political donations
5 Aug 2009
What? No More Fundraisers?
If there's outrage that Anna Bligh has banned MPs from attending fundraisers, it's a sign that Australia's political culture needs urgent reform, write Lee Rhiannon and Norman Thompson
Labor and Coalition leaders keen to dismiss Premier Anna Bligh’s move on political fundraisers — either as a stunt or as unnecessary because the problems she is responding to "are isolated to Queensland" — are exposing their own double standards on electoral funding reform.
The Queensland Premier in one bold move has cut through the promises and fine talk on political donations that have dominated this debate in recent years. She has promised to ban MPs from attending fundraising functions with businesspeople and to ban success fees for lobbyists. Furthermore, she has also called for a national ban on political donations. Until Bligh made her move this week in response to Tony Fitzgerald’s charges of endemic corruption in Queensland, reform in this area had effectively stalled.
Senator John Faulkner’s Electoral Reform Green Paper examining political donations, funding and expenditure was released last December and held great promise. But eight months later, the Federal Government still has not clarified either what the reform process entails or when they will respond to the submissions received.
Bligh’s actions have put the spotlight on new Special Minister of State Joe Ludwig — who has been largely silent on the critical issue of donation reform since taking over from Faulkner in early June. In the wake of events in Queensland, Minister Ludwig promised that he wouldn’t let the grass grow under his feet, saying "this is an area that does need reform". It is now time for him to reveal his timetable for reform and the Government’s response to the submissions received to the Electoral Reform Green Paper.
Arguably, however, Joe Ludwig was never the best choice for the job of leading political funding reform. His base is the Australian Workers Union — an organisation that wields its power in the ALP partly through its regular donations. Over the past decade, the AWU’s support has amounted to more than $1 million.
The promotion of John Faulkner from Special Minister of State to Minister for Defense was a significant step for advancing political funding reform at the federal level. At last week’s ALP conference, it was reported that in his new role as Defence Minister, Faulkner refused to meet with arms dealers and defence company executives who had paid up to $110,000 for special access to government ministers at a party fundraiser.
So now we have one state premier and one federal minister who have both called a halt to participating in political fundraisers. Their decisions will turn off the taps to some donations but the actions of these two MPs, Bligh and Faulkner, more importantly will help restore people’s faith in the democratic process. But these small advances will soon be forgotten if more substantial changes are not achieved.
Right now the prospects for reform are not looking good. Rather than moving to electoral funding reform, both Labor and the Coalition have been bending the rules on fundraisers.
Activities uncovered by a recent Greens Democracy4Sale investigation suggest that the major parties remain focussed on boosting their election war chests rather than meaningful reform. The study of the first six monthly donations disclosure data released earlier this year by the NSW Election Funding Authority revealed that neither Labor nor the Coalition parties disclosed who donated at their party fundraisers. These returns also reveal that most major party candidates funnelled their donations through their party head office so they did not have to reveal the identities of their individual donors.
In 2008, major NSW Labor fundraisers Paul Gibson, Matt Brown and Noreen Hay stated to the NSW Electoral Funding Authority (EFA) that they received no donations. In the 2007 EFA returns, Gibson revealed he raised $336,355, Brown $221,647 and Hay $231,232. What these three top Labor fundraisers are now doing is not illegal — but their actions hardly embody the spirit of transparency and funding reform.
In the six months from July to December 2008, the Labor Party disclosed $3,421,278 in donations in NSW, plus $1,792,349 raised at 17 separate fundraising events. For the same period the NSW Liberal party disclosed $2,569,863 in donations, but failed to disclose what proportion of that money was donated at 167 fundraisers.
This is not the first time the Liberal Party has failed to meet its disclosure obligations. In August 2008, the NSW Liberals failed to disclose $14 million worth of donations before the September 2008 council elections.
Premier Bligh’s action on political fundraisers has re-initiated the debate about these dubious political funding activities but it looks like Labor and the Coalition are waiting for the heat to die down so they can resume their business-as-usual approach.
But when the next political funding scandal breaks — and there will be another scandal — the heat will be on again. Maybe we should take bets on how many scandals it will take before we achieve Canadian-style electoral reform.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Lee - your longstanding campaign to cast some light on corporate donations to political parties in New South Wales has been one of the highlights of recent Australian politics, for me.
The Greens are much ‘cleaner’ than either of the big old parties with regard to their funding sources. Only a fool would suggest otherwise.
Even so, I can’t help wondering how Bob Brown feels about his forthcoming business breakfast in Townsville, priced for the (well-fed) business market?
See http://www.google.com/calendar/event?eid=dmFjdTkxMHZybGtvMXE3ZWxocnJkYW5…
Perhaps journalists will bother to ask Senator Brown about this? They never find time to ask him the other questions I continually pose to the good Senator - just as he never finds time to reply - but they may well follow up in this case.
There is no price for the breakfast with Bob Brown, Syd. It doesn’t add much to the debate, without that.
Better correct this ad then Salamander:
Greens Breakfast
August 22 - 8:00am
Jupiters Townsville
Ticket: $80 per person
Bookings Essentaial - limited places
Join Senator Bob Brown for breakfast and a discussion on renewable energy and Greens policy.
See http://www.volunteeringnthqld.org.au/events.htm
But I re-iterate, I am not bagging the Greens. Far from it. If Bob Brown wants to spend some time talking to the business community, why not? Why not charge them like they’re used to being charged by other parties…? I certainly don’t think Bob or the Greens owes them a free breakfast.
My concern is that we don’t let appearance substitute for substance in the debate over corporate subversion of our democracy.
The biggest rort in Australian democracy, IMO, is the media dominance of News Corp. No politicians (as far as I’ve noticed) say a damn thing about it.
That’s a much bigger issue than breakfasts with business people or a car loaned by a sympathetic car hire business. New Corp domiance is an issue, as far as I can no notice, that no mainstream Australian politician touches. It’s a scandal that makes a mockery out of our ‘democracy’.
Where I live, every easily available newspaper is produced by News Corp: local, regional, State and national. Most people aren’t even aware of that. It makes for a travesty of democracy. At least in Soviet Russia everyone knew that Pravda and Izvestia were controlled by the Communist Party.
Syd,
I don’t think Bob Brown’s Townsville breakfast is really comparable to the sort of thing Lee and Norman mention in their article. It’s a talk about Greens policy around green jobs, it’s aimed at individuals, there’s no promise of special access, and at $80 a ticket (I agree it’s a little pricey for a croissant and coffee) it’s a long way from the $1,000 a seat dinner jobs with a minister at every table.
But yes, even the Greens need to raise funds to contest elections…
Chris
You might (depending on Facebook settings) be able to see a poster for the event here.
Just to clarify the Townsville Greens event - it’s a fundraising breakfast for anyone who wants to come, rather than being a “business” breakfast. It has been organised by the Queensland Greens groups in the area and they are charging $80 per head or $50 for Greens members. Anyone can attend and for the ticket price you get a cooked breakfast and a speech from Bob.
Well, that’s cleared that up then. Sorry for raising the issue and muddying the waters.
It’s nice to get a rapid response to a query.
I’m still waiting to hear from the Greens on:
(1) calling in the Senate for a public inquiry into the circumstances of the 1978 Sydney Hilton bombings, in accordance with a unanimous yet still not acted upon resolution of the NSW Legislative Assembly, sponsored by the valiant Independent MLA John Hatton 1991. 31 years is a long wait for justice - so long, in fact, that at this point full public release of the official archives is also merited..
(2) Calling for a public inquiry into the circumstances of the Port Arthur massacre (1996) and the validity of Martin Bryant’s conviction. 13 years is also far too long to wait for justice. (In that case, there hasn’t even been a Coronial inquiry or Inquest! Isn’t that illegal?)
(3) Calling loud and clear for immediate withdrawal of all Australian troops from Afghanistan (it’s Greens policy that no Oz troops be there, but Bob Brown and his colleagues make a lot more noise about Tibet than a bloody invasive war in which Australian troops are direct participants. Recent statements about Afghanistan have been wishy-washy. When Bob Brown mentions it at all, it’s almost as though he’s embarrassed to emphasize the Party’s straightforward policy: “immediately withdraw Australian forces from Iraq and Afghanistan”.)
(4) Calling for a full economic, cultural and sporting boycott of the State of Israel unless and until - at minimum - it ends the crippling, cruel and utterly illegal economic blockade of Gaza and stops building yet more illegal exclusively Jewish ‘settlements’ in the West Bank.
(5) Calling for urgent anti-monopoly measures to significantly reverse News Corp’s almost total dominance in the newspaper market in many parts of Australia. It’s a level of dominance incompatible with democracy.
Questions such as these, on past experience, evoke no response at all from the Greens leadership. No answer whatsoever. Just sounds of silence.
I could write a longer list of questions - and I have, over the years, contacted various Greens politicians on more issues such as these. But this short-list of five is a good sample of topics the Australian Greens would, it seems, rather not think about at all, let alone act upon.
I see question number (3), which relates to the Greens failure so far to take a lead role in demanding our rapid exit of our troops from Afghanistan, as a particular wasted opportunity.
Successive polls have shown a majority of Australians favour this country pulling troops out now. It’s a view that’s really left unvoiced in Parliament. On that issue, 50%+ of the public have effectively no voice at all in the National Parliament - not even in the Senate.
I’m guessing, but surmise the Greens leadership and senior advisers’ thinking may be along these lines: they may imagine that voicing a strong anti-War position, or getting serious about opposing Israeli brutality and Apartheid, or opening up some of the <>buried cans of worms in the Australian ‘secret police apparatus’, would risk News Corp and other shysters in the mass media vilifying the Greens as kooks with tin-foil hats. They dare not take the risk… (It’s also entirely possible they see no real need for justice and an end to war - they really should speak for themselves).
If it’s true that fear of a negative mass media reaction is the deciding factor in their calculus it’s a sad commentary on what may be described as the almost complete subversion of Australian national politics by unaccountable vested interests, interests that have grown more powerful than the politicians who nominally run the show and/or put up a ‘show of opposition’.
If people consider this off-topic I apologize. In my defense, I’d say I believe these to be matters of considerable public interest which deserve to be discussed somewhere. I hope Lee Rhiannon, whom I respect as one of the gutsier prominent Greens in Australia, will not take personal offense. She is not the target of my criticism. The Greens collective leadership in the Federal Parliament are a different matter. That’s where discussion of these issues is most appropriate, most needed and most overdue.
Political fund-raising reform is a worthy cause. But it’s relatively trivial, in my opinion, compared with the ‘elephants’ in our crowded corporate-dominated ‘living room’. I refer to the media interests that steer political discourse and set the boundaries of ‘respectable’ political debate. They are particularly influential beasts. In this country, one big bull elephant called Rupert towers over the rest.
Yes, there’s problem with rodent infestation in our political living room (corruption via property developers and the like). But elephants are significantly more dangerous. Will anyone in Parliament House even mention this? Will they keep avoiding the topics that make the elephants stamp their feet in anger? Time will tell, but I’m not holding my breathe.