ELECTORAL FUNDING REFORM

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. M. Parnell:

That this council—

1. Notes—

(a) that the October 2012 South Australian ALP Convention has passed a motion calling on the state government to pursue electoral funding reform by severely restricting private, corporate and union donations to all political parties and increase the level of public electoral funding;

(b) the motion acknowledged the need for support for electoral funding reform to come from all sides of politics; and

(c) that opposition leader Isobel Redmond is also on public record backing the adoption of the 'Canadian model' of regulating political donations, including limiting individual donations to parties or candidates and prohibiting all corporate, union and organisation donations to political parties and candidates; and

2. Calls on the state government to introduce legislation for electoral funding reform during this term of parliament so that new rules can be in place for the 2014 state election.

(Continued from 31 October 2012.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (21:19): I move to amend the motion as follows:

Paragraph 2—Leave out the word 'introduce' and insert the word 'investigate'.

In speaking to this, it is important to get on the record neither I am not, nor are many in the ALP, opposed to all forms of electoral funding reforms per se. A couple of weeks ago in this place, the Hon. Stephen Wade made some very good points about some of these issues. I support the state government investigating these matters, and that is what this amended motion would do.

Adequate funding to political parties is important. A vibrant democracy requires that all parties are in a financial position to contest in an election, put forward their ideas and policies, and have a contest of ideas at any given election. In addition, the main political parties play important roles outside contesting elections. As mass membership organisations, political parties allow an opportunity for many South Australians to become involved in the political process.

Many members of political parties get involved in policy forums, networks and committees, and these are important roles out of political parties. As a very recent former official of the Labor Party, I know that these functions—serving members and involving them in political and policy processes—are expensive and time-consuming processes, so any reform that might free up time and resources to allow parties to engage and involve their members may well be a good thing.

I want to finally make mention—as the Hon. Mark Parnell has moved this motion—of the Greens and political donations. Many are probably getting tired of the Greens' holier-than-thou attitude and preachiness on the issue of donations and, as the Hon. Stephen Wade mentioned the last time issues like this were discussed, the Greens have received the biggest single donation in Australian political history.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The biggest single donation. The AEC disclosure for the 2010-11 financial year records the single donation of $1.68 million in 2011-11. In a profile piece in the Launceston Examiner on 8 July 2011 on the individual who made this donation, a Tasmanian by the name of Mr Graeme Wood, it was said of the donor who gave the $1.68 million single donation:

...Mr Wood has certainly forged a unique path, and his donation to the Greens is hardly typical of Australian corporate philanthropy, but it is not woolly do-gooding either. He saw the $1.6 million donation as a defensive move that saved him many millions of dollars.

I am willing to bet that, if the Liberal or Labor parties had received a donation of a couple of million dollars on the basis that it was a defensive move that saved that individual many more millions of dollars, the Greens would be up in arms about it; they would be spinning like a whirlybird, denouncing the donation to one of the 'old parties', as they call the Liberal and Labor parties.

I wonder: would the Hon. Mark Parnell be happy for the South Australian Greens to receive a donation of nearly two million dollars if the donor was of the publicly stated view that his donation was 'a defensive move that saved himself many more millions of dollars'? Having said that, I am pleased to support the amended motion.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (21:23): I rise on behalf of the Liberal opposition to indicate out support for the Hon. Mark Parnell's motion on electoral funding, as amended by the government's amendment. Recently, the Hon. Mark Parnell raised related issues in his Constitution (Access to Ministers) Amendment Bill, which dealt with fundraising and events providing access to ministers. Whilst the bill highlighted the need for campaign funding reform—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. G.A. Kandelaars): Order!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Whilst the bill highlighted the need for campaign funding reform, it was, with respect, piecemeal reform. On 31 October, the Hon. Mark Parnell moved the motion we are now discussing, which calls on the government to introduce electoral funding legislation by the 2014 election.

The Liberal opposition supports the need for ongoing efforts to ensure transparency and accountability in electoral funding, including donations. We welcome the government amendment to the motion, as it represents a significant shift in the government's approach. Only in recent days, the Attorney-General John Rau claimed that existing regulations surrounding campaign funding were adequate. This position was being held by the Labor Party in the face of grassroots concerns within the Labor Party itself.

At the ALP October state convention, Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association State Secretary (and state premier kingmaker) Peter Malinauskas, moved a motion to increase public funding to political parties while banning or severely restricting private donations. The ALP state convention adopted the motion. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, has been consistently committed to sound governance across the board, including electoral funding. As our leader, Isobel Redmond, put it recently:

We remain committed to transparency, accountability and better government—a point affirmed by our unwavering support of a truly independent ICAC. To that end, we will be actively looking at donation models in Canada and New South Wales and the need for disclosure of state campaign donations. The transparency and accountability of the funding of political parties is vitally important to the public's ongoing confidence in those parties and the ongoing funding of the parties.

In spite of media reports, I highlight that the leader's comments focused on disclosure and transparency, not on limits and bans. I commend the government's amendment to the motion and the motion as amended to the council.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (21:26): Goodness gracious—$1.6 million! I was just stunned at the size of that donation to the Greens. I think the point that has been made by the Hon. Mr Wade and other contributors is that we all come to this debate 'sullied' by the fact that donations have been received by all parties, whether they are described as old parties or new parties. Indeed, it is not just the Greens; Family First, of course, and others are all part of having to fund election campaigns.

The only point that has been made is that the enormity of the contribution to the Greens by one particular individual does stand out in terms of the issues of potential influence, I suppose, not that I would suggest in any way, of course, that there might have been any direct influence there. I think that the point is that where we are at the moment is that, if you are going to be running election campaigns, you have to fund them in some way. All I can say is that I am in furious agreement with the notion of the general principles that are being raised by the Hon. Mr Parnell on the issue of electoral funding reform.

In terms of the general principles that are being raised by the Hon. Mr Parnell on the issue of electoral funding reform, he notes in the motion, I think in paragraph (c), that my leader, Isobel Redmond, is on the public record prior to the 2010 election backing calls for electoral funding reform. I have to say that I am a strong and sympathetic supporter of the principle that Isobel Redmond has raised within the Liberal Party and have been a supporter for some time within the Liberal Party for our having a look at electoral funding models.

Indeed, on the two study trips I took to the United States, one of the issues I looked at in a number of jurisdictions was the changes at that particular stage—and they continue, of course—in relation to electoral funding reform in the states of the United States. If one is talking about an arms race in terms of funding, one has only to look at the American system to see where it is we are potentially heading. We have a situation in the American Senate—I do not have the most recent figure, but I remember seeing this a year or two ago—where virtually every senator is a millionaire, most of them are multimillionaires, and a number of them are billionaires.

Clearly, that does not reflect the cross-section of people in American society and the American community, but the reality is that in the American political system and in the pinnacle of that, the American Senate, unless you are extraordinarily wealthy, or you have very wealthy backers or you are able to access significant amounts of funds, your chances of being elected to the American Senate are very slim indeed.

In relation to the funding issue, I always chuckle at those who have been strong supporters of Barack Obama with his fundraising mechanisms. When first elected, in terms of funding support he massively out-canvassed the Republican challenger at the time—so much so that he gave up the option of public funding because, in the American system, he could get more money through private contributors and the fundraising that was allowed.

If you look at the American system, a number of jurisdictions have tried to tighten up. Without spending all my contribution tonight going through the American system, one of the major problems it has confronted has been the influence of third parties; that is, there is an extraordinary capacity to cut back on what lobbyists can spend on and what members can spend on others.

One of the problems in the American system is that in some of the states there were extraordinarily tight restrictions on what individual legislators could do and their interrelationship with lobbyists and others. It was explained to me that no more than $5 a day or something could be spent, and if you took someone out to lunch it could be no more than $10, for example. There were extraordinarily tight limits.

However, the reality was that through their constitution (which you could drive a truck through in terms of funding issues) there were all these PACs and now super PACs which were able to raise millions of dollars in terms of running campaigns which were sympathetic to particular causes or candidates or campaigns which linked with a particular candidate or political party.

The issue that confronts people like Isobel Redmond and myself in the Liberal Party and, indeed, the Hon. Mark Parnell and others, is that if we are going to look at electoral funding reform it is how you construct a system which will allow people who want to express a genuine point of view and fund a campaign to do so but not have front organisations or pseudo or de facto front organisations which, in essence, run the campaigns for the Labor Party or, indeed, the Liberal Party. Certainly those in the Liberal Party would say that organisations like GetUp! with their WorkChoices-related campaigns in previous federal campaigns, were de facto campaigns for the Australian Labor Party.

They will argue that they govern differently and separately and all those sorts of things, but the reality is, as occurs in the American system, that all of that can occur. In the American system, you have to say that there has been no contact between them and the candidate at all (that does not actually have to happen in the Australian system) but, nevertheless, fortuitously or strangely in the American system these PACs are running massive campaigns using similar research to the research that the candidates have, and they are running on issues and campaign themes that are sympathetic to a particular candidate and against another particular candidate as well. That is going to be the challenge in both the Australian and South Australian systems.

The Hon. Mr Parnell has highlighted some of the issues, but I do not think that there is any doubt of the need for reform here in South Australia. We have seen it. The Hon. Mr Parnell has quoted it often and I have quoted it often. I go back to a number of press releases of mine back in 2008 and 2009 when I was drawing attention to the significant donors to the South Australian Labor Party, and the Hon. Mr Maher takes great delight in highlighting the significant donor to the Australian Greens.

In referring to these press releases of mine going back to 2008-09, and looking at the funding records of the Australian Labor Party—which as the Hon. Mr Maher and the Hon. Mr Hunter would know do not reveal everything, anyway—and even going through that, I found four or five, I think it was, related companies to the Makris Group of Companies in South Australia, which had made donations to the Australian Labor Party but under different names.

It took a lot of work in terms of tracing back the history of those companies to eventually find that they were all related in one way or another to the Makris Group. I think that the total at that particular time was $180,000. Now, there are some very significant planning issues in which the Makris Group of Companies had interests in South Australia. It also had significant lobbyists who had significant connections to the Australian Labor Party and to Labor ministers.

One or two whistleblowers from within the Labor Party who used to work within Labor ministers' offices have highlighted to a number of people (including me) the number of examples of quiet meetings between Labor ministers and Labor advisers in ministers' offices in various locations within 200 metres of Parliament House to discuss matters of mutual interest.

The particular quote was from John Blunt at the time, the chief executive of the Makris Group. John Blunt was being interviewed by Matthew Abraham, and this was after we had raised the issues of the $180,000. John Blunt was very blunt. He was honest about it. He was being asked, 'Well, why did you contribute $180,000 to the Australian Labor Party?' As I said, John Blunt was very blunt. I quote:

I mean, we've got business interests as well so we want good governance. We want to see things happen in this state.

Matt Abraham asked:

You want to be looked after, too?

John Blunt said:

Yeah, we want to make our projects happen, that's for sure, but, you know, that's a part of the way the system, you know, politics works here.

That is ABC radio 2 May 2007. As the Hon. Mr Maher and others will know, that sent off alarm bells within the Australian Labor Party and within the Labor government at the time because Mr Blunt had, indeed, been—perhaps from the Labor government's point of view—too blunt in terms of why parties were making major contributions to the Australian Labor Party. I repeat, again, what he said:

...that's a part of the way the system, you know, politics works here [in South Australia].

It is for all those reasons why my leader, Isobel Redmond, has led the charge within the Liberal Party in terms of saying that she has seen what has gone on with the Australian Labor Party and it is time for reform and it is time for change. I will be the first to acknowledge, and it would be no great secret, that not everyone within the Liberal Party supports the view for electoral funding reform, because some people in the Liberal Party are, perhaps, even more cynical than I am.

They say, 'Well, this is all very interesting. After nearly 12 years the Labor Party's chief head kicker and fundraiser and donor, Peter Malinauskas, is sent out to put his little toe in the water for the Labor Party for electoral funding reform.' He goes out as the head of the SDA, which as we know controls the right faction which we know controls the Labor Party caucus in South Australia. So, Peter Malinauskas, having already knocked off one premier and put in another premier by tapping him on the shoulder, set out to test the water in relation to this issue.

As I said, some cynics in the Liberal Party are saying, 'Well, after nearly 12 years, and having received millions of dollars in donations from developers and others, all of a sudden the Labor Party thinks maybe they might not be in government after 2014 and all of a sudden the Labor Party starts talking seriously about electoral funding reform.' Mr Malinauskas and others are out there publicly pushing the issue and privately lobbying for change, but we saw none of this over the past 10 years of the Labor government.

That is why I say credit to Isobel Redmond because Isobel Redmond, prior to the 2010 election, went out there and said that, if elected, these are the sorts of issues she felt strongly about and was prepared to work on for reform. I acknowledge tonight that Isobel Redmond has acknowledged that there are problems. The big problem is how you make this fair, how you stop the third parties.

When I first started in politics it was sort of an arms race between two sides. Big business tended to spend more money on the conservative side of politics and the unions always funded the Labor side of politics. What has happened in the past 20 years is that big business in particular either now has got out of it completely or, because of shareholder issues and other pressure groups, funds both of the major parties equally. But, surprise surprise, the trade unions in South Australia do not fund both sides of politics equally, they continue to channel all of their money either into the Labor Party or into causes and campaigns which are sympathetic to the Labor cause.

So, this arms race, which 20 or 30 years ago had one significant group on one side and another significant group on the other side, all of a sudden had one side which was being neutered. As we have seen in the past 10 years, in particular in the 2006 campaign, business (big and medium) basically either did not give money at all or gave more money to the Australian Labor Party than to the Liberal Party in South Australia. Generally, they are relatively neutral, with the exception of (maybe) the $1.6 million that goes to the Greens from Mr Wood, but put that to the side and, generally, they are relatively neutral, but the unions continue, and the SDA in particular.

I have issued press releases on the amount of money the SDA formally puts into the Australian Labor Party. We all know they fund organisers who run campaigns; they are paid as organisers for the Australian Labor Party but they are out there during the lead-up to the election period. Part of their task is to run campaigns and support Australian Labor Party candidates. You only have to read the initial speeches of some of the Labor members for the people who they thank and support for the contributions to realise that that is the reality.

So, there are a number of ways that the total dollars of the SDA and other unions is not a real indication of the total value of the contribution that they might make. We know that in the past some unions have funded market research. To be fair, I know that some interstate businesses and business associations have funded market research, part of which might have been of use to the particular company or interest and part of which was of use to the conservative side of politics. No-one comes to this debate 100 per cent pure in relation to funding issues.

The concern I have had in my time in politics is that I have seen greater and greater influences, in terms of donations, on decisions that governments take. That is certainly the perception. I think that is clearly the case when one looks at Labor governments in the past 10 years compared to the Labor governments of 20 to 30 years ago. I suspect it is true in other states when you say you look at decisions in relation to conservative governments as well. The influence of donations, because of their importance, clearly must take on greater and greater significance in terms of the decisions that people either might take or might avoid taking, and there are significant issues in relation to that in terms of good governance.

That is why I give credit to Isobel Redmond for being the person out there prior to 2010 leading the charge on this. As I said, and I repeat it again: not everyone within the Liberal Party—I know there are many of my friends and acquaintances within the organisation, not in the parliamentary party, who are now busily fundraising. As we get closer and closer to the 2014 election, it is surprising how all of a sudden you have more and more friends who have always been supporters of your political party and who would like to make a contribution or assist in some way.

That is the reality of life. As business people make business decisions and make judgements as to whether or not there is the possibility of a change in government, they start taking punts; they start endeavouring to cultivate influence. One big issue—some of the cynics in the Liberal Party and in the community have put this point of view as well—is that, after five years or so of fighting off the ICAC, all of a sudden prior to 2014 it is the Labor government which now claims authorship and ownership of the introduction of an ICAC in South Australia.

Again, the cynics have put the view to me, 'Isn't that convenient? After almost 12 years of Labor government, with the prospect that maybe they might be defeated in 2014, they have a change of heart and start supporting an ICAC.' I know some people have the view that the ICAC will be up and going and will put some heat on this current government prior to 2014. I am not one of those who subscribe to that view. I have seen these organisations necessarily take time to crank up and get themselves going. Even if they are up and operational by mid next year, in terms of commencing inquiries and concluding inquiries in my view it is highly unlikely to really be before March 2014.

That is a separate debate. Thankfully, we have got through that particular debate and we will see what we see. I think what the ICAC does do is introduce a new element in relation to electoral funding issues. If I can be frank, it is entirely possible that a particular business or individual could make a very significant donation to a party which is in government and that a minister and his or her department could take a decision which in some way favours that particular company, but for the two issues to be completely separate.

The reality is that there is always a perception issue. When we have an ICAC I guess we hope the ICAC ultimately will be able to get to the bottom of a range of things, but when you do a cold case, desktop review two or three years after a particular decision has been taken, I can assure you, having been in government, that sometimes decisions are taken within your department and within your agency which ultimately might end up in an ICAC.

A connection may be made that a certain person has funded a particular contribution to your political party and that someone in your department—ultimately with your approval in some cases—has signed off on a particular decision and, as I said, it could be entirely separate. It could be entirely independent, but ultimately, if someone makes an accusation because of perception, it is going to be an issue in terms of you having to be able to prove that that is indeed the case. Equally, clearly, as we have seen in New South Wales and others, it is entirely possible that there is corruption, and the challenge for the ICAC commissioner and staff is going to be to distinguish between the two.

I think the advent of an ICAC means that those within political parties who are genuinely committed to electoral funding reform need to continue their battles within their parties. Whilst I acknowledge that the Hon. Mr Parnell has campaigned on the issue, and I am sure he will continue, those within the Labor Party and those within the Liberal Party who support electoral funding reform, need to continue those battles within those particular party organisations. As I said, if the cynics are right, some will do it because they see partisan political advantage because they happen to be going into opposition.

Others will do it because they are genuinely committed to the principle of that, if you are going to have good government, then the chances of good governance and good government are when particular interest groups—whether they are business donors or unions and donors—do not have any greater influence over a minister's decision or a government's decision than anybody else. Good government should be about those people having the opportunity to put their point of view, as indeed should the opponents of any particular development or project or program have the opportunity to put their view and, ultimately, those decisions be taken.

One of my earliest recollections of the Liberal parliamentary party room many years ago was of a much older and wiser member of parliament at one stage saying on a particular issue under discussion in the party room, 'Look, any discussion at all, or any knowledge at all about whether or not this person has contributed to the party is completely out of bounds in terms of the party debate.' It was contrary to the party fundraising code then and it still is now but that sort of discussion should not and would not be part of the party room debate on that particular issue. And that is as it should be in terms of good governance, whether that be for a Labor government or whether it be for a Liberal government.

So for those reasons I support the principles in the bill. I support the position my leader, Isobel Redmond, has taken. I will certainly encourage and support her in whatever she seeks to do in terms of trying to bring about fair electoral funding reform, bearing in mind, as I said, the vexed issue of third parties that somehow has to be canvassed if we are going to ultimately settle on some sort of funding reform package which makes it fair for both a Labor government and/or a Liberal government in terms of this whole issue of access to funds and, ultimately we hope, good governance of the state of South Australia.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (21:53): I speak tonight again very briefly, as I am sure everyone will be glad to hear, to put on the record my support for the Hon. Mark Parnell's private member's motion on electoral funding. As a member of a small political party that survives on the goodwill of its members and does not receive large corporate and union donations, I would very much like to see a more transparent and more accountable donations and electoral funding system in South Australia.

Self-interest from the Labor and Liberal parties has tended to see them working together on this issue in this state. However, as the Hon. Mr Parnell's motion notes, we have examples of both the old major parties declaring support for a reform in this area in recent weeks. Dignity for Disability would be very interested in the Canadian model of regulating political donations favoured by the opposition leader, Isobel Redmond, and public funding of state ballots considered ahead of the 2014 state election. So with those brief words, I support the motion.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (21:54): By way of summation I thank the Hon. Kyam Maher, the Hon. Stephen Wade, the Hon. Rob Lucas, and the Hon. Kelly Vincent for their contributions. I particularly thank the Hon. Kelly Vincent for her fulsome support of the motion as drafted, and I will say that I did not accept the amendment moved by the Hon. Kyam Maher to leave out the word 'introduce' and insert the word 'investigate'.

The operative provision of the motion is that this Legislative Council calls on the state government to introduce legislation, not to investigate. All political parties have been investigating this issue for years, for decades. The Liberal Party investigated it enough to make an election promise before the 2010 state election. The Labor Party has been looking at it forever, and the Greens certainly have had it as part of its policy forever as well. I do not accept that it should be a nothing motion that says, 'Let's think about it some more.'

I am supported in that position by Peter Malinauskas who, a week and a half ago on 22 November, was interviewed by InDaily. A couple of sentences from that article are:

Malinauskas told InDaily that it was time for the government to take the initiative. 'I think this is a reform that South Australia desperately needs,' he said. 'It's important that the government takes the initiative and gets something in place before the next election. ALP State Convention passed the resolution which I moved and I think the government should get something in place as soon as possible. It seems there is some goodwill between the parties on this—we should capitalize on that'.

I do not pretend to fully understand Labor politics. Apparently the bloke who gets sent to knock off a premier is not of sufficient importance to be taken seriously—and he is a major donor of the Labor Party, via his union—when it comes to an important public policy matter like this. It seems quite remarkable. Everyone appears to be in furious agreement, but no-one wants to do it first.

In relation to the Hon. Stephen Wade's contribution, when the Greens have tried to put things up—and we have a number of bills over the years that have gone to the question of donation reform—they have been voted down because they were not comprehensive enough, or maybe there was a loophole, but no-one else in this place has taken any initiative.

Briefly, in relation to the Hon. Rob Lucas's contribution, I am not saying that electoral reform is dead easy and that it is a matter of a simple formula we can just slot into South Australia: it is difficult. There are challenges, and we do need to deal with the situation of third parties, as he so eloquently described in relation to the American situation. I expect that Mr Lucas will be back here tomorrow with a personal explanation. He said there were more cynical members of the Liberal Party than he; we might see whether that is corrected tomorrow.

The implication in what he was saying is that some of his more cynical colleagues believe that the only reason Labor is doing this now (or that Malinauskas is doing it in the name of Labor) is that they will be in opposition soon and their gravy train is about to dry up, yet from the Liberal side they will be in soon and it is their turn to capitalise on the fundraising potential that comes from incumbency and the ability to get your mates in business to give you money so that their projects happen, to quote Mr Blunt, as quoted by Mr Lucas.

In relation to the Hon. Kyam Maher's contribution, I ask him to be a little more careful when talking about the situation in relation to Mr Graeme Wood, who is someone I have actually never met. However, when it became apparent, because the Greens disclosed it as soon as it was made, that it was the biggest single donation from an individual—mind you, it pales into insignificance with the union donations and the annual cumulative donations from some of Labor and Liberal's big supporters, but as a one-off it got that notoriety—both Labor and Liberal conspired to make sure that the situation was made so unpalatable for all concerned that it never happened again.

They conspired to bring a dodgy privileges committee motion in the Senate, and some months and some tens of thousands of dollars in lawyers' fees later, of course they found that no benefit was offered or promised in relation to that donation. Mr Wood, as I understand it, is a very old-fashioned philanthropist who is in the process of giving away most of his money by buying bushland, sponsoring the arts and sponsoring media. The only thing I do know about him is that apparently his good fortune has come from his being the founder or proprietor of the Wotif hotel booking site. I do not recall any motions or bills in this parliament or in any other to try to advantage businesses like that because a particular donor has given.

You do need to contrast the situation of a donor like that, who was dragged through the privileges committee for no purpose whatsoever, other than to frighten him and anyone else from ever wanting to give a donation, with the situation of Mr Lang Walker and the Walker Corporation's $2 million, which was the rough calculation that I did, in donations to the Labor Party. The bald-facedness of it, when he is doing a political fundraiser for Labor the week before cabinet is about to decide whether the Buckland Park major project should go ahead, and then has the hide to do another fundraiser for Labor the day that they announce approval for his development. It is incomprehensible that the media—not for want of encouragement from me, but they just do not take that stuff seriously.

The Hon. Rob Lucas has said, 'Well, we're going to have an ICAC soon and maybe that's where we are going to be putting all these things,' but I just find it remarkable. The point with this debate is that unilateral disarmament has not been on anyone's agenda. Malinauskas described it as an arms race, and that is what it is. Everyone is out there saying, 'Yep, can we have money, can we have money?' I think the Hon. Rob Lucas was right when he talked about the perception. It is the perception of the donations, the perception that influence is being bought.

If we had a level playing field—if we did have a ban on union donations, corporate donations and a cap on individual donations—then neither Mr Wood nor anyone else would be giving the Greens $1 million, they would be giving us $1,000 if that was the cap, and that is how it would work, and I have no doubt that the Liberal and Labor parties would still end up with a lot more money than Dignity for Disability or the Greens. I would ask the Hon. Mr Maher to be careful about perpetuating the defamation of Mr Wood that was unsuccessfully tried in the Senate. I think that it is unfortunate—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: It's alright, Kyam, you have privilege.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I know the honourable member has privilege, but it is no less a defamation when someone says something that is false and has the impact of reducing someone's reputation. I can see that both Liberal and Labor are interested in a motion that says nothing, that says they are going to investigate doing nothing, so I do not support that amendment and I would urge all members to support the motion as originally drafted.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.