nsw politics
9 Apr 2008
What's with the Back Flip?
NSW Labor's plan to ban political donations comes after years of dodging calls from the Greens and community groups to do just that
Damascus conversion metaphors flew thick and fast when NSW Premier Morris Iemma announced plans to ban political donations. This was not surprising considering the timing of the announcement - Easter Saturday - and the complete policy back flip involved in the new position.Iemma's reversal of his party's policy came after years of NSW Labor leaders dodging calls from the Greens and many community groups to ban corporate donations to political parties.
For over a decade, NSW Labor has justified its refusal to act on political donations by arguing that any changes to the law needed to be undertaken at the Federal level so there would be conformity between all State and Federal electoral systems. This was the main ploy to block a Greens initiated Upper House inquiry into political donations. Even when an inquiry went ahead, Labor continued to argue that NSW could not go it alone on reform.
As recently as 15 February this year, the NSW ALP General Secretary Karl Bitar was still diligently following the Party line in a submission to the NSW Inquiry into Electoral and Political Funding. He argued, "Funding and disclosure reform must be introduced at a Federal and State level simultaneously, otherwise it will not address the current problem where companies or individuals can manipulate differences in the laws."
Then we all woke up on Easter Saturday to find that the Premier had seen the light and was ready to lead the way and reform NSW electoral funding laws. Iemma told the Sydney Morning Herald that "the time has come for us to now seriously consider moving away from donations and having a fully public-funded system ... It's now got to the point the mere fact of giving a donation creates the perception that something has been done wrong. The time has come to test the viability of a full public system."
The reason for this dramatic change in policy on political donations can be summed up in one word: Wollongong. In the five weeks from 15 February to 22 March, media outlets were saturated with the cash-for-planning-approval stories that many people across the Illawarra had been warning about for years.
The merry-go-round of nightly television appearances of Labor mates caught up with these shameful acts of self interest and greed was a political disaster that no publicity relations firm could put a good spin on. It became increasingly difficult to distinguish between political donations and bribes.
With reports that Labor's internal polling was showing their vote in freefall we can only imagine what was being said in Sussex Street. Clearly Labor had to move to stem the bad news stories, which were going to continue as long as the developers, hotels, insurance companies and many other corporate interests kept donating millions of dollars to political parties.
Suddenly Labor had found the answer: NSW would create a new and world-class election funding system banning all political donations! Positive headlines in newspapers and on TV quickly followed.
This week, Labor's General Secretary Karl Bitar is meeting with representatives of political parties to discuss how the proposed ban will work. When we met we thanked him for arranging these meetings and said that the substance of our dialogue needs to be on the public record.
The Greens have welcomed the Premier's willingness to change his position on donation reform. However, we are wary of some of Labor's plans - especially those involving changes to the funding of elections.
Iemma has proposed that as well as the ban on corporations making political donations, the ban should extend to individual donations. While there needs to be a cap on such donations as some wealthy individuals could obviously use their money to influence decision makers, a complete ban would make it close to impossible for emerging parties and independent candidates to contest elections.
The role of third parties is another area where we need policy change to ensure that big money donations do not continue to distort the democratic process. Third parties are individuals and organisations that spend money campaigning in elections (think the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 US election, or the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's anti-Labor ads during the 2007 Australian election). The Greens support a model similar to that adopted in Canada which limits third party election advertising expenses to C$168,900 during an election period.
The other key change that needs to go hand in hand with a donation ban is a cap on election expenditure. Canada, the UK, Spain and New Zealand are some of the 27 countries that have already taken this step. The Greens in our meeting with Bitar argued the case for caps. If unlimited election spending is allowed there will be greater incentives for parties and their backers to find loopholes in any ban or cap on donations.
Interestingly, it was on this issue on election expenditure that the Labor secretary was most resistant. His arguments were revealing. While he explained that the donation ban was needed to "remove the perception" of the corrupting influence of donations, he argued that when it comes to limits on election spending the public are not clamouring for change so business can continue as usual.
Maybe there is no vocal public outcry on this issue but we are confident if voters were given a chance to have their say there would be strong backing for less money to be spent on election campaigns. The Liberal Party is now backing limits on a spending cap.
Caps on expenditure are also critical to limiting the amount of public money that is required to fund political party activities. If this amount blows out, there would understandably be widespread public anger.
Coming into these discussions on election funding, Labor obviously has a credibility problem. Their donation ban plan could help reverse some of the public anger. But the Premier and Bitar need to realise that NSW voters are very suspicious of the Government's motives. If they fail to rein in election spending, the goodwill that Labor may generate from their donation ban plan will be diminished.
Labor needs to be careful that its reform plan does not favour the major parties, make it harder for minor parties, or lock out emerging parties and independents.
Changes to electoral funding laws are complex. At some point in the process Bitar has started members of the public must have their say. Considering the Premier has indicated he wants the changes in place by the 2011 NSW State election, there is plenty of time for that to occur
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
fluff4
There must be examples in the world, where the required law has been tested, anyone?
fluff
Thanks Lee & Norman,
Could you describe in more detail what the impact would be on minor parties and independents if individual donations were ruled out altogether? Are you only referring to those which don’t get above the quota of 4% needed to have their campaign expenses reimbursed? Is there a state equivalent of the federal ‘parliamentary party status’ that gives minor parties additional funding?
If individual donations are retained, albeit with a lower cap, what are the dangers of US-style ‘bundling’ emerging, e.g. where a CEO gathers up $1000 donations from a large number of senior management & hands it over?
Also, what are your views on restrictions on campaign spending by third-party organisations? For example ACCI & Get Up both spent very large amounts on issues-based advertising in the lead up to last year’s federal election. In Get Up’s case at least, this was funded through tens of thousands of small donations. Their ads were a hell of a lot more entertaining than either of the major parties’ but I do wonder what it’s going to do to the dynamic of elections if restrictions on political parties’ ability to raise money themselves means that they’re more reliant on third parties to influence the outcomes of public debate.
These issues aside, I’m delighted that it’s no longer a question of if but when we get some positive campaign finance reform in NSW and federally…
To preface my comment, first I was a Green Party member 1993-2000 then lapsed to non aligned status. Second was a Cr at Waverly similar 95-99.
That declared I suggest the Greens via Norman Thompson and sponsor Lee Rhiannon have been unduly modest in their role in the long build up to this situation at the Gong being exposed which actually is the ALP State Machine proper, only caught red handed in one geographical location. And only because stand over men were leveraging the BAD reputation of ICAC for doing precious bloody nothing for years always deferring to the woefully under resourced Ombudsman role (mal administration short of corruption) and no doubt under resourced Auditor General (waste again short of corruption). ICAC itself likely very under resourced.
I saw ICAC chief commissioner at the Gong hearings get stroppy with Cr Gigliotti for being duped by the stand over men claiming to be ICAC officers milking $500K out of their victims. But the Commissioner should be looking in the mirror too, because like top movie The Departed there is a smell of a rat(s) like ICAC manager of Investigations McCabe by coincidence leaving to work in a high paid job at the Maritime Authority of NSW working with now infamous Scimone in what he thought was a safe parking station.
Only I don’t believe in coincidences like that as a lawyer admitted in 1990.
(As Egan in Opposition, later NSW Treasurer, said to Carr early 90ies - ‘you will live to regret this ICAC bill’ - revealing several things: Many like Egan in the Parliamentary and machine upper house ALP never believed in transparency or honesty as per ICAC goals, and/or knew their own party were dirty, like Askin before and had alot to fear. While Carr the populist, maybe idealist, wanted to consolidate the gains represented by North Coast land developer scandals of the late eighties/90ies.)
The Greens have been unduly modest, even as an ex member, because as Michael Duffy has pointed out, hardly your card carrying Greenie, in his SMH column perhaps a year ago now, this website of the Greens dishing the chapter and verse on the sophisticated laundering of developer donations
(undoubtedly for policy via Mark Arbib as machine boss at Sussex St , as now retired Hotel Lobbyist Thorpe freely admitted - was he drunk? - to the SMH last week)
that website of research and detail was highly educational. Highly instructive of the best democracy money can buy:
http://www.democracy4sale.org/
Duffy a well known conservative wrote that he was going to vote Green in the last state election. There is nothing more profound to say than that - as surprising as Kissinger getting a Nobel. And Duffy is wise and right even coming at this from the Right because credit where credit is due. Honest business people who want to make a buck are being tainted and ripped off in the endless game of playing favourites. It’s moral chaos here in the governance of NSW.
On Stateline NSW last night footage 11 April 08 played of Sartor as planning minister, highly implicated in a pattern of developer donations, stating there is not evidence whatsoever of any ‘development decision that was not based on the merits’ under what’s known as Part 3A, which is the minister’s call in and discretion to decide power.
This like Nazi propaganda is a lie, applying the big lie will work best approach. How so?
Anyone who googles the Environmental Defenders Office or the NSW Nature Conservation Council briefing papers, will find that Part 3A amendments to the pioneering Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ere all about repeal of merits criteria. Lets run through some of the systemic check and balances that Part 3A repealed:
Assessments under
- The Heritage Act
- Threatened Specied Act
- National Parks & Wildlife Act
- Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act
- Coastal Protection Act 1979
- isheries Management Act 1994
- Native Vegetation Act 2003
- Rural Fires Act 1997
- Water Management Act 2000, or predecessor 1912 Water Act where still in force
are all formally over ruled.
But you have to watch carefully with sophist Sartor - and this is how sophisticated this abuse of power really is: The developers still have to address many of these concerns under "DOP directors requirements" but you see these are discretionary now, and weakened with omissions and unenforceable. All these LEGAL checks and balances have all been shifted out of the Parliament into executive discretion.
Looks sound but it’s as rotten as a house with termites. The environmental assessment process has always been limited and flawed for lack of auditing, and discipline on liar ‘expert’ guns for hire. Under cl.283 of the EP&A Regulation it is indeed an offence to "knowingly" lie about material in an EIS or similar document BUT one can simply plead "it was a mistake, an error, an oversight" and these documents are routinely 2 inches thick anyway. It takes an expert auditor to audit them. In short the integrity of the EIS process, not least under flexible director’s requirements, has been pretty much trashed.
You will find a summary and links about these repeals to the EDO, NSW NCC material at a submission to the NSW Dept of Planning on some of the latest sandmining cowboy operators here Jan. 08:
"1/08 Maroota sandmining"
http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/id158.html
Sartor wants to style himself as the expert benevolent dictator planner who get’s it right on "the merits" so nothing to see here, move on, but really he is sanitising the worst excesses of dictatorship by completely unravelling the 1979 Act and putting in place env assessment by yes men and client dependents of his discretion in either public service career, or developer decision making, or access as per the infamous phone call to a developer to attend his fundraising dinner ‘which he can’t recall’ anymore but Stockland do as reported in the SMH by expert state roundsman Clennell.
The situation stinks and the coincidences of developer funding for approvals keep piling up, but it is rotten, and its not a coincidence.
But here is the taboo in all this - about 2 1/2 years back both the Herald and the Telegraph Big Media ran a unity ticket to beat up the ALP Govt on depressed economic conditions - presumably damaging their profits.
Newly installed Iemma, Sartor etc made a quite blatant shift to destroy the EPA Act which elected Neville Wran in 79 (via his praetorian minister Sheehan) in oder to crank the economics of the State. So the Big Media have some real responsibility for creating this monster of subjective development and rotten donations culture. They wanted the economic pedal to the metal and the ALP spin machine took them at their word. And it worked up to March 2007 state election too. Now the chickens are coming home to roost for all as amenity and common decency and self respect all go south.
Which is also why such as New Matilda are so important, as are all the other indy media sector, and are the ethical journalists still in the Big Media monoliths grovelling away at the truth of money politics.
God help us in NSW. Actually God will if we help ourselves and throw off these spivs and liars.
You will notice that my traverse above was written quite early this morning.
Notice I mention a shift from Parliament to the executive. Secondly a shift in govt approach from about "2.5 years ago".
This was all written by me without the knowledge or reading of the lead story on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald today by Wendy Frew and others. I’ve just finished reading it. It’s a strong story and Planning shadow minister Hazard is making hay over this "rotten" situation earlier today on radio and now I know his factual platform:
"Files expose sway of developers" 12 April 2008, Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/files-expose-sway-of-developers/2008…
The Herald story corroborates nicely my analysis above in a direct example of developments in the Hunter. As good as Frew and colleagues are and professional too, what the story omits editorially speaking is the corporate self awareness at Fairfax that the ALP under Iemma moved to accelerate any and all economic development as a direct reaction to both major newspapers signalling that they were going to go feral and fatal on the NSW ALP govt if the economy didn’t turn: Here are some samples via google:
- 7 Feb 2006 Slump hits home - National - smh.com.au
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/slump-hits-home/2006/02/06/113907417…
- 2 Sept 2005 Harder they fall: Sydney’s biggest housing slump - National - smh …
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/harder-they-fall-sydneys-biggest-hou…
- 2 July 2005 NSW’s economic slump hits home - Business - Business - theage.com.au
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/nsws-economic-slump-hits-home/200…
- Sydney boom bleeds NSW economy, By Ross Gittins, August 16, 2005
"It’s now clear that the NSW economy is the worst-performing among the states and its once-booming housing market is at the heart of the problem. Question is, who’s to blame?"
It saddens me to provide political logic for the ALP spivs but that’s the real politik reality. They trashed the integrity of the planning system as a matter of parliamentary majority. That’s what Part 3A is for vertically integrated into the electoral majority.
This was around 2005-6. At which time I totally gave up the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as a dead letter, that Wran had pioneered in 1979 to keep integrity in the planning system.
Sad huh? Keep going independent media sector. Keep going.
Good coverage Tom. I think the media is really starting to turn on Iemma amd it will get nastier until Morris steps down. That’s the end-game.
The sad part for NSW is that Morris merely represents a pretty pathetic rabble:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/labor-mp-fails-to-mention-50000/2008…
There is a slight correction where I mention a Wran Govt minister who brings in the 1979 Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, it was not Terry Sheehan but in fact Paul Landa, an extremely hard worker who tragically died of a heart attack in in 1984. You can find a background on him by googling NSW parliament with his name.