Division Description Changes — Bills — Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020; in Committee — 3rd Sep 2020

Change	Division
senate vote 2020-09-03#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2020-09-25 09:09:46	Title Bills — Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020; in Committee Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 - in Committee - Restrict political donations Description ~~<p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p>~~ ~~<p>I remind those on video that the Senate can see everything that's happening on the screen, so just make sure you are acting in the same way you would as if you were in the chamber.</p>~~ <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p> The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-09-03.4.2) introduced by Queensland Senator [Larissa Waters](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/larissa_waters) (Greens), which means it failed. Senator Waters explained her amendment: *> There are three elements to this amendment. Firstly, it redefines 'gift' to include party memberships and to include subscrip*tions to various different party forums. I will come back to that. Essentially, that refers to pay-for-access meetings—the lobster luncheons. It then bans completely donations from a number of industries that have a long history of seeking undue influence in return for political donations. That list is property developers, banks, tobacco, alcohol, gambling, big mining, defence and big pharma. The Greens think that those industries should not be able to donate one cent because they have a sordid history of seeking influence as a result of making those donations. Lastly—and this is perhaps the most important reform—we would like to see donations from everybody else, no matter whether you're an individual, on organisation or a corporation, capped at $1,000 a year or $3,000 for a three-year term, which, obviously, works out to $1,000 a year. That is a constitutional way of ensuring that people can still support causes that they believe in, but it makes sure that you can't buy undue influence and seek to have policies made to address your personal needs or to address and boost your personal corporate profits. We want to see big money out of politics entirely, and this is how you do it. You bring in public funding. You cap spending and, importantly, you cap donations and you stop donations from those industries that have long sought undue influence over decision-makers.

~~Sue Lines~~
~~I remind those on video that the Senate can see everything that's happening on the screen, so just make sure you are acting in the same way you would as if you were in the chamber.~~
Long debate text truncated.
The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-09-03.4.2) introduced by Queensland Senator [Larissa Waters](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/larissa_waters) (Greens), which means it failed. Senator Waters explained her amendment:
> *There are three elements to this amendment. Firstly, it redefines 'gift' to include party memberships and to include subscriptions to various different party forums. I will come back to that. Essentially, that refers to pay-for-access meetings—the lobster luncheons. It then bans completely donations from a number of industries that have a long history of seeking undue influence in return for political donations. That list is property developers, banks, tobacco, alcohol, gambling, big mining, defence and big pharma. The Greens think that those industries should not be able to donate one cent because they have a sordid history of seeking influence as a result of making those donations. Lastly—and this is perhaps the most important reform—we would like to see donations from everybody else, no matter whether you're an individual, on organisation or a corporation, capped at $1,000 a year or $3,000 for a three-year term, which, obviously, works out to $1,000 a year. That is a constitutional way of ensuring that people can still support causes that they believe in, but it makes sure that you can't buy undue influence and seek to have policies made to address your personal needs or to address and boost your personal corporate profits. We want to see big money out of politics entirely, and this is how you do it. You bring in public funding. You cap spending and, importantly, you cap donations and you stop donations from those industries that have long sought undue influence over decision-makers.*