Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Opinion

Canberra’s Leading
Relationship Lawyers

More needs to be done to clean up political donations laws

By Rebecca Vassarotti 13 September 2018 9
Big Backers road sign.

Democracy is not for sale: Laws must be strengthened to ensure political donations are monitored closely.

Political donations are one of the murkiest areas of our democratic system. These donations often go unnoticed by the general public but can have an impact on our political process. In recent times there has been some welcome scrutiny and focus on this issue, with a growing realisation among citizens that donations might be used by businesses and other powerful players to buy access and influence, gain favours and nudge policy in ways that are in their personal interest rather than in the public interest. At a time when confidence in politicians is at a low point, it is important that the rules governing these donations are rigorous. It is also important that we are paying attention to the level of donations that are being provided to our politicians at a local and federal level.

Here in the ACT, the level of donations that occur locally are not at the same scale as what is occurring federally. Even so, it’s important that we pay attention to who the financial backers of our local parties are, and ensure that our donations disclosure system is transparent and accountable back to the electorate. While donations can be a legitimate way for individuals and organisations to show support for particular political parties, we need to be assured that political parties are not too close, or too financially dependent on those with vested interests.

Last week, Elections ACT released the annual return of political donations to our local political parties. These returns always make interesting reading, and it shows that even in non-election years there is still plenty of money coming into the major parties’ coffers.

These returns show that the major parties are still comfortable accepting money and in-kind donations from pokie venues. In the Canberra Liberal’s case, there are also donations from large consultancy firms, and even property developers. It’s particularly surprising to still see these developer donations being accepted given this practice is set to be phased out by the end of the year as part of the parliamentary agreement between ACT Labor and ACT Greens.

It’s good to see disclosures happen soon after the end of the financial year. However, transparency still seems to be lacking in some cases. For a layperson reading through the disclosures, it can still be pretty hard to understand the nature of relationships between some of these entities. Public searches of some of the key financial backers such as the 1972 Foundation reveal little about these organisations.

With such a high level of distrust across the community regarding the motivations of our politicians, this is one area where politicians can win back trust by demonstrating a high level of transparency and accountability. There is still work to be done to improve donations law, and while it’s good to know that we will soon see new rules in place banning developers donations, this is an area where we have also backtracked in recent years. Of particular concern was the move by ACT Labor and the Canberra Liberals in 2015 to remove the $10,000 cap for donations, despite experts warning at the time that bigger donations leave politicians more open to corruptive influences.

I think we need to see strong laws on political donations to ensure our democracy is not for sale, and our politicians are not tempted to sell access or influence around political decision making. What do you think?

Rebecca is an active member of the ACT Greens and ran as a local candidate in the 2016 Territory Election.


 


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
9 Responses to
More needs to be done to clean up political donations laws
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
zarsof 8:27 pm 24 Oct 18

Unions back Labor
Labor backs big business because they are controlled by unions and have larger union workforce. Union workforce provides money to Union organisations. What a lovely symbiotic relationship there is.

justin heywood 5:30 pm 18 Sep 18

Rebecca, it’s the 1973 (not 1972) Foundation who are big donors to Labor, and frankly, if your public search about that outfit “revealed little”, then with respect you didn’t search very hard.

But I agree, politics and donations are evil bedfellows. However, you cannot claim the moral high ground (as a Green) just because your substantial income comes from individuals rather than companies. Who are these individuals? Where does their money come from and what do they expect ?
And what of GetUp’s mysterious backers? Why the secrecy there?

ALL political donations potentially distort our democracy. Money is no more pure just because it comes from people on your side.

Wing Nut 9:32 pm 15 Sep 18

1. Elections should have set public funding. All donations banned including 3rd party.
2. All Ministers and Senior Public Servants diaries should be made public, stop hiding behind “commercial in confidence”.
3. All members of parliament can serve a maximum of two terms and must publicly document any post parliamentary involved in the party or associated business dealings.

Our Government stinks.

    Garfield 8:49 am 16 Sep 18

    So all parties receive the same funding? What about in between elections? Could we see people establishing parties solely for the purpose of being employed to administer them?

    Two terms could vary between 6 & 12 years depending on the parliament and house. Maybe a 12 year max would be better, fitting in with the various 3, 4 & 6 year terms. However, where does that leave by-elections and mid term replacements for retiring members?

    What happens with 3rd party campaigns? Do we see unions and businesses campaigning on behalf of the party they want to see elected, effectively getting around your set funding, or are 3rd party campaigns banned? Would that raise issues around free speech and political communication? Do unions and businesses establish more parties so they can access the set funding, but run only a handful of candidates? They could just run campaigns attacking the party they want to see lose without publishing any policies of their own.

Ben Potter 7:55 pm 15 Sep 18

We should remove union funding at the same time.

Guy Noble 6:35 pm 13 Sep 18

Anything to stop us going down the U.S route

Capital Retro 1:40 pm 13 Sep 18
Hans Dimpel 1:35 pm 13 Sep 18

No they should not accept money. it's not a donation, it is made with the expectation of decisions being made in their favour later on.

Grimm 9:32 am 13 Sep 18

I believe parties in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones when it comes to where their donations come from.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site