What does the unlikely group of the Labor Party, Clive Palmer, Jacqui Lambie, Cory Bernardi’s now-defunct Australian Conservatives and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation have in common?
All of them have a greater commitment to transparency about political funding than the Coalition.
On Monday the Electoral Commission will release political donations data for 2019-20. Except what you’ll see is for some parties and donors only a small part of the story.
It’s a point we’ve made over and over again for years, and which deserves repeating: the federal donation disclosure laws are risible, with a disclosure threshold now at the absurdly high $14,000 courtesy of the Howard government’s changes to keep donations secret in 2006, and the toxic combination of the Coalition and Steve Fielding in the Senate that prevented Labor from reversing them in 2008.
Because of the absurd nature of the federal laws, a donor can give $14,000 to each branch of a major party and not have to report it. Nor does it need to be reported by the party, meaning a donor can hand more than $100,000 to one side of politics through its various branches in secret.
But the ALP’s branches report all donations above $1000, not the required threshold, and have done for a decade. Palmer is completely unabashed about his contributions to his own party: he lists every dollar of his contributions to the United Australia Party via Mineralogy, down to a $85 donation in April 2019.
Lambie, Hanson and Bernardi reported donations below the threshold too. The Greens used to report small donations as well, though in the last couple of years have not reported receiving any.
In truth, transparency by Palmer and the minor parties matters less: we know Palmer’s anti-Labor agenda; and while Hanson and Lambie hold crucial swing votes in the Senate, there appears to be little industry attempt to influence them via donations, except for the seedy example of Adani handing tens of thousands of dollars to Hanson.
But the major parties are in the business of taking large amounts of money from the private sector and, in Labor’s case, trade unions, and allowing them to influence policy in return. Money determines who gets to have a role in formulating — in some cases dictating — policy. Labor allows the public insight into who is funding it to secure that role, while the Liberals and the Nationals try to hide that as much as possible.
Many major companies share Labor’s approach and disclose everything given to political parties, regardless of the amount. Donors are not required to disclose funding to parties that does not fall within the narrow definition of “donation”, such as buying a seat at a fundraising dinner and sitting next to a minister, but many disclose them anyway (parties are required to disclose all income, donations or not, above $14,000).
Some corporations disclose every single cent they give to parties, regardless of context (like Westpac). Some, like ANZ, simply make a donation and refuse to attend fundraisers at all (and NAB stopped donating altogether five years ago).
In the soft corruption that is political donations — buying access to influence politicians in private — much of corporate Australia sets a higher standard for disclosure and transparency than the party of business and its rural rump. Much, but not all. We don’t know who is giving to the Coalition and keeping it hidden by exploiting the lax Commonwealth donation laws.
If it’s good enough for Labor, and Palmer, and Hanson, and some of our biggest corporations, why isn’t it good enough for the Coalition? What reason could the Liberal and National parties have for refusing to reveal who is trying to influence them and dictate policy?
What are they hiding?
You can understand the Coalition marionettes not wanting us to see their strings. They’ve got a lot to hide.
We may not learn exactly how much they’re handing over to the Coal-ition, but you only have to look at what they do, re policy, for a rough outline of how much influence they’ve sold.
Cousin Jethro has been described as “Australia’s best retail politician” – in coalition where everything is up for sale, that’s a pretty big call?
Ah ,they do not care ,there is no downside for their corruption ,they enjoy a compliant press and an impotent opposition.Given the moral character of the LNP members it would be somewhat a stretch to expect them to keep their hands out of the till so to speak.
If the ASX requires Continuous Disclosure to aid transparency and reduce the flow of spivvery, why should the AEC with all donations?
Well, of course Palmer is going to sign up. He funds his own party though, which is even more erroneous. Is it more damaging than the LNP? Potentially: if he was more credible. With his fortune spent on a very terrible, unimaginative, low production value ad campaign at the last federal election that only managed to further dissuade those in QLD voting for the ALP. It was a further dent in credibility. When we see big money associated with candidates from their own purses/wallets, we know our is shifting. Turnbull effectively brought his may into the LNP leadership. Anyone remember his 1 million dollar donation to the coffers? Indeed, influences beyond the votes counted by the AEC tick and tock inside the walls of a guarded democracy. It should be guarded. Insiders lobbyists should have no influence over that ‘security’. It is time to abolish the donations system all together. How to do that? Citizen democracy tokens? A more transparent process? ‘A’ transparent process? That really would be a start. How do we continue to dither while our democracy gets away from us? It is like watching an avalanche in slow motion. We are watching it in slow motion. Once would thing perhaps we have enough time to formulate a plan to solve the problem? Relocate the people in the town threatened below? Build a reinforced and bracketed wall to catch the rubble as it tumbles down the mountain? Perhaps we really need to underline to ‘laymen’ what that cost actually means? Excuse me if I think many Australians still no not have a clue. When voters are not informed, how can any problem actually be fixed, when people don’t vote in an informed way? I would suggest the vote be non compulsory, but without the teaching of social studies/ethics/political studies in junior secondary schools as core subjects, I do worry such a suggestion would only further benefit the LNP: LNP: We keep Australia in the dark, for your own good. Trust us. Bling daddy’s got your back
As for Pauline Hanson: not everything she does is deplorable. She threw herself to the wolves in the 90’s. Straight into their jaws. She may be ignorant, she may be a racist, but she has a fight in her to better the country. We are lucky she has a small microphone. Sometimes you can extract a little sense from her. Her heart is in the right place. It is just a shame her head isn’t. But in those who make us grimace: they help us discern our and strengthen our own values and principles. Even the worst teachers can teach us something. I learnt a lot from the many ‘going through the motions’ teachers I had in a country town in Australia in the 90’s. My year 10 English teacher told me and I quote “You will never be a writer”. Well, Rosemary: I am writing now. It may not be Shakespeare. If it was, could your average Joe or Josephine decipher easily what I was saying anyway? Just reiterating my earlier point here: When we at the bottom, or in the middle turn our heads in ignorance, or just exhausted by the monotony of it all, those at the top will dig their heels in. And when those invisible heels dig, that does not reattract our attentions? Nothing to see here: just more of the same- Is the aim for us to be distracted and to surrender to a compromised democracy that no longer speaks and acts for the good for it people? Peter Singer wrote of the problematic idea applying ‘utilitarian principle’ to real life situations. But I do believe a more ‘Utilitarian’ approach is needed to balance out what the Neo Liberals opened up in the country to get us out of a recession that we ‘had to have’: A door the LNP to march through, and they are doing their utmost to ensure the door is ‘revolving’. No progress is going in, and no progress is coming out.
I am comfortable engaging myself here: Tis’ ‘revolving’. Tis ‘revolting’. It is disturbing the ‘revolt’ is only forged through journalists when many need to stand up and run to save democracy. It sounds alarmist because it is too alarming to me. I plan to ‘run’. There are so many federal seats where you could really up the quality of the dialogue beheld to no one but yourself. Of course we are all affiliated. I think less ‘high profile’ candidates flooding these ballots will symbolically serve to generate further enquiry. We know what a standard upper house ticket looks like. It is a bog standard thing. ALP, LIB / NAT, GREENS, IND, IND, IND (sole platform or special interest parties, left and right). Yada yada. What about a ticket that looked like this:
ALP LIB / NAT / GREENS / IND (right), IND (right), IND (right), IND (mod), IND (mod), IND (mod), IND (mod), IND (mod), IND (left), IND (left), IND (left), and yada yada.
A ticket or ‘ballot’ that looked like this will generate more thinking alone in any electorate, and get people talking. Talk leads to new understandings if you allow your back foot to loosen. I do think grassroots change is possible, just as the left in the US are in conflict with the democrats. The fact that we have been largely culturally Americanized in Australia also leaves me with doubts about how simple colours and labels and symbols as iconographical language may be confusing voters. We understand what is happening if we have subscribed to Crickey. There would be many spies around. May they spy and may they learn. But what of those with no real idea of how things work on the most basic and fundamental levels? It really cannot be assumed that your average Australian may hear ‘Ämerican Republicans’ in a news cycle, who are associated with the colour red. We have a democracy in Australia too. Does that mean the ALP are my party because they are ‘red’. US democrats are blue and identify as Liberal. Are people voting for the LNP because they are blue and identify as ‘Liberal’. If a general consensus in the country is ‘I don’t have time in my busy life for politics’ or if true discombobulation is prevalent in the minds of Australians? That democracy is too hard to follow, let alone trying to ascertain nuances of issues like: political donations, data collection, superannuation, fintech and investments/ the need for banking reform? We are out of touch because in a lucky country like ours be can take democracy for granted. It just happens, doesn’t it. I just begrudgingly turn up when I am told every 3 of 4 years to vote for one of two exploits. I will cost you $2000 to register and run as an Independent. It might sound like a lot. If should be tax deductible? It probably is, if you are elected… $2000 to do more than vent against the establishment? $2000 to hold the establishment to greater account: to serve the people, if we can gain traction: It sounds like a bargain. You only get 1 vote. My vote is not enough anymore. I would argue yours alone is if you are reading this is not worth it either. That is the fight we are up against. That is the brutal reality of the ‘situation’ in my eyes. Please, interject should think my eyes are cloudy? Eyes always are in part. They will never be able to see everything. Dissipating the clouds should be the aim, even if that as an exercise in achieving ‘perfection’ will never come to pass. I think I am ready to engage more, to put my ‘reputation’ on the line. If anyone has anything more to add, please feel welcome. I am relatively new to political combat, so please be gentle.
Oh, no. A negative reaction? Feel free to express an opinion? Or are you happy to just grimace and move on? It serves our country well.
May your detestation of me strengthen your values and principles. 🙂
It is a hard thing to pin point: general disdain. Difference is the fire that embeds a feeling of discomfort when we cannot identify or coincide with concepts or ways of thinking. Don’t allow that ‘discomfort’ to stop you from placing a plank on what could be a bridge to understanding and or consensus. I might sound like a pompous tit to some. That is of little concern to me. The fight goes beyond me and you. These differences don’t have to be considered personal.
“These differences don’t have to be considered personal” They are if I were speaking directly to Tony Abbott.
Re writing. Please use paragraphs.
Putting different ideas/arguments in paragraphs helps with both reading and understanding.
Indeed Peter. That is fair enough. Point noted. I was rolling off of my sleeves though:
Me: “Post comment?” *Enter*
“No wait, I think I have afterthoughts?” I do get caught up. I think we all get caught up in ourselves from time to time. But when I get caught up in politics? It was never all shimmer and shine 🙂
It is a comments section. I am aware that I have needed an editor for years (Maybe a therapist too 🙂 ). I had a hindered high school education. I spent 6 months of year 8 (form 2) in a hospital bed. It is quite possible I missed some stuff on paragraphs along the way. I discovered the word ‘sciolist’ on my own though 🙂 It is the content within that is most important, certainly not paragraph structure in a ‘casual setting’? I don’t use ‘grammarly’ (software). Perhaps I should?
Thank you for using the word ‘Please’ Peter. You are a gentleman 🙂 I will try to be more mindful and contain my zeal before pressing the “post comment” in future. I think I am just trying to generate some sort of dialogue here. I thought it would be a good idea as most of us here using the comments section are not trashing themselves about in ‘superfluous’ cyber space fashion. People are spitting. Not at each other though, which is great.
I will try to be mindful to structure everything so it can be more easily read and hopefully understood 🙂 I think the message is sinking in? How am I doing? Thank you!
So many smiley faces. Thank you for giving me something to smile about 🙂 *Salute
And If I have clicked on the right Linkedin profile(?), that is quite the CV.
The inability of our country to make any progress on climate change, tax reform, wage increase,, banking integrity,..pollution, plastic, renewable energy, the list goes on, is entirely about how information is sourced- through Neocon media.
This the single most important conversation for any opposition, but they are also completely at the mercy of this “system” also.
Everyone isn’t mad or bonkers, they are simply the victim of mass propaganda that protects established player’s market share.
I am at the bottom of the ladder looking up. Market share? Assets? Net worth? How will I carry my plastic wrapped cucumber without a plastic bag? My garbage bin wasn’t collected for a whole week! Stuart: please get your priorities in order for your own sake. Don’t you just want to be happy? My slab is getting cold…..
Secrecy is a feature of Morrison’s administration in every aspect of their activities. Funding through donations is just another aspect of secrecy that flows throughh everything Morrison doesn’t do.