My speech in Parliament yesterday on the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Consequential Amendment Bill 2014 (Proof) Mr NATHAN REES: Those opposite were heard in silence. In his own good time I am sure the member will provide the appropriate correction. I also cannot leave unchecked the assertions by the member for Coffs Harbour that the union movement has gone around Australia deliberately wrecking the economy and introducing an element of corruption into political parties, which the member apparently has a magnifying glass for. If the member for Coffs Harbour seriously believes that to be the case there is no shortage of authorities to which he can report it. What the member for Coffs Harbour did not allude to in his remarks was the analogous situation of industry associations and organisations such as the National Farmers Federation that also donate to political candidates such as him. It may be the case that there is an occasional strike on a dock and it may be an inconvenience. But members should not engage in the sort of Coalition approach we saw in 1999 where dogs and thugs in balaclavas were sent onto the docks to break a strike. The Australian people made a judgement on that and kicked into orbit John Howard and WorkChoices, which embodied the approach. When the Australian people had to choose whether they thought legitimate union activity or the actions of Peter Reith to clamp down on it was appropriate, the people of Australia clearly made their choice. They rejected Reiths fascism. I agree that the union movement has been imperfect on occasion, but people understood the fundamental principle that was at stake for unions and workers to work as a collective in pursuit of their conditions. Too many people in this place enjoy those conditions with nary a thought for how people in the general workforce attain them. Government members do not have to worry about entitlements for sick leave, superannuation and holiday leave. People in the real world do. The people out there who get up in the dark each morning and come home in the dark each evening and have to rely on an award wage or a collective agreement are the people for which union existence matters. Those characters in here who think that it is not a legitimate part of Australian society should have a discussion with some of the blue and white collar workers in their electorates who are on fixed wages or collective agreements. Then they will understand precisely why the union movement exists in Australia. It is not to look after people like us; it is to look after the people who do not have power in the workplace. Members who know me know it is not in my nature to stand on my dig, but I will on this issue. In November 2009 I stood up at the New South Wales Labor Party conference and without consultation with head office I said that we were going to ban developer donations to the New South Wales Labor Party and the body politic in New South Wales. I also said we would commence a process to move towards public funding of election campaigns. I did that because it was my view as Leader of the Government at the time that the people of our State were forming a view that there was a propensity for donations for decisions and it was deeply corrosive to public confidence in the body politic. I said at the time that I wanted to move towards public funding of election campaigns. I wanted to see minimal donations from corporations and individuals, recognising that there is an implied right to freedom of association within the constitution. We appointed a bipartisan parliamentary committee that made 51 recommendations in a period of only four months. That proves this is doable. The point I make is that any leader—from the Labor Party, the Liberal Party or The Nationals—does not have sole responsibility to his or her party and the inconvenience that changes to donation laws may embody. The leader has a responsibility to the people of New South Wales to nourish public confidence in the system and ensure that participants in the system are absolutely squeaky clean on these matters. It is not about making sure that the party is looked after, as the High Court found in its judgement. It is about making sure that the mums and dads in the street understand that Australia, and New South Wales in particular, are resistant to the type of corruption that we have seen in too many jurisdictions overseas. The next thing I will say relates to an element that has not yet been touched on in this debate. I will bell the cat on it. Guess what? Party machines have a different view and different responsibilities on this issue than have party leaders. It is not in the interests of the party machine to get rid of political donations or move towards a public funding model. It is, however, the role of the leader to make that move against all the arguments, objections and the hitting the sand approach that a political machine will put up. That is why I did not consult with my head office when I announced those changes in 2009. I simply stood up and did it because I knew that they would resist at every turn, as indeed some of my parliamentary colleagues did. It is now nearly five years on and I doubt there is anybody who would argue that we did not do the right thing. It is worth putting on record that I do not have a view that property developers per se or the industry group is corrupt or approaching being corrupt. I do say, however, that for corruption to occur there needs to be both motive and opportunity. Unlike big pharmaceuticals or any other organisation we deal with as policymakers and lawmakers, hundreds of decisions are made about the development industry at local, State and Federal government levels each week across Australia that can confer or otherwise very significant profits on the people making the proposals. There is a profit motive for those who are so inclined. There is also adequate opportunity across three levels of government hundreds of times a week in Australia. That is why a ban on developer donations was considered important at the time. This may as well be called the missed opportunity bill. I believed the Premier when he said in his inaugural speech that he wanted to move towards public funding of campaigns. It is now roughly six weeks since the exposé commenced at the Independent Commission Against Corruption about Eightbyfive, the Millennium Forum, the Free Enterprise Foundation and other various organisations the Liberal Party has used to further its political causes. I have to say that six weeks on the Millennium Forum outfit and the Free Enterprise Foundation are still in existence and the New South Wales Liberal Party machine has been deliberately folded into the policymaking on this matter. As I said, the New South Wales Liberal Party machine is deeply conflicted about this. It does not want public funding of election campaigns. Instead, it will drag the chain to ensure that some element of corporate donation continues. Bear in mind, it is a party in which the systemic circumvention of donation law was rubber stamped by its head office. As a result, there is a cloud across the election of every Liberal Party and Nationals member in this place. That is unfair on all members who have done the right thing, but it is the reality. Mr John Williams: Not the National party, mate. We are clean as a whistle. Mr NATHAN REES: We can go back to the white shoe brigade if you like. The reality is that systemic perversion of compliance with New South Wales laws by the New South Wales Liberal Party has put all members opposite in this position. I acknowledge the interjection of the member for Kiama. This is precisely what has occurred, and this is precisely what ICAC is examining: the systematic and cynical circumvention of New South Wales donations law by the New South Wales Liberal Party. That is precisely what ICAC is looking at. That is precisely what party officials have had to answer to down at the Piccadilly Centre. I could go on. The point I would make is this: All of us in this place have a responsibility to lift our head above the ruck, lift our head above what might suit us for the political term that we are currently serving and the ease with which we may or may not be able to campaign with a big bank balance. Instead, we owe it to people such as those in the gallery, those walking along Macquarie Street and those who as we speak are knocking off work and heading down to Wynyard Station; we owe it to those people to put in place a model in which they can have confidence and that they can trust, a model that does not leave all of those opposite exposed in a way that has occurred recently.
Posted on: Thu, 29 May 2014 01:23:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015