Prev
Next

Big money still opens big doors to our politicians

Jo-anne Schofield

by Jo-anne Schofield

06 Aug 05:38am

Must Reads

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win - this is a caption

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

51

Schapelle has done her time - this is a caption

Schapelle has done her time

182

Do women need to know when to walk away? - this is a caption

Do women need to know when to walk away?

74

Filed under: Business, Donations, Ethics, Politics, Taxes

32 comments

Many Australian’s are becoming increasingly concerned by unchecked corporate power, a view cemented by the recent mining sector campaign which within just a few months resulted in a sitting Prime Minister being rolled and billions cut from their tax bills.

A donation slip from an ALP fundraising dinner.

Nearly fifty years ago, Labor was attacked for being run by “faceless men” when the leadership team of Calwell and Whitlam were photographed peaking through a doorway, waiting for a room of unelected party officials to dictated their policy.

These days it seems a whole new group has claimed the role, wielding a disproportionate influence on the levers of power in Canberra, with both sides of politics appearing beholden to the will of the corporate sector.

In Sydney today, the Money and Power Conference will flesh out some of this influence and look at the licence for big business to operate in our society, and behaviour the community should expect from our leading corporations.

Even though big business spends enormous amounts of money on corporate image making, it seems people have a pretty realistic view about their influence on society.  Recent poling conducted by the Australia Institute and Catalyst of 1360 people across the country revealed a staggering 4 in 5 people believed big business has too much influence over government decision-making and over their everyday lives.

Nine in 10 people disagreed – most of them strongly – that business should be able to buy access to politicians, with 94 per cent saying regulation was necessary to make sure big business behaves responsibly.  But these views shouldn’t be surprising. The issue of WorkChoices, which boiled down to just how much power corporations should have in the in the workplace, was central in turning the last federal election against John Howard, with the backlash still being felt enough to result in a sanitised Liberal Party workplace policy this time round.

Our recent polling reveals this issue remains strong, with a broad consensus that workers need protection from bosses who do the wrong thing, with more than two thirds of people saying that workers do not have too many rights in the workplace.

An equally overwhelming number also said there should be more regulation, with greater protection for workers and consumers, as well as more environmental safeguards.

Also supported were obligations for corporations to invest ethically, as well as measures to restrict executive salaries and capping of commissions and bonuses. 

Corporations distribute wealth – so the saying goes – but the public share of taxes now far exceeds what’s paid by many big businesses.  In Australia only one quarter of government revenue comes from business tax – three quarters comes from ordinary folks like us.

And as the federal election bidding war on reducing the official rate of tax for business continues to play out, we should be mindful that in reality companies pay a lot less than the official rate of 30%. In the last decade, more than half of all Australian companies paid less than 5% of their total income in tax by taking advantage of a very generous system of concessions and deductions.

Again, there is very strong public support for businesses paying a greater share of overall tax revenue and for closing these loopholes that allow companies to reduce their tax.

When you add to all this the very sticky issue of political donations, an area where big business reinforces its interests daily by spending vast amounts influencing political decisions, the scope of the problem becomes clear.  And of course if we already distrust big business in a context where business has disproportionate interest over government, this will lead naturally to distrust of government overall – or little distinction between the two groups. 

We already know that most members of the community are concerned about the rise of unchecked corporate influence; this conference hopes to bring people together to have a discussion on how can we collaborate and engage on this huge challenge.

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
375There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
304Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
262Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

32 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      05:51am | 06/08/10

      Funny how it’s always Big Unions complaining about Big Money in politics. If corporations shouldn’t influence politics, then neither should unions.

      This is nothing but a self-serving power grab by one exploiter of the workers, directed against another. Personally, I prefer the business exploiter who pays me, rather than the union exploiter who wants to take money out of my pocket.

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      09:33am | 06/08/10

      Spot on, Eric, ‘articles’ like this should have transparent disclosures that thet are claptrap for entertainment only.

      I think most people agree that buying access to politicians is problematic. My preference would be for individuals to be able to make essentially uncapped and private donations to political parties, but that institutions should not. That would be an easy way to limit the influence of both your corpoarte bogeymen and ALP/union snakemen.

      As a side note, I do not understand the point of so-called ‘single issue’ polling. This is for two reasons. First,  we don’t vote on single issues, but elect leaders to run the country. Second, if people really thought ‘corporations’ should be so restricted, wouldn’t they be? It’s not as if either side of politics has ever shown a propensity to stand up to overwhelming popular will.

    • papachango says:

      05:16pm | 06/08/10

      Exactly right. Big Unions have as much influence on government as big business, more so if it’s a Labor government. At least businesses generally act in their shareholders’ interests, the same cannot be said of most unions who are more concerned with far left politics. Otherwise why would they back a punitive tax on an industry with WILL result in job losses?

      As far as big business influencing government - it’s hardly surprising. As PJ O’Rourke said ‘When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators’.

      If the government left businesses alone to get on with business then they wouldn’t need to lobby and influence. However, given the Rudd government’s decision to steal an extra 18 billion dollars from the mining industry, frankly I don’t blame them for trying to influence the result.

    • acotrel says:

      09:32am | 07/08/10

      Wouldn’t it be pleasant if employers and unions subscribed to a different form of industrial democracy which motivated their employees, and gave them a coincident sense of direction?  We never hear about ‘employee share ownership’ or ‘open book management’ these days?

    • moneydemocracy says:

      11:34am | 08/08/10

      Maybe Channel 9 should do a show for politicians.

      Call it: Where are they now?

      If policy is driven by corporate marketing and donation, are the decisions made for the people or the “country”?

    • Reg says:

      05:51am | 06/08/10

      A good one Jo-anne and take a look at Obama’s strides to restrict such access. For pretty obvious reasons Obama’s changes do not get much publicity from those it effects. In Australia the faceless men have their counter-part in the Melbourne Club.

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      06:35am | 06/08/10

      Are you serious, Reg? BP donated more money to Obama in 2008 than it gave to any other politician - and so did many other big companies.  Obama is neck-deep in corporate loot.

    • mid says:

      08:35am | 06/08/10

      Now here is the problem Eric where people regurgitate facts that are made up to suit a highly political agenda. After Palin rolled that one out and tried to link ‘inaction’ on the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster to some wierd conspiracy, people actually went back and checked if it was true. The donations in question were actually from BP employees, were nowhere near the amounts donated to ‘conservative’ politicians by actual oil corporations, and amounted to a minuscule proportion of Obama’s fighting fund.
      The last time BP corporate actually donated to Obama was in 2004, and that was for $1000. Conspiracies are obviously getting a lot cheaper these days.

    • Reg says:

      06:47am | 06/08/10

      Then Eric all I can say is that in spite of BP’s donations at the time, he and his Democrats are aware of the problem it represents. I’m complaining and I haven’t been in a union for 20 years. Another thing, it is the small amounts from lots of individual Australian workers you are heap crap on, where-as most big business has International ties. My last BIG donation was $20 to the John Howard fighting fund. smile

      Reply

    • PaulB says:

      08:36am | 06/08/10

      Funny how the Democrats’ awareness of these things stops when they receive massive amounts of money from Israel-First PAC’s, who certainly expect their quid-pro-quo, regardless of the implications for America.

    • Reg says:

      07:16am | 06/08/10

      Further comment; It has just occurred to me that this very day there is a mighty meeting of heads in Sydney, I think, to consider this problem. Let’s hope the people of Australia who are interested in the subject get to hear about the outcome.  ALL 95% of the population, which means a lot of them must be Liberals.

      Reply

    • Macca says:

      07:35am | 06/08/10

      I struggle to believe that a Union Organiser with an arts degree would have any idea how much tax Big Businesses pay.

      Reply

    • Sydney. says:

      07:51am | 06/08/10

      Work on it Macca.

    • T.Chong says:

      08:09am | 06/08/10

      G’day Macca , very busy yesterday ? I was asking, whats the difference between employees getting together to fight what they believe in, and a corporate group doing the same?
      If unions will want bang for their bucks from donation, why do you think the mining exec union wont want returns from bankrolling the LNP ?

    • Macca says:

      08:35am | 06/08/10

      @T. Chong, Sorry, had to do some work at some point yesterday. If it felt like I was ignoring you and that annoyed you than thats just excellent

      I’m not sure I’m seeing your point, I’m guessing it had something to do with yesterday’s conversation. I’ve also got a powerpoint wankfest for most of today so I won’t be able to join you for today’s Fight Club.

      On that, Someone tell Penberthy he is a no-talent hack

      T. Chong, whilst I’m not going to deny that certain business donations to political parties are going to motivated for “something in return”, (how does the ALPs $250m to the network TV stations sit with this?) I ‘m of the belief that there is an inherit difference between Business Execs and Union Organisers.

      I’ll put it this way. Mining Execs are opposing the Mining Tax because it is detrimental to their Shareholders’ investments. The CFMEU and AWU, who represent workers who work in these industries believe that the tax will not be detrimental to the interests of their workers. Considering the number of backflips Paul Howes had on this issue (opposed, then agreed, then said Rudd’s approach was wrong) I can safely say that his belief is entirely influenced from above and not below.

      I’m not arguing against the right of Union’s to exist, or even campaign. But I simply do not believe the Unions’ response to the Mining Tax is based on the feedback and concerns of its hardworking members in the mines everyday

    • T.Chong says:

      09:04am | 06/08/10

      No Macca , no annoyance on my part, just genuinley trying to find out from some one with a conservative POV ( you, old son) what is the difference between an employees union ,and a corporate council ?
      Thought a discussion without name calling or put downs , might be a bit of a change from the usual debate featured here.

    • Rhys says:

      10:39am | 06/08/10

      Political donations should not be permitted from companies at all and the reporting limit should be dropped to $100.
      A company does not have a vote so why should they get to “vote” by paying for the party.

      There should also be an effort to close the donation loophole that we have seen used by both the mining companies and tobacco companies in the past few months. Advertising for/against government policy should only be allowed by political parties because what’s stopping some party strategist approaching a big company and saying “instead of donating to us why don’t you pay for an ad campaign on your own, we will be very grateful” because it doesn’t show up on the donation register.

      If companies still want to “donate” to political parties it should be placed in a central fund that is distributed to parties based on how much of the vote they received in the last election.

      Reply

    • Adam Diver says:

      10:47am | 06/08/10

      Who will run the ALP’s scare campaigns then or are unions exempt?

    • Randal says:

      11:01am | 06/08/10

      @Rhys I assume that you also believe that the these restrictions should also be applied to the union movement?

      Considering the fact that ALP raises funds far in excess of any corporate donations from the union movement, I assume you must be equally concerned that they may be unduly influencing the political sphere and should as such be equally as restricted as the corporate sector.

    • TimB says:

      11:06am | 06/08/10

      “There should also be an effort to close the donation loophole that we have seen used by both the mining companies and tobacco companies in the past few months. Advertising for/against government policy should only be allowed by political parties…”

      What about the Union ads? You don’t mention those. I wonder why. Fair is fair you know.

    • TimB says:

      11:06am | 06/08/10

      “There should also be an effort to close the donation loophole that we have seen used by both the mining companies and tobacco companies in the past few months. Advertising for/against government policy should only be allowed by political parties…”

      What about the Union ads? You don’t mention those. I wonder why. Fair is fair you know.

    • Reg says:

      04:32pm | 06/08/10

      Well Randal, because all the qualified members of Australian Unions are citizens of Australia, while the powerful boards of these International Companies of which you write, are usually not Australian at all, perhaps an anomaly slowly unfurls in your blighted mind.

    • Randal says:

      10:53am | 06/08/10

      Blatant union hypocrisy Jo-anne (who the hell puts a hyphen in a name like Joanne, says it all really)...

      The unions have espoused since the inception of the ALP, that the party represents the political arm of the unions, and never was this more evident in the assassination of the former PM Kevin Rudd, an act orchestrated by the ALP, and one that Paul Howes from the AWU gloated about on Lateline the night the unions struck.

      In the last election the unions spent $20M attacking the Howard government to install Rudd as PM, and countless union leaders members now sit in the parliament as ALP parliamentarians.

      In fact considering that unions represent less than a quarter of the workforce an argument can easily be raised to suggest that they carry way to much influence for a minority community organisaton in the political machinations of this nation, and never more so than when Labor is in power where there influence is clear for all to see.

      You see Jo-anne it is not just “greedy” corporations that put their hooks into politicians, it also “power hungry” and unions “greedy” for greater membership’s whom wield a far greater influence, and any discussion on undue influence upon corporations cannot be had without an assessment of the union movement.

      Based on your background, and undoubtedly the background of those that will undoubtedly be in attendance at this corporate hate fest, you are too compromised to hold a balanced view on this issue and the only noise that this conference will make will be the typical pro union and anti corporate bile that inevitably follows such gathering.

      Reply

    • Reg says:

      03:47pm | 06/08/10

      smile “it also “power hungry” and unions “greedy” for greater membership’s whom wield a far greater influence,” Since you are so offensive about Jo-Anne’s name, I’m sure you will appreciate my pointing out to you that your use of “whom” reveals your uneducated origins and calls into question your qualification as one of the all-knowing Liberals.  The only Randal I ever met was a gay cook in the US Army. But a good one.

    • Bell Smith says:

      11:23am | 06/08/10

      It made me feel physically sick when I heard the tobacco companies were backing The Liberals!! Whats the point of pushing people to be healthier, if they are making money from others addictions? It’s a vote changer for me Hypocrisy has a new name it Liberal

      Reply

    • Budz says:

      04:29pm | 06/08/10

      I don’t see an issue with that at all. It is peoples choice to smoke, no one is forcing them. Just the same as Maccas or Fosters sponsoring a party.

    • facepalm says:

      12:11pm | 06/08/10

      Perhaps the greatest illusion of modern “democracy” is that of freedom. The notion (as it is understood by the masses) is utter bollocks. The truth is that you are only as free as your purchasing power. The rich have been soliciting the services of politicians (much like one solicits the services of a prostitute) since time immemorial. The only difference is that there is far more honesty in the profession of prostitution than there is in politics. And at least a prostitute has some qualifications relevant to their…..*ahem* position. To use a crude medical analogy, I am of the opinion that politicians are part of a group of people who collectively form the appendix of the human social anatomy. They may once have served a purpose, but their existence now is purely vestigial - they are utterly useless people who are only capable of causing pain.

      Reply

    • Sean says:

      03:05pm | 06/08/10

      Aaah Jo-anne your articles always provide me with much mirth,your bias is obvious, must come from being a union/public sector employee for so long.
      As other commentators have noted, I assume you include unions in with corporations, because unions and union backed industry funds spend millions on advertising their viewpoints?

      Reply

    • Reg says:

      04:05pm | 06/08/10

      Are you Liberals as dense as you pretend? No one could be this bad. First you try and equate a multiplicity of divided middle to low class individual workers, with the gigantic Tobacco industry and then you bundle up all the rest of the gigantic industrial world, from BP down, and pretend that all these little divided voting blocks with families and mortgages to worry about, can organise themselves sufficiently to oppose the industrial might of the world you worship.  And Sean, I don’t think it’s mirth, it’s maniacal giggling. I suggest you see someone.

    • Sean says:

      04:55pm | 06/08/10

      Reg
      Firstly you need to learn a little bit about the use of full stops in sentences.

      Secondly I’m talking about unions, who actually ‘represent’ only a minority of workers in Australia. They, like corporations spend millions of dollars in pushing their views and therefore shouldn’t be treated differently.

      Thirdly, my mirth or cackling is due to Jo-anne’s blatant pro union/Labor bias, which is obvious in every article she writes. She never highlights that fact that her employer is union funded. As a middle class, small business owner I find this lecturing from someone with little or no private sector experience amusing.

      Lastly I voted Labor (which I now regret) in the last State election, so your pigeon holing of me as a Liberal shows your own bias.

      Take a sedative and relax sunshine

    • Reg says:

      07:11pm | 06/08/10

      The significance of your need to defend yourself does not pass unnoticed Sean.

      Reply

    • Davido says:

      09:29pm | 06/08/10

      Funds should only be allowed to be raised from membership and members.

      Anything else is corruption by another name.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 09:56PM

RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 24 May 12 09:17PM

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf”

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

by Tony Burke

38

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

by Tory Shepherd

92

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

by Anthony Sharwood

71

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed