is actually what New South Wales does. While I certainly think that our legislation would try and capture that, I do not know whether it does adequately. We know that it excludes gifts between registered parties, and I think that is a significant loophole.

We can tighten these donation rules, but I think that the better solution to this problem—and certainly the Centre for Public Integrity concurs—is that we cap election spending. I think that is where we could really disincentivise big donations, disincentivise fundraising, and as Mr Tarlamis knows, that is exactly what I negotiated last term as part of the review. They put an amendment into the Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 so that a review is to be conducted, and that is to happen after this election. In that is whether the act should be further amended to provide for a cap on political expenditure and, if so, whether the cap should apply generally or to specific persons or entities, and for the value of the cap and the consequences of failure to comply with the cap. That body of work is coming up. After this election we will be looking at that cap, and I think that actually is where we can limit the relevance and maybe the undue influence of donations.

This is from Professor Joo-Cheong Tham from Melbourne Law School, who would also concur:

The absence of limits on election campaign spending in the Victorian legislation risks placing pressure on the “political donation” caps, as parties and candidates seek to meet unabated demand for campaign funds. If the bill had provided for limits on spending, they may have curbed the impact of the uneven flow of private and public funds that will result from its enactment …

And he went on to talk more about this. I think with the independent review due next year I will find it hard to believe that the expert panel would not come to the same conclusion.

I think Mr Hayes goes to that in his point about Canada, that that is one of the things that Canada does—there is a cap on spending. It is the same in the UK and the same in New Zealand, and this is certainly, I think, the way that we can get meaningful change in this. We can curb the perceived undue influence that donations have in our democratic process.

So I see no problem in broadening the definition of ‘donation’, and I was listening to Mr Tarlamis and watching him shake his head during some of this as well. Yes, they did broaden that definition, and it did capture a number of areas that had not been captured previously. But, as I say, there is going to be an independent review after this election, and I welcome that review. Without being unkind, Mr Hayes, I think that review actually will hopefully go to what you are doing and possibly more than us talking on a Wednesday afternoon, as delightful as it has been to be here for this.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:39): It is absolutely a delight, isn’t it? Anyway, it has been interesting—that is one way of looking at it. Certainty having integrity with regard to political donations is critical; hence why we introduced the reforms that we made in 2018. But you would almost think, with the underlying premise of some of the comments that have been made in the chamber, that we had not made those significant reforms, and that does take away a little bit of credibility from some of the debate that has been conducted today, because I think that credit should be paid, noting that we do have the strictest political donation laws in the country. I think something has to be said for that, so we do take exception to some of the inferences. It is very easy—and I want to be really careful with the way I say this—to grab a one-liner in a tweet or media commentary and say, ‘Political donations—major parties’. And you might get somewhere with that, relying on people not studying intricately in Hansard the debates we have here. I am not saying that the whole of Victoria is not watching the LC debate today, but I dare say they are not. There probably are a few people watching it and I greatly respect that and I hope that they are, because we live stream it for a reason. We do want people to feel they have full access to our chamber.

I think there is no problem at all in debating the issue of political donations, and we heartily encourage that and welcome that debate; however, I do think there is a little bit of a risk when people perhaps do not look at the system as a whole. They cherrypick certain elements, heaven forbid, and thereby create an inference that deviates from the actual factual situation when it comes to how strictly political donations are in fact controlled in Victoria. I just wanted to make that point because, as I say, it is very easy in a one-liner to just sledge the major parties and assume the worst of them without doing a deep dive into actually what is happening in terms of the way political donations are in fact controlled in our state.

I do have a few little rebuttal points here, which I am sure you can appreciate in light of some of the commentary that has been put here. Mr Finn, looking at you has inspired one of the rebuttals, in light of your—

Mr Finn: I inspire a lot of people—

Ms TAYLOR: Well, let us put a few more words. I did not say ‘inspired’. It has inspired me to rebut, so let me be very clear about that. I just want to note that prior to the reforms the Andrews government introduced in 2018 and which the coalition, I might add, opposed, there was no comprehensive Victorian regime for regulating political donations. Donations were instead primarily regulated by the commonwealth regime. So let it be clear when we are being heavily criticised by the opposition that they might want to look back at history and not try to re-create history. I think that is a valid point, and actually looking over at Mr Finn inspired me to go to that issue, so thank you, Mr Finn.

Mr Finn: Twice in the one day.

Ms TAYLOR: Yes, you have assisted me in my rebuttal, so I am very happy about that.

With regard to the commonwealth, if we make a comparison, the commonwealth in fact now has the weakest political donation laws in Australia, with no cap on donations and a high disclosure threshold of $14 500. This is made worse by the lack of transparency in their system, with the public kept in the dark for at least a year before they can find out which companies and individuals are donating to federal politicians and political parties. So that is the second rebuttal point I want to make with regard to perspective on where Victoria is at versus the commonwealth as a whole, and I wonder to some extent—and I say this respectfully to Mr Hayes—whether a number of your arguments actually pertain perhaps to what is happening federally and not exclusively to Victoria as well. But there is some relevance with issues regarding controls at the commonwealth level.

Victorians can be confident in the integrity of government decision-making when there are strict caps on political donations, which there are. The cap is $4210 over the course of the four-year electoral cycle, and this is an equaliser in many respects. Why have I raised that issue specifically? Because I know there were comparisons made, respectfully—

Mr Finn interjected.

Ms TAYLOR: No, there is a good reason! There is a rationale, and I am getting to it. I know Mr Hayes has made certain references to New South Wales. I respect that he wants to make a comparator, and that is fair enough in a debate; however, if we are going to make comparisons to New South Wales, let us make an accurate and full and complete comparison, rather than cherrypicking elements which are favourable to a certain argument. I am just putting that out there. So it should be pointed out that whilst Mr Hayes has used the definition of ‘donation’ under the New South Wales Electoral Funding Act 2018 to suggest Victoria should follow suit and include levies and membership fees within the meaning of donation, it is worth noting that these levies and subscriptions are excluded from the cap on donations in New South Wales. And in fact in New South Wales the cap is not over a four-year cycle but rather it is a yearly cap, which is currently $6700 for the 2021–22 year. So if—and I say this respectfully, Mr Hayes, because we are honouring this debate and we want to make sure it is full and comprehensive—Mr Hayes would like to emulate the New South Wales Electoral Funding Act, is he also wanting Victoria to increase the caps on donations so that we do not have a $4210 cap over a four-year cycle but revert to tens of thousands of dollars donated instead, as occurs in New South Wales?

So you can see where I am going with the fact that if you just pluck out certain elements that lend themselves to a certain argument without looking at the whole system of regulation, you are at risk of in fact distorting the actual premise upon which a certain system has been created and the actual ramifications of that system. We are here to have a factual debate, so I think it is fair and reasonable that the government would put these issues on the table so that for those who may be actually watching our debate—and there may be—or down the track Hansard—

Mr Finn interjected.

Ms TAYLOR: There will be some. I do not know. I am sure there is somebody out there watching or who may review Hansard down the track.

Ms Symes: You’re going to get an email now.

Ms TAYLOR: That is right. I hope I do. So this is why I am making the fundamental point that it is important to look at the totality of what each regime achieves. Our government is proud of the Victorian scheme. It places limits on influence through donations, and the fact is that Victorians can see this—this is the other point—in real time. I think that is highly relevant, and they deserve to as well. So I am not trying to resile from that argument—in real time is actually very important in terms of who is donating to whom, so I did want to make that point as well.

To round off my contribution today I also wanted to add further—and I know that Ms Patten did mention the independent panel. We know that the system is not perfect, and we are not saying it cannot be improved. We recognised this in 2018, and this is why we included as part of those reforms a requirement for an independent panel to review the amendments made in 2018 at the end of the full electoral cycle—so following the conclusion of the election in November. I think that is fair and reasonable. It has also allowed a period of time for the system to be rolled out and implemented and to have something to assess, because arguably, if you do not allow a reasonable time frame to assess a system, then what is the point of having the review in the first place? It has to be tested, and we have forecast that well ahead. We have been very transparent in terms of noting that there will be an independent panel assessing the system that is in place, and I think that there should be some credence given to that because it is significant within the context of the debate that we are having today.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (15:48): I do rise today to speak to Sustainable Australia’s motion today and to talk about donations and elections and parties. For me as an independent, over my 25 years of running in local councils and for the state, I have used my own money. So I feel that I come from a really different space in this debate—that if it is my money, I have earned it and if I wish to actually go get a loan and I wish to run for council or for state or federally, I should be able to do that because it is my money. I have decided to risk my own money or go get a loan, and I should be able to do that.

But I also extend that to constituents and others within the community. In my mind, there should not be any caps. In my mind all donations should be anonymous, and there could not be then any influence on these parties or individuals. For me, I come from a space where I believe that there should be no caps, that people should be able to spend the money that they want in the manner that they wish to and to give it to whoever they want to for whatever reason they wish to.

For me, I have watched the hypocrisy of some of these parties who say they use volunteers. Now, we all know even from Volunteering Victoria or Volunteering Australia or others that volunteers have a value. Your time is valuable. If you are sitting there at a polling booth from 8 o’clock in the morning to 6 o’clock at night, you have a value. These parties here will talk about minimum wage, and I believe that people should actually be paid for their time. If they are handing out how-to-vote cards, if they going around letterboxing, they should be paid. It should not be run as a volunteer system. It is ludicrous and it is silly. Who can volunteer time? Normally people who have got plenty of money can volunteer their time or have spare time because they have got a job that pays for that time. I do believe that people’s time is valuable, so therefore I believe that there is a value to that, so I believe that during an election everyone should be paid.

For me, as I said, I do not believe in caps. I believe people should be able to spend what they want the way that they want and that donations should be anonymous so therefore there is not any influence. Why I also say that is that it would actually allow our system to be completely transparent. There is no influence when you can actually have a system that runs in that way. So for me, I find the caps that were created at the last election and that we are running under at this moment here in Victoria definitely—definitely, definitely, definitely—advantage the major parties that have been around for decades, if not hundreds of years. They have plenty of money in the bank, and minor parties who are created within these times to come up against them have limited ability because the systems that are in place have actually stopped any kind of minor party really being able to have the amount of money needed for a proper campaign.

For me, during a campaign I have no problem with people being employed—people who are employed in the media, people who are employed here in Victoria to do printing, people here in Victoria who are making T-shirts or making hats. I feel that there would be job creation from that. But unfortunately, when you actually have caps, you have major parties that can actually—and we have seen this with the red shirts and the rorts—use people who are paid in other positions; they are volunteering their time, but they have already got a wage. That is unfair for others within the community who do not have those means. They might have a small amount of means and wish to actually be able to give their money or time to minor parties without feeling that there is a cap but also to do it anonymously so they do not have to declare it and they do not actually have the demonisation that occurs if you come out and say that you are supporting a certain team or a certain party, because unfortunately we live in a society where if you come out with your political views in Victoria you can be demonised within your workforce or workplace. It is one of those topics that are almost taboo when you are at a barbecue. Because of the way we have created this system here in Victoria, the two-party system, our minor parties are feeling hamstrung by the current legislation. They are not able to grow, and independents feel they have not got the means to keep up with the major parties and the war chests that they have.

So, yes, I come from a very different space, Mr Hayes, but I do value that you have actually brought this motion here today for the broader community out there, who might not understand the nuances. And who would read the Victorian Electoral Commission’s or the AEC’s electoral acts and know that level of detail? I struggle with it. I have seen many a person at IBAC trying to explain it, and they have been in major parties for 20 or 30 years. But I truly believe if we had a system where there were no caps, parties and independents had no idea where their donations came from and we valued everyone who worked during elections and paid them for that, we would have a better election system and better democracy here in Victoria.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (15:56): I rise to speak to Mr Hayes’s motion 735. It relates to democracy and impartiality in government decision-making, which, as Mr Hayes points out, should not only exist but should be seen to exist. I would like to address that first part of the motion today if I can.

I take on notice Mr Tarlamis’s contribution today where he waxed lyrical about donation laws, about the reforms that have happened in this state and about impartiality and appropriate support for political parties, but I remind him, as per part (1) of today’s motion, which talks about democracy and talks about impartiality in government decision-making, of the Auditor-General’s finding tabled today about government advertising and whether that government advertising represented part (1) of this motion, being impartiality in government decision-making. I put to you, Acting President, that in fact it did not. We are asked by this motion to note that:

it is critical for public trust in democracy that impartiality in government decision-making not only exists but is seen to exist …

There are other parts of this motion which I will get to, but I will deal with them one at a time if I may.

The Auditor-General’s report was very clear today that this has been a rort by this government using so-called public information to promote the government. You can say to yourself, ‘Is that right? Have they really done that?’, but then—the Leader of the Government calls me the king of surveys—they surveyed Victorians to see if those messages were received in a positive manner, if they were favourable. You cannot tell me on the one hand, if we are genuinely about public trust in democracy and impartiality in government decision-making, that they can run these advertisements and then by way of checking see if they have got a favourable response. That is hardly impartiality in government decision-making, and not only did it not exist, it was not seen to exist.

I want to talk a bit more about that, about government impartiality, and I take us back to the period before a state election when there were many people walking around the streets in red shirts that were paid for by the taxpayer—not the red shirts, the time of the staff, who were employees of the Parliament, employees used in government decision-making, who were there to campaign for the Australian Labor Party. I go to part (1) of Mr Hayes’s motion, which is about public trust in democracy and impartiality in government decision-making. Where is the impartiality in government decision-making if the Labor Party are employing electorate officers wearing red shirts to campaign for the government? It was an absolute rort—

Mr Finn interjected.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Thank you, Mr Finn. Mr Ondarchie, you are kind of sailing close to the wind. As you are not the lead speaker, you do not have the same leeway—

Mr Finn: You didn’t give me the leeway. What are you talking about?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): I will get to that after this. Basically, if you can keep it related to donations and so on.

Mr ONDARCHIE: On a point of order, Acting President, part (1) of Mr Hayes’s motion does not talk about donations at all. I am only dealing with part (1) of the motion. I am talking about public trust in democracy and government decision-making. It does not talk about donations at all. I am only dealing with part (1) of the motion so far. I will get to the other parts as my contribution comes along.

Sitting suspended 4.00 pm until 4.18 pm.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): I am going to rule on Mr Ondarchie’s point of order. I am actually going to uphold it.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Thank you, Acting President. As I was saying, before we were interrupted, on part (1) of Mr Hayes’s motion, which talks about public trust in democracy and impartiality in government decision-making not only existing but being seen to exist, if we are genuine about having impartiality in government decision-making, then the red shirts thing should never have occurred—it should never have happened—where they used taxpayer-funded employees to campaign for the Labor Party. So I concur with what Mr Hayes is saying here about public trust in democracy and government decision-making.

Interestingly enough the Labor Party then paid back the $388 000 they spent of taxpayers money and said, ‘Well, everything must be fine now’. We have met the hurdle that Mr Hayes is talking about here because public trust was seen to be repaid—because ‘We paid $388 000’. But for me, that is a bit like somebody stealing your car, bringing it back a month later when they are caught and going, ‘Here you go, you got your car back; we’re all square now’. No, the crime still happened. They still stole money from the taxpayer, and simply paying it back does not absolve them of their responsibilities or their accountability for this.

So further to Mr Hayes’s first point—and I am hopeful with the time allowed I will get to his other points in the motion today—today the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office released a report that found that Victorian taxpayer-funded ads breached the law. Given that the Auditor-General has found that two taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns worth more than $13 million were political and did not comply with the state laws, the Labor Party, following their example with the red shirts, should be paying back that money. They should be paying back the $13 million they spent on political advertising that was camouflaged as part of a taxpayer-funded advertising campaign to inform people.

The Victorian Auditor-General’s report released today ruled on parts of the state’s Big Build advertising program. The 2019 Our Fair Share campaign, it says, was in breach of current laws. An article on it says:

In 2017 the … parliament passed laws to stop public sector agencies from publishing political advertising by ensuring it was always in the public interest.

The Our Fair Share (OFS) campaign—which ran from April to June 2019 and cost taxpayers $1.7m—advocated for more Commonwealth funding for Victoria.

But the VAGO report found most of that campaign was political because it could “easily be seen” to promote the current Victorian government while attacking the federal government.

It also found the OFS advertisements, which featured on TV during the 2019 commonwealth election campaign, did more than just state facts and data about government funding.

I quote from the report:

The statements about the Victorian government appeared to have a positive tone. They referred to billions of dollars or ‘record levels’ of investment. The statements about ‘Canberra’ were negative. They used language such as ‘cuts’ and ‘miss out’.

Further, the report says:

Members of the public were likely to find the language in some of the advertisements to be particularly emotive. One of the television advertisements included the line ‘don’t let Canberra short-change our kids’.

But do you know what? The government will stand up today and say they were doing their job, but they were clearly using taxpayers money to run a Labor Party campaign, just as they did with the red shirts.

I think it is reasonable that Leader of the Opposition Matthew Guy has called on the Labor Party to pay back the money. They have got form on this. They got caught on the red shirts rort—$388 000 of taxpayers money used to campaign for the Labor Party. Today we found that an advertising campaign that cost $13 million was political and did not comply with the state laws. How about you give us the money back? How about you give the taxpayer the money back, Labor Party? That does not absolve you from your responsibility, I have to say. It does not absolve you of the exact point that Mr Hayes has made in point (1) of his motion today, which is that:

it is critical for public trust in democracy that impartiality in government decision-making not only exists but is seen to exist …

Government, I call on you today: if you are genuine about transparency, as Mr Tarlamis said, integrity, as Mr Tarlamis said, and accountability, as Mr Tarlamis said, then it is incumbent on you to pay back the money you stole from the taxpayers to run an advertising campaign—it is incumbent upon you. I call on Daniel Andrews today: if he has one iota of integrity—there are some people who say he does not—then he should pay back that money via the Australian Labor Party.

I know that this is political advertising, because they did a survey afterwards and included a question about whether the ads made people feel positive about the government. They ran a campaign and then asked people, ‘Do you feel good about what your government are doing?’. This is complete spending of taxpayers money to promote the Australian Labor Party in Victoria. It is a rort, and it stands alongside many other rorts that occur in this state. Quite simply, I and, I suspect, Mr Hayes are sick and tired of this sort of stuff. So I commend point (1) of Mr Hayes’s motion today. We need to see better public trust in democracy. We need to ensure the impartiality in government decision-making not only occurs but is seen to occur as well.

The survey also talked about the coordinated master plan and asked how that master plan made people feel good about the government. It was an absolute rort with the red shirts, and it was an absolute rort with this advertising campaign. Sadly, I have run out of time, but I will have more to say at another time.

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (16:24): I want to say at the outset that I do recognise that Victoria has made great strides in this area. Other jurisdictions around Australia are also doing the same. I take up Ms Taylor’s comments that we should be looking at this legislation as a whole. I do get that, and I do like to do that, but it does not mean that we cannot also then look at the individual aspects where we think they might need tightening up, because when we do that we do make the legislation better.

I also want to take up something that the Acting President, Ms Patten, said: that it kind of feels like Mum and Dad fighting; it very much feels like that during this debate. I liken this to—I hate this terminology, but everyone talks about it—things passing the pub test. If we were going to go into a pub and ask what people thought, I think they would say that both the major parties should not even be allowed to be discussing this topic and it should be left to the crossbench to decide this motion on their own, because they have been guilty of it on all sides. Whether that is a fact or not, that is the perception or what is out in the community, that both sides have engaged in or been the recipients of funding perhaps from dodgy areas at different points in time.

That being said, from the beginning what Mr Hayes is proposing here is not a call to halt or prevent in any way legitimate donations to any political party. He is not seeking to prevent any citizen from exercising their right to financially support a party that aligns with their beliefs and their values. He is seeking to prevent large corporations and businesses from benefiting from donations by receiving large, profitable government contracts, no matter who the government of the day is, as a reward for those donations. He seeks to remove clear conflicts of interest, and that is in the public interest. He is, when we boil this motion down to the fundamental concerns it seeks to rectify, trying to ensure some very important, noble and obvious outcomes that seem to be a matter of common sense to the overall population.

Mr Hayes’s motion in part seeks to make transparent where and who these donations come from. In a disturbingly large number of cases just who is making donations is hidden. They are hidden behind, in stock market parlance, shelf companies—foundations, usually with a high-profile political figure as their patron, selling high-priced tickets to gala dinners and functions. And lo, some time later, a donation of gargantuan proportions is made by that foundation to either that politician’s campaign or their party, cynically hidden from a public that only sees a foundation making the donation and assumes a charity of some sort has done this. In this way the donation coming from a favoured contractor or beneficiary of a government contract or enormous grant is deliberately hidden. It is literally a case of someone attending, paying a few thousand for a table and a dinner and, during the event, a few thousand more and being rewarded with a government grant or contract worth in the millions later down the track. These behind-the-curtain practices are part of the reason the public has so little trust in governments of all colours.

Another, as I said earlier, is the awarding of contracts. I have no issue with the donor making a donation, but it should also be immediately transparent and listed on a public website within 24 hours. One could make the case, as many members of the public do, that donating should exclude companies from the tender process. That is probably the subject of what I would wager would be a rather large and messy inquiry. In fact I would argue that this clarity in the flow of money should also work in the opposite direction: taxpayer funds should not flow from government to organisations such as religious organisations via lucrative tax breaks and direct gifts of tens of millions to a politician’s chosen faith or to their pet media organisations. Those two should stop immediately, because they are simply vote-buying processes.

Mr Hayes’s motion also seeks to broaden the definition of ‘donations’ to include much of what I have spoken about and more. In so doing he seeks to fundamentally make the entire process completely transparent so that all members of the public will know exactly how much has been given and by exactly who, with publication of all levels of where that donation came from. Unfortunately much of what Mr Hayes seeks to accomplish here I suspect will not only fall within the control of this state government and other state governments but also foray into the clutches of the federal sphere. Where this is the case, it does not at all lessen the intentions of what he is trying to accomplish, and I support his intentions, as I support his motion.

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (16:30): I rise to speak to the motion put by Mr Hayes. Essentially this is a motion about donations. It has been taken very far afield, but let me be strict and restrain myself to the donations domain. We all agree on the principles of transparency and accountability, but I will have to point out some of the inaccuracies in the motion put up by Mr Hayes.

First of all, it is not true that Victoria has the weakest donation laws. As a matter of fact, it has the strongest in the country. Look at the commonwealth, for example. The donation laws for the commonwealth are in fact very weak, actually weaker than all the states. It has a very high disclosure threshold of $14 500. Also, because of the lack of transparency in the system, the public will not be notified of the donators for at least a year, and only after that can the public find out which companies or which individuals have donated to the federal politicians.

Also, look at some of the cases—the very high profile case of the Honourable Christian Porter about the lack of disclosure of the donations to his fund for fighting a matter in court. Look at New South Wales: in New South Wales there is a yearly cap currently at $6700 for this 2021–22 year. For each year, $6700, and over a cycle of four years for every state election cycle that would amount to $26 800. Compare that—both the federal and the New South Wales cases—to our cap on donations: we have a cap on donations of a maximum of $4000. Sorry, we have to be precise, because of inflation and everything—$4210 per year, taking into account inflation, for this particular year of the election. Compare that to $26 800 over four years. Compare that to—let me get the number correctly—$14 500 per year for a federal MP. Also, in the state of Victoria there is a cap of $1050—I suspect the $50 is due to inflation and also to the creeping—on anonymous donations, and any failure to disclose those donations above the limit will result in penalties. Currently it is 300 penalty units, which is approximately $54 000, and/or imprisonment of up to two years. Any scheme to avoid that will also result in offences, and the maximum penalty for those offences currently is 10 years imprisonment. More than that, not only is the amount capped and the lowest in the country, but also the disclosure has to be made in real time, not one year delayed as is the case for the donation law for federal Parliament MPs.

But there is no perfect system, I believe, that cannot be improved upon. The government recognised that, so in the year leading up to the last election, 2018, we had a review and implemented some of the new regulations and the cap.

That has demonstrated our commitment to donations reforms, and that commitment and the reforms are the most substantial donations reforms in the history of Victoria—and that was in the year 2018. We are also committing to further consideration of any further reforms once the 2018 laws have been tested over one electoral cycle, and we are committed to a review and an independent panel to be appointed for that review following this year’s election in 2022. And the review by the panel, if we are re-elected, will institute, as soon as possible, those recommendations.

It is also the case that in Mr Hayes’s motion we disagree with the interpretation of what constitutes a gift. Mr Hayes, I have to point out, is incorrect in his assertion that donations made through attendance at party fundraisers are not currently categorised as gifts. In fact the Electoral Act 2002 explicitly stipulates that ‘the making of a payment or contribution at a fundraising function’ is considered a gift.

The motion also seeks to broaden the definition of ‘donations’ to include income from corporate sponsorship of business forums, annual levies and membership fees over $1000. First of all, about the annual membership fees and levies, the Electoral Act excludes these payments from being considered or being defined as gifts when they are made to just the political parties. Why? Because a membership to a registered political party is paid in exchange for the rights of the members, such as the rights of voting, of meeting and of contributing to their chosen political party. It is not a donation. There is adequate consideration provided in exchange for the membership, and this is not a gift either. Similarly, the annual levies paid to registered political parties by elected representatives or their staff and the staff who work for political parties should be excluded and are excluded because these payments simply are not gifts.

So when we consider the operation of the regime it is important to consider the operation of the entire scheme rather than just the definition of ‘gifts or political donations’, including the requirements around the use of political expenditure and the state campaign accounts, for example. For all the Labor members, including me, all the donations that are received must be paid into a state campaign account—in my case, Tien Kieu, South Eastern Metropolitan—and then all the expenditure that I spend for election by promoting myself or opposing a candidate of another political party must be paid from that state campaign account. And it is stipulated that the money from that account cannot be used for political expenditure.

I have 14 seconds left. I just want to summarise that the government has demonstrated our commitment to transparency and accountability and also donations reforms, and we will have an independent panel to review the donations after this election cycle, after 2022.

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (16:40): I rise to speak on Mr Hayes’s motion 735 on political donations. This motion seeks to acknowledge the importance of transparency and accountability in the process of making and accepting political donations. Absolutely the political donation process influences public trust as well as our Victorian democracy as a whole. We know that these donations can often be made with the intention of persuading a certain viewpoint or receiving something in return. This can create many issues when it comes to matters of fairness, private use of taxpayers money and what the best outcome is for the community.

I agree with Mr Hayes that it is critical for public trust in democracy that there is impartiality in government decision-making. I also agree we should consistently be reviewing and examining our donation laws to ensure public trust can be upheld. However, this should be achieved in a way that does not create unnecessary, impractical and overly burdensome reporting processes. Yes, there are certain issues when it comes to charging fees for attending party fundraisers that are far beyond the costs of running the event, though if this is a small sum, say $10, it would be unrealistic to expect hundreds of these small-sum donations to be recorded and stored for future tallies.

In Victoria we are lucky to have some of the strictest laws on political donations. Donations are restricted and capped, there can be no foreign donations and domestic donations are limited to a maximum of $4100 every four years. Every donation over $1000 must be disclosed to the public. The Victorian Electoral Commission must also be informed of any donation within one month of receipt of it. Absolutely these laws have increased transparency and prevented outside influence on political decision making.

As with all policy, donation laws are a work in progress and loopholes will have to be continuously reviewed and reformed. I support the further examining of the definition of ‘donation’ as proposed by this motion and look forward to hearing my colleagues’ views on this proposal. I will be supporting this motion.

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (16:43): First of all, going to what Mr Tarlamis said—which was a very good contribution—the 2018 reforms were a good start, a very good start, and timely reporting is good and bans on foreign donations are good, but the definitions could be improved. The definitions still omit membership fees and ticketed fundraising, and that is a huge issue. It is what is actually claimed that has to be reported out of this ticketed fundraising; it is not just the giveaways there, it is the actual price of the ticket too. An annual return is good, but it does not break down ticketed events, only reports the whole donation.

I am very happy to hear about the review in 2022. I am glad it has been legislated, but we should be fixing loopholes all the time. When it comes to talking about the Canadian and New South Wales systems, I was not talking about importing the whole damn lot, just the good components of it—you know, really! And if there is not an issue with what is here, why are all three integrity groups saying that there are issues to do with it? I agree with Ms Patten: the difference in the ticketed price has to be identified and reported. Election spending caps—I am not arguing about what price the caps should be at, but there should be caps. We do have them, but they are not the total issue. (Time expired)

House divided on motion:

Motion negatived.