ELECTORAL (FUNDING, EXPENDITURE AND DISCLOSURE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 September 2013.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (17:46): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to indicate our support for the second reading of the Electoral (Funding, Expenditure and Disclosure) Amendment Bill. All other jurisdictions on my understanding in Australia at the moment, at the state level and certainly at the federal level, have some variation of publicly funded elections as part of their legislative and electoral funding arrangements. This particular proposal after many years of discussion seeks to replicate in South Australia what occurs in other parts of the nation.

Some cynics have said to me that it is interesting that after 12 years of enjoying what the cynics might argue are the benefits of the existing disclosure and funding arrangements that the state Labor government has decided to become a latter day convert to publicly funded elections. Those cynics are suggesting that perhaps some within the Labor Party are preparing just in case they enter a period where they are not in a position to enjoy the benefits of being in government and the benefits of the former funding arrangements and disclosure arrangements that existed in South Australia. Of course, I said to those cynics, 'Shame on you for even suggesting that the Premier and the state Labor Party would be driven by such base political considerations in the introduction of publicly funded elections after many years of opposing it.'

Whatever the reason, as the member for Davenport indicated in the debate in the House of Assembly, the Liberal Party has been for a number of years publicly and privately a supporter of the principle of publicly funded elections. It is true that there has been much debate about the exact model that was best and might be supported. Various people at various times have had various models that they have supported. Former Liberal leader Isobel Redmond was a strong supporter of some of the elements of the system that operated in a Canadian jurisdiction and she said so publicly leading into one of the recent elections. As I said, it has been a position that the Liberal Party privately and publicly, through people like the former Liberal leader Isobel Redmond and others, has supported the principle of publicly funded elections.

The issue, of course, is moving from the principle of supporting publicly funded elections and greater disclosure to exactly what model is capable of being implemented and that is, of course, what has taken some time. I can indicate that over many years, and under former Labor premiers and former Labor state secretaries, various proposals for public funding have been discussed. I had a recent discussion with former shadow attorney-general Rob Lawson, who at varying stages was engaged, as was I, in discussions with representatives of the Labor Party about the introduction of public funding.

All through that period, whilst there were some within the Labor Party who supported public funding, there were those, as I said, at the top and those who made the final decisions who ultimately decided the benefits of the current disclosure arrangements to the Labor Party and the Labor government meant that they were not prepared to introduce the sorts of reforms that are canvassed at this particular time. The recent discussions over the last 12 months or so are the latest in a series that have occurred over a long period of time in relation to the possibility of greater disclosure and the principle of public funding.

I think there is little doubt that most people in the community would agree with the view that there should be greater disclosure and transparency in relation to the funding of political parties and political candidates. Whilst that obviously impacts on the two major parties the most and the greatest interest rests with the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, we have seen in recent elections that there is an increasing focus by the media and the community on who is funding the minor parties. As has been raised on a number of occasions, a recent significant donation to the Greens at the national level attracted considerable public attention from the community and the media in relation to funding. Certainly, the funding of Senator Xenophon's campaign has attracted some interest, and I am sure for other minor parties and Independent candidates there has equally been interest.

The major interest and the major concern properly rests with those who might form government and those who ultimately might make decisions. Clearly, in our system, the prime responsibility for disclosure, I guess, rests with those who are actually in government. For the last almost 12 years, that rests with the Labor government because, ultimately, those who fund governments and ministers are in the greatest position, potentially, to have the perception of influence in relation to decision-making.

In terms of appropriate disclosure regimes, the fight for the ICAC in South Australia was an important part of that particular improved disclosure regime. Again, for many years the Labor Party in South Australia fought tooth and nail against the discipline, the disclosure and the accountability of having an ICAC in South Australia. That, of course, heightened public and community concern in relation to why Labor governments and Labor ministers would be so opposed to not only disclosure but also accountability mechanisms through something such as an ICAC.

Of course, after almost 12 years, and just prior to another election, we have seen another latter-day conversion to support for an ICAC in South Australia. Again, we the Liberal Party welcome that from opposition. We are pleased to be able to take the policy lead on these significant issues in the community and in the parliament and ultimately have the Labor government supporting the policy lead that Liberal leaders and the Liberal Party have adopted on these issues in terms of greater transparency and accountability.

A number of members have raised, and I have raised on a number of occasions—and I will not repeat the detail of this afternoon in my contribution—the concerns that have been expressed about significant donors to the Labor government and some of the statements that they made on the public record as the reasons why they made donations. In many cases, lots of the concern that was raised by people with the opposition was about what they saw as almost the requirement to donate significantly to the Labor Party in the need for their business to survive and thrive in South Australia. As I said, I have put on the public record, and other members have as well on some occasions, some of those concerns and some of the public statements that donors to the Labor Party have made about their reasons for doing so.

That is the history; we move on. I do not want to rake over the coals of that history too much other than to say we welcome this particular development—this attempt to move forward. We think it will be welcomed by the community broadly. It is certainly going to be welcomed by the media, I am sure.

There are complicated aspects to the legislation. When I conclude my remarks tomorrow and when we continue with the committee debate—whenever that is going to be—we will have the opportunity to flesh out some of the further detail, but there are complicated aspects to this.

As the member for Davenport indicated, there is already a High Court case that has been taken out by the union movement, or representatives of the union movement, in relation to the capping of donations in New South Wales being an abuse of the right of political free speech. Clearly, one of the issues that any of these regimes of capping expenditure and capping donations has is how on earth do you distinguish between third parties?

The most blatant of third parties are obviously those which enter into an arrangement with a political party to undertake a campaign on their behalf on a particular issue. The trickier third parties, of course, are those who do not enter into arrangements with political parties but know the political lay of the land and, on the particular issue that they campaign on, they know that it is favourable to one party and unfavourable to another party.

We have seen any number of those examples. At the federal level, the GetUp! organisation, with its campaign on industrial relations at, I think, the election prior to the most recent one, was clearly an example of a supposed third-party organisation running a major campaign, funded through donations, which they clearly knew would be favourable to one political party—the Labor Party. In their view, they saw it as being unfavourable to another political party which was, on that occasion, the Liberal Party.

You could, in recent days at the federal level, look at the converse: the mining lobby running campaigns opposed to the mining tax, which would clearly be, from their viewpoint, seen to be a campaign unfavourable to the federal Labor Party at the time. They would see it as being favourable to the federal Liberal Party at the time. The issue of third parties and how you actually manage disclosure and expenditure caps is a critical issue in relation to disclosure and electoral funding issues.

The government, together with the opposition, has done its best in relation to this issue but I think it is fair to say, when we have a chance to further debate it, there is just no way—at this stage anyway—of being able to countenance all the possible opportunities that third parties and pseudo third parties might embark on to get their way around this proposed legislation. There is no simple solution. The High Court decision in New South Wales may well throw some light on this particular aspect of the legislation and we would be wise, as a state parliament, to look at that closely when the decision comes down.

The main change that has been agreed in the House of Assembly to the government's original proposal has been, in essence, to delay the vast bulk of this part—in particular the public funding part of it—until the 2018 election. It was certainly the Liberal Party's position that, at a time when we have just run a $1.2 or $1.3 billion deficit and this year we are looking at another billion dollar deficit, to actually say to the people of South Australia that, in this current budget crisis that we have after 12 years of Labor government, we think we should add to the budget challenges by publicly funding the 2014 election was in our judgement a step too far.

The member for Davenport, on behalf of the Liberal Party, moved an amendment to delay the implementation of this scheme until 2015, so that it will not operate until the 2018 election. Some of the disclosure issues, which I will address in the completion of my speech tomorrow, will commence straightaway. They will apply to the 2014 election, but the actual public funding side of things will not, and therefore will not be implemented until the 2018 election.

That will be something that will be warmly received by the electorate and by the community, as I said, particularly at a time when governments are asking for cuts to critical services and programs in health, in education and across the board. I am sure there would have been trenchant opposition to the public funding of political parties for the 2014 election. The Labor government agreed to reverse its position on that particular aspect of the bill and what we have before us is now an agreed position to operate from 2018. With that, I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.