There’s a common theme uniting claims the Chinese government offered to fund the election campaign of a Liberal Party member in Victoria, recent revelations of the role of Beijing-backed community groups in supporting local government politicians in Sydney, and the NSW Labor party’s ongoing problems with Chinese influence.
And it’s one that goes well beyond the efforts of the Chinese government to interfere in Australian politics. It’s money, the dominant role it plays in Australian politics, and the lack of transparency around it.
At the heart of allegations by the late Bo Zhao that a Chinese-Australian businessman (one with Belt-and-Road links — Daniel Andrews’ decision to sign up to that looks ever more dubious) offered to fund a campaign for a Victorian seat is the importance that fundraising has in major party politics. It’s no wonder the Chinese government sought to fund their own politician.
Corporations, private interests and the very wealthy have been doing the same for decades, in forms egregiously corrupt (see Eddie Obeid and the pervasive corruption of the NSW Labor Party) or outlawed in recent times (property developer donations) or still permitted, even encouraged, under our lax and obscure political donation and funding laws.
While donations from foreign sources are now prohibited, the ban is trivially easy to circumvent, as are federal disclosure requirements: donors can give up to $13,000 a year without either donor or recipient disclosing it.
A relatively small number of individuals can thus provide substantial funding to a candidate with no disclosure. Even above the disclosure threshold, there are few consequences for failing to disclose, and none for disclosing late, even many years afterwards.
Funding provided by Chinese-Australian business figures has been at the centre of the most recent scandal of the NSW Labor Party — that’s the one after Sam Dastyari’s Chinese funding scandal. Long-time Labor and Liberal donor property developer Huang Xiangmo — previously linked to Dastyari — is alleged to have channelled $100,000 to NSW Labor via fake donors after a Chinese Friends of Labor fundraising dinner in 2015 (Huang denies it).
Figures within the party are alleged to have known about the donation but done nothing. The party secretary at the time of the donation, Jamie Clements gave evidence to ICAC that “I think the donations system is something that leads, when there are big donations, to people being able to have access and all sorts of special treatment”. Donations, he agreed, were “a price paid for influence”.
It’s unclear whether Huang — who has given millions to both parties — made the donations to further his property interests or those of Beijing (for example, in relation to Australia’s approach to the South China Sea issue), or a combination of both. But that very lack of clarity illustrates how something our political class and even much of the media takes for granted as business-as-usual — the wielding of influence and the exploitation of access bought with donations — is used to undermine Australian democracy.
The alleged $100,00 Huang donation is being considered by ICAC because it broke the rules around donations by one particular industry — property development — which has strong incentives to corrupt officials and policy-making process at state and local level.
But many other, more high-profile industries have strong incentives to influence and suborn those as well: fossil fuel industries to prevent climate action; banks to prevent or circumvent financial regulation; the gambling industry to prevent gambling regulation; the Big Four accounting firms to encourage more government contracts for them.
And they are not banned — the major parties still happily accept their cash.
Companies that are based here, like the big four banks, at least have an incentive to further the national interest economically, as they rely on the health of the Australian economy. Foreign corporate donors like Chevron or Deloitte don’t even have that. Yet their donations pass unexamined.
For many years, transparency and governance advocates, and small outlets like Crikey, have been criticising the role donations are allowed to play in our democracy, and the lack of transparency around that role. While it was corporations and the super-wealthy exploiting that role, no one seemed to mind.
Now that a hostile foreign power is exploiting the same systemic flaws — now that it’s a national security issue — perhaps the political class will discover an incentive to address it.
This article sure hits the nail on the head! No corporate donations and real limits on individual ones, say $500.
Another piece by Keane with a random shot at Daniel Andrews for some unknown reason
And another manifestation of his mental tic; how many political articles has he written without a mention of the ‘corrupt NSW Labor party’? SFA, or close to it. He seems to have reserved the word ‘corrupt’ entirely for that purpose.
Chilly, methinks tho protetheth too much, the liberal/national parties have been, and are now probably the most politically corrupted government in Australian history, shades of Jo Bjelke Petersons regime , jobs for the boys, political donations for favours done, pork barrelling,blatant lies for political gain etc, you name it and they`re doing it, control of the federal police to make it an arm of government to suppress exposure of their dirty tactics, stacking the high court and Fairwork Australia to stop any wage rises for workers, emasculating the unions to prevent them negotiating better working conditions, should I go on, when will the stupid people stop defending the very ones attacking their and their families living standards, do you really want to become another state of the working U.S .
Its very strange that in all the talk of Chinese attempts to infiltrate the Australian political scene no mention of the Chinese women recently elected as a liberal member of the liberal party and to the Australian government with alleged connections with the Chinese communist party and who its stated used fake election poster to win her seat , if there`s so much concern at the highest levels of the security services on this matter why is the Government and opposition staying so quiet on it and why are`nt the media asking these questions.
Good question, braddy. I wondered the same and can only conclude that both parties have put their direct political interests over the national interest, under a sort of tacit Mutually Assured Destruction arrangement such as operated during the Cold War. As in, I’ll see your Gladys Liu and raise you a Huang.
The reason we haven’t heard anything about Gladys is because both political parties, and possibly the Greens as well, know this is all a lot of absolute rubbish!
China as a ‘hostile’ nation? When Trump was elected people from both sides of the political spectrum were aghast. There was talk of even strengthening ties with China. Then of course, Murky Murdoch put his hounds to work – spreading lies and fear, left and right (pun intended).
Well, while Murky and his political minions are bashing China, at least they are leaving Muslims alone!
Gladys Liu’s election employed some deeply outrageous poster shenanigans, that somehow the AEC didn’t have a problem with. Down at the pub we called it rank BS. And her surprise surprise links to, ahem, China friendly groups, was basically hidden.
Now you can argue that China were playing their own game, but any influence from any foreign groups in our politics is, by definition, hostile. They aren’t in it for our benefit, that includes American influence or any other country.
Dog’s, what do you think every Embassy in Canberra is doing? They are exerting, or trying to exert, influence on Australia. Whether politically, in the business world, or socially.
Glad you have acknowledged the overpowering influence that the US have imposed on us since the end of the Second World War! None of it beneficial to us. We have even sent our young men off to fight for the oil profits. Under Morrison it looks like we are still doing it.
All donations to political parties should be banned and elections should be funded publicly with a budget set for all parties. This is the only way that we can ensure that the buying of influence is stopped. We should also ban retiring politicians from working as lobbyists for at least 3 years.
Agreed, up to a point. The question is ‘How much does Australia value its democratic system, with particular focus on state and federal elections?’ Because, that value translates into money. So how much is the country prepared to spend on providing transparent, ‘fair playing field’ electoral processes? If the public/electors do value it then work out how to cost the process and how to pay for it (l’m sure a slice of ‘zero tax franking credit tax refund gifts’ could be repurposed for the task, for example). Once a pollie is voted out, then as far as I’m concerned they have to make their own way in life and if that means trading on their previous life so be it. Otherwise, tax payers have to fund their ‘gardening time’.
A game of “Hide the (political) sausage.”
How hard would it be to monetise the value in advertising of foreigner Murdoch’s meddling in our political system with his flagrant political minion propaganda?
Cutting out the middle man – going straight to in-kind parochial partisan political advertising/propaganda … to influence enough of the swinging vote to deliver the government of his choice.
With his global PR media empire, he’s not a “hostile foreign power”? Toward Labor, the progressive side of politics or anyone else that gets in his way of getting what he wants.
….. Directly meddling with opinion on “climate change intransigence”, “the economy”, “IR” ….. not big enough matters to worry about such influence?