Coalition Senator Michael Ronaldson decries the current mixed funding system of elections in his post on the Punch last week.

Money worries: if the Liberals are concerned about electoral reform they should act.

Early last year the newly elected Government introduced the Commonwealth Electoral Amendments (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009 to the Senate to make political donations more transparent. However the bill was defeated by Liberal Senators who did not want to clean up our campaign finance system.

Australia has a very clean electoral system by world standards. While we don’t hear complaints in Australia that elections have been rigged, the funding system is in need of some reform.

One area that does cause concern is the secret donation of large sums of money to political parties. This raises the possibility of influence-buying. Indeed, in NSW crooks associated with the Wollongong Council were also members of Labor and solicited donations for favourable planning decisions. Courageous local MP Jennie George had warned against their bodgie activities for years.

In 1984 the Hawke government brought in laws that required all donations to political parties, whether by individuals, companies or organisations such as trade unions, to be declared to the public. At the same time, public funding was made available to political parties so that they would not be solely dependent on donations. Over the last 25 years the principal beneficiary of this public funding of election campaigns has been the Green’s political party, which relies largely on tax payer subsidies for its ongoing operations.
In 2004 the previous government gained control of the Senate, and one of the first things they did was to change the laws on political donations. They lifted the disclosure threshold from $1,500 to more than $10,000 and increased tax deductibility
This allowed large amounts of money to be donated to political parties without being disclosed. It was possible to make separate donations to each of the eight state and territory divisions of the Liberal Party, which meant that donations of up to $80,000 could be made without disclosure.

Labor legislated to clean up the donations law and the House of Representatives passed the legislation which would reduce the disclosure threshold from more than $10,000 to $1,000. Under the legislation people who donate to political parties during election campaigns would be required to report the donation within eight weeks of polling day. It will close the loophole which allows people to donate to each state branch of a political party and claim each donation as a separate donation.

The Liberals also made other changes when they controlled the Senate, requiring people to produce photo ID when enrolling to vote, or when casting a provisional vote at elections. Young people were affected when they abolished the seven-day “period of grace” during which people could enrol to vote or change their enrolment details after an election was called. All this was designed to make it harder for groups of people to vote.  Eight to nine hundred people per seat (mainly those who moved within the electorate) lost their vote at the 2007 poll as a result of this bodgie change.

When we were in opposition, and Labor said we would reverse these moves to disenfranchise people.  Leading election experts such as Malcolm Mackerras and Professor Brian Costar agreed with us that these laws were partisan and unfair, and bad for our democracy. So no-one can say we don’t have a mandate for our legislation. That’s why the Coalition, led by Senator Ronaldson on this issue, - blocking transparency (donations) and enfranchisement (restoring provisional voting) is engaged in an outrageous anti-democratic manoeuvre.

There is no evidence at all that Australia has a problem with fraudulent enrolments, which was their excuse for these changes.  In the six electoral contests between 1990 and 2001 (including the 1999 Referendum) approximately 12 million voted each time. Only 72 cases of electoral fraud were established during that period.  This is one fraud per million votes. We have a healthy electoral system and we should make it as easy as possible for Australians to enrol and to vote – particularly since we have compulsory voting.

Having blocked our bill once in the Senate, the Coalition at least in its recent Turnbull incarnation had a unity ticket with the Greens Political Party to ban all donations to parties, from individuals and organisations! This would leave political parties totally dependent on public funding and cost the taxpayer $500 million dollars to fund all political parties, over a 3 year cycle. Senator Ronaldson and Bob Brown think the taxpayer should have to foot the bill for the operation of their political parties, not only election campaigning.  If tax payers were to foot the bill for their scheme to fund all political parties at election time and through the three year parliamentary cycle, it would costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

Part of the democratic surge in the United States that got President Obama elected saw hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily donate. Sorry Michael and Bob but in all democracies voluntary donations are an essential part of our system. What’s important is that all significant donations and the identity of the contributors are disclosed.  Anonymous and overseas donations would be banned under Labor’s proposals.  All donations would need to be reported in a more public and timely manner. 

Senator Ronaldson predictably attacks union support for Labor.  Were he serious, Ronaldson and the Coalition would wean themselves off contributions from outside players and make it clear to the public who they take money from. If, for example, the Liberals take money from tobacco companies (as they do), the public has a right to know that.

Tony Abbott should get Senator Ronaldson to drop his absurd unity ticket with the Green political party. If the Opposition want any democratic kudos they should vote in the Senate, to uphold the rights of the tens of thousands of people they disenfranchised at the last election. And while your at it Tony, just pass the legislation on donations that is stalled in the Senate. It would deodorise all political parties of the stink of potential corruption. 

- Member for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby, has served on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) since he was first elected to Parliament in 1998

15 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • John A Neve says:

      07:25am | 26/01/10

      Let’s cut to the chase, our electoral system is crap.

      Items that need to be addresse;
      1) a cap on the amount any candidate can spend on their campain, this
        should include any monies spent on their behalf.
      2) Any registered parties MUST stand a candidate in every seat, as it
        currently stands, parts of the electorate often are disenfranchised.
      3) Equal media time and coverage should be given to ALL candidates,
          currently “high profile candidates” get special treatment.
      4) Compulsary voting should be abolished, we either are a democracy or
          we aren’t, democracy and compulsion don’t mix.
      5) Candidates should live in their electorate.
      6) Local pre selections should not be over ruled by Head Office.

      Until we fix the system, the quality of parliament will not improve and based on comment here, it is woefull.

    • Dan says:

      04:26am | 27/01/10

      Disagree on 2 and 4. It is quite expensive to stand a candidate in every seat, and no party should be required to do so, especially if they have no chance of winning.

      As for 4, there is no contradiction between democracy and compulsion. Compulsion produces a higher turnout rate than in most other countries, and it means that parties don’t have to spend money on convincing their supporters to at least turn up. Plus, if you don’t like it, do a donkey vote or something.

    • John A Neve says:

      08:34am | 27/01/10

      Dan @ 0425hrs,

      Two and four have a lot in common, how can you force a person to vote when they have no one to vote for?

      If a political party registers it’s self and promotes it’s self surely they have an obligation to stand candidates so people can vote for them?

    • Eric says:

      11:05am | 26/01/10

      Everything about Labor’s campaign for “electoral reform” is about undermining the Liberal Party. Do you think people are stupid? We know you want to cut off their funding while keeping your own.

      And what’s with not requiring photo ID for enrolling to vote? I have to produce more than that when I open a bank account - so why shouldn’t I have to do the identify myself when deciding who runs the country? I can’t think of any legitimate reason for not requiring voter ID.

    • Chase Stevens says:

      03:00pm | 26/01/10

      So you’re opposed to knowing who your party of choice is taking money from then?

    • stephen says:

      03:00pm | 26/01/10

      Mr Danby, we don’t care what needs fixin’, so long as Labor gets in again and again and again.
      Isn’t that right fellas ?

      PS ” hey bro’, drizzle some oil on those zucchinis will yer ?”

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      03:15pm | 26/01/10

      Thanks to the recent idiotic U.S Supreme Court decision, as I read it, there is nothing stopping foreign governments from forming corporations in the US, either dummy corporations or third party corporations and splashing a lot of cash to influence the outcome of U.S elections. I’m willing to bet that China will splash a couple of 100 million dollars advertising against congressmen that speak out against China.
      My view is that there should be a blanket ban on ALL political advertising in all forms of media for a period of six months before an election. Let the public get their info from journalists instead of ads.

    • David V. says:

      07:06pm | 26/01/10

      Nothing will stop corporations, church groups, unions, foreign governments, etc from trying to buy the White House, now literally! Russia, China, India, Venezuela, Hamas… this is your way in.

    • Joe says:

      07:38pm | 26/01/10

      There isn’t a government on the planet that could wrest control of the US government from AIPAC.

    • Brad Coward says:

      05:27pm | 26/01/10

      Personally, I don’t care how much the individual or the party spends to spread it’s version of the truth, provided that every cent donated and spent is accounted for in a transparent manner.  Just clean up the system under which we vote.  Kill off preferential voting.  The fact that the candidate who hasn’t received the most votes can be declared the winner amazes me !  I don’t want to see Fred Nerk taking his place in the House thanks to preferences from the Greens or whoever.  If the voting system was truly fair, there would be more independants in the House of Reps and the Senate.  We never would have heard of the Australian Democrats and the Greens would be a distant memory.  Does anybody truly believe that Bob Brown represents the interests of a majority of Tasmanian voters ?

    • Sam Bauers says:

      11:30pm | 26/01/10

      “Over the last 25 years the principal beneficiary of this public funding of election campaigns has been the Green’s political party, which relies largely on tax payer subsidies for its ongoing operations.”

      This is disingenuous. The Labor and Liberal parties have been the principle beneficiaries of public funding on top of their already large takings from individual donations and corporate interests. Public funding does represent a large portion of The Greens revenue, but that’s not what you are saying in that statement.

      Actually, your whole argument is quite disingenuous. If you want to implement donation reform for political parties, why wait for the Liberal party to agree? Just do it within your own party. Labor is, after all, at least half of the problem here.

    • David from Melbourne says:

      11:25am | 27/01/10

      Mike Danby’s right ............ the best insurance against dodgy electoral practices is the widest possible franchise.  I can agree that the first-time enrolment should be subject to pretty tough scrutiny, but the Liberal practice of scrubbing tens of thousands of people off the roll - often people renting, students moving about, etc. - without any notice to them was bad news.  Compulsory enrolment and compulsory voting (no one says you have to lodge a valid vote - that’s your business) are a great and distinctive Australian tradition.

    • John A Neve says:

      11:41am | 27/01/10

      David @1125hrs.

      “A great and distinctive Australian tradition” being “compulsory enrolment and compulsory voting” !!
      Just what is the point when both you and Dan go on to say ” no one says you have to ladge a valid vote” or in Dan’s case “do a donkey vote or some thing”.
      Doesn’t that make a joke of the whole process?

    • Pablo says:

      08:29pm | 27/01/10

      “Interesting to see that none of the Green’s party advocates (on this site) dispute that they want to stick Australian tax payers with a $500 million bill to fund all political parties.

      Quite understandable, when you consider the naked self interest of the Green’s Party. They don’t get union or corporate funding and very little public donations….but what’s the rationale for the “free market Libs” in supporting such a racket.”

    • Peter says:

      01:01pm | 01/02/10

      “the Coalition at least in its recent Turnbull incarnation had a unity ticket with the Greens Political Party to ban all donations to parties, from individuals and organisations! “

      This is a lie - the Libs have only said that donations from business and unions should be banned.  In fact, only Australian individuals would be allowed to donate, so no more dodgy foreigners.  This is also what GetUp wants, ironically enough.

      “$500 million”

      This is also a lie. Canada pays its parties $1.75 for each voter they got at the last election.  Apply that to Australia (both Senate and House) and you get $41 million per year.  Not $500m.  Not even $500m over three years.

      Labor is pretty good on BS when it is trying to save the skins of their union mates.

 

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

@MClarke23 nip out of camp to help out Warney? Now that would cause some chaos

Lucy Kippist

@SimonThomsen LOL you can try!

Lucy Kippist

Don't bring your children and other "rules" of supermarket shopping. Got a gripe or two of your own? Add to my list: http://bit.ly/dBWydm

Lucy Kippist

What voters really think of Tony Abbott, great piece by Nic Christensen & Tina Tek: http://bit.ly/bvLWSz#thepunch

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Breaking news: Something is going on

Breaking news: Something is going on

Is this the greatest ever send-up of 24-hour news? Warning: contains strong language and hilarity. From… Read more

10 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter