Page 651 - Week 02 - Thursday, 19 February 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the law—but the Greens choose to go beyond that already. They have a donations policy; it is set out on their website. It is quite clear that the Greens choose to put in place other requirements that go beyond what the law requires.
So there is nothing to prevent the Greens from adopting such an approach. They do so now in relation to issues about how they perceive conflicts of interest. They do so now in terms of the size of donations. They have review mechanisms. Those are all commendable things, but the point to be made, of course, is that they already choose to apply a range of rules that go beyond what electoral finance law requires. There is just no reason why they could not choose to do otherwise in relation to the matters that Mr Hanson raises. I am not suggesting they necessarily should, but it would be wrong simply to say that they cannot or should not, because they do now through their own donations policy in relation to other aspects of donations made to their party.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (5.26): It is interesting when you trawl through the list of declarations which the Greens have received and you look at just how many of those are over $5,000. I could just rattle through the ones that are over $5,000 or exactly $5,000. That is an immoral one, $5,001. In fact, there is one here: $5,500 donated by EthicalJobs. EthicalJobs donated over $5,000. What do you make of that, Madam Assistant Speaker? Did EthicalJobs make an ethical contribution to the Greens?
It is interesting: $5,000 is the ethical figure, however paid, by the law. As Mr Corbell said, if you actually do have an ethical standard which differs from the law there is no reason whatsoever why you cannot apply it.
Further, for completeness it is important in this debate today to point to a speech I made in the adjournment debate on 7 August last year which went into some detail about the Greens’ centralised online national fundraising database, called CIVI. The Greens’ national fundraising procedure, as updated in 2012, states:
It takes a lot of time and resources to generate donations, and unless we acknowledge our supporters appropriately, we run the risk of losing them … It is also important that people are recognised in a manner consistent with their level of giving.
So, in effect, it means that if they give more you treat them better. And then it goes on to say:
All new regular donors should be contacted with a phone call from the home state.
It is a nationalised database, but “from the home state”. It goes on:
These are highly valuable gifts, as such, it is strongly advised that each state develop a good relationship with them. Regular Donors should also be invited to supporter events, and should receive end of financial year thank you letters with combined receipts for the year. It’s also a good opportunity to give them a call and possibly uplift their regular contribution.
It goes on:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video