“Democracy is not cheap.” That’s what the former NSW President of the Australian Hotels Association John Thorpe had to say about our political system. He was of course referring to the fact that his industry, in the nine years to 2007, had donated a jaw dropping $3.5 million to the NSW Labor Party. And he’s just one of hundreds of big donors out to buy our democracy.

Yesterday the National Audit Office released its report into the ‘Utegate’ debacle. While it found no wrongdoing by our politicians this doesn’t take away from the fact that the scandal left a sour taste in the mouths of many Australians.

When scandals like ‘Utegate’ crop up, we complain about our politicians - and with good reason; the emails may be fake but the donations aren’t.

Over 80 per cent of the amount raised by our major parties in donations comes in amounts over $10,000 with almost half in donations over $100,000 Businesses are of course not going to fork out such large sums of money without an expectation of quid pro quo.

And it has to be the public who demands change. The last time politicians tried to change the system was in 1984. Public funding for political parties was introduced – supposedly to lessen corruption. Since then, unfortunately it has simply supplemented private contributions and has done little to reduce the influence of wealthy and powerful individuals.

This time the Government’s big solution is to reduce the disclosure threshold from around $11,000 back to $1,000, not much lower than where it was a few years ago. But that change alone sidesteps the most important issue.

Transparency is a lovely word – but it’s not the answer. I for one don’t just want to know about undue corporate influence – I want it stopped! Our politicians are supposed to work for us, the Australian public, but their paychecks are being written by big corporates. It doesn’t take a genius to guess whose interests will take priority.

This won’t be an easy problem to fix. In the 1984 election the major parties spent $8.3m altogether. In 1996 they spent $23m. At the 2007 election, estimates put this figure at over $80m. Politicians are addicted to corporate donations to fund their ever-growing electoral war chests.

In reforming our political system we must adhere to three principles. Firstly we must ensure equality of access: all citizens should be able to have their voices heard by Government. Secondly, no company or industry group should be able to have undue influence on the political process. Finally, we must encourage participation in the political system by, for example, supporting small dollar donations by individuals.

To make such a system work we need wholesale reform. We have to treat tickets to party fundraisers (which reach many thousands of dollars) as donations. We have to cap the amount individuals can donate. We have to ensure we don’t allow anonymous donations over $50 and we must extend regulation to third party organisations.

Tim Gartrell, a former senior Labor party insider, yesterday in The Punch suggested that ending corporate donations and only allowing individual people to donate would advantage the Liberal party, which tends to have a higher proportion of wealthy donors. But wholesale reform that includes a cap of $1000 on individual donations would in fact ensure a level playing field, as long as more funding goes to public election financing.

Secondly, Union participation in the Labor Party would still be possible through capitation and affiliation fees. These fees are not donations and wouldn’t fall under an appropriate ban on corporate donations. Under these circumstances surely it is time for our political parties to get on board.

That’s why GetUp today launched a campaign calling for an end to corporate donations.

We have to take democracy off the market.

We have a serious opportunity here. Malcolm Turnbull says he wants all political donations from companies banned. Newly minted ALP President and QLD Premier Anna Bligh has also come out for a ban; and the Greens and Senator Xenophon have been talking about it for some time. With the possibility of bipartisan support, now is the time to disinfect our democracy.

Most commented

22 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Darren W says:

      07:34am | 05/08/09

      Timely article Simon, thankyou. I want to track the nuclear industries ‘donations’ to Labor, and in particular Peter Garrett and Mike Rann. Whats the best way of doing this? Also, I want to know what companies and amounts of money are being used in lobbying Labor to dump international nuclear waste in Australia.

    • Mark Desouza says:

      07:54am | 05/08/09

      Couldn’t agree more. Time to get the corporates out. Great work again GetUp!

    • OldHippie says:

      08:34am | 05/08/09

      Isn’t dictatorship even dearer?What about the high costs of communism? It’s advertising that costs and self promotion, democracy is actually free!

    • Old Fortian says:

      08:54am | 05/08/09

      What about donations by unions to the ALP?  Are you going to ban those too, Simon, or will it all just be a big one-way-street for the ALP?

      You talk about influence peddling through big doantions, but miss the elephant in the room: trade union donation to the ALP.  If ‘whoever pays the piper calls the tune’, then the trade unions are the maseter of karaoke.

      Riddle me this - who has the greater influence on policy: the storekeeper who gives $1,500 to her local MP, of the trade union boss who donates $1m to the Labor Party.  Yeah, I thought so too.

      In fact, Labor has a number of very sweet sugar-daddies in the election year:

      1.  Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, $1.5m
      2.  Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union,  $1.3m
      3.  Communications, Electrical & Plumbing Union, $1.0m
      4.  Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, $765k
      5.  Electrical Trades Union, $674k
      6.  Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, $650k
      7.  Maritime Union of Australia, $581k
      8.  Australian Workers Union, $568k
      9.  Health Services Union, $366k
      10.  Transport Workers Union, $304k

      And this does not include money which the unions spent in their own right.  What about this lurk, Simon? 

      Why not ban all donations, unless they are from individual people on the electoral roll?

    • Eric says:

      09:34am | 05/08/09

      Suddenly the Labor Party’s front group, GetUp, is following a Labor insider’s call to ban political donations.

      Any such ban should apply to your own organisation, Mr Sheikh.

    • Shel says:

      09:33am | 05/08/09

      This article is rubbish. Corporations are made up of individuals and work is part of every individuals life.  There is nothing wrong with corporations being able to donate to political parties.  Its their democratic right to do so.

      Have a cry Simon. Maybe you should be taking a more active role in lobbying your government about the issues that matter to you, instead of expecting them to automatically fight for the issues that you care about.  You do not need money to make your voice heard.

    • Lucy says:

      10:11am | 05/08/09

      I agree with Old Fortian. I watched Simon on Q&A the other night and have obviously read his comments here. I am quite shocked at his willingness to sacrifice the ‘ideology’ on donation he purports to have.

      Quote from above article:

      “Secondly, Union participation in the Labor Party would still be possible through capitation and affiliation fees. These fees are not donations and wouldn’t fall under an appropriate ban on corporate donations.”

      So Simon, what happens when ‘affiliation fees’ are raised to say, $1m per Union?

      Will we then have some business ‘alliances’ that have ‘affiliation’ to the Liberal Party paying a similar ‘fee’?

      I don’t have all the answers, but your solution isn’t a real solution at all.

      I don’t have a problem with companies providing money to political parties. The Labor Party received more from corporate donors at the last election than the Liberal Party did.

      The corporates always seem to get the blame in these debates as exerting ‘undue influence’ on the political process. Well, I’m sorry, you can’t exercise any influence unless the person you are trying to influence is amenable to it.

      If we were to get a better quality politician in parliament, we wouldn’t have this problem at all.

      Having worked in a corporate environment - one where contributions were made to both major parties - I knew there was no expectation our policy positions will be listened to. That’s not why we did it.

      It was genuinely about participating in the process and recognising that political parties had to fund themselves in order to succeed. It’s a bit like a marketing budget for a FMCG producer. If you don’t advertise, you don’t sell.

      So, the money has to come from somewhere - nothing comes for free.

      By supporting both major parties, the company I worked for recognised the base need for funds, but wanted a fair fight - so gave to both.

    • watty says:

      10:16am | 05/08/09

      For an Organisation that states that it tries to influence politics and relies on donations GetUp is “speaking with forked tongue” 

      https://www.getup.org.au/donate/

    • Dick says:

      01:26pm | 05/08/09

      LOL Eric, GetUp is Labor’s “front group” now?! Doesn’t really explain why GetUp has been severly critical of the Labor party on climate change, internet censorship, unemployment, the Murray-Darling Basin, etc. etc. etc. See GetUp maliciously compare Rudd to Howard in response to his 5% carbon reduction target here: https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/ClimateActionNow&id=488. Witness GetUp tear shreds from Stephen Conroy here: http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442. And think before you comment next time, huh?

      Watty, no one is really arguing that small individual donations - the kind that GetUp relies on - be eradicated. In any event, GetUp is a pressure group, not a member of the legislature/executive with the power to change laws. It’s the lawmakes that have to protect from not only corruption, but the appearance of corruption that large corporate and union donations always carry.

      http://dullsvillain.wordpress.com

    • Lucy says:

      02:15pm | 05/08/09

      @Dick - Who did GetUP endorse at the last election? Labor. What is the likelihood of GetUp ever endorsing a party other than Labor when election time comes? Probably none.

      They are for the ALP what Bruce Baird, Marise Payne, Petro Georgiou and Russell Broadbent were for John Howard. Really useful to criticise from within - makes it look like you are really considering the issues - but better shut up and endorse the party at election time.

    • watty says:

      02:25pm | 05/08/09

      Dick I presume you are referring to the “Small” individual donations of $2500 or above on GetYUp’s website?

      Having watched GetUp’s “causes” I would sugest their criticisms of the Rudd and Howard Governments bear a close resemblance to those written in Green Left and Socialist Alliance newsletters.

      Attacking the Rudd Government with a feather duster doesn’t really cut it with me.

    • Drew says:

      02:26pm | 05/08/09

      This was most succinctly put by a poster by the name of “vugo” on The Australian’s Shanahan article:

      vugo 2:21am today

      Turnbull is in the unenviable position of hoping to be taken as a fool. Ladies and gentlemen, our next Prime minister.

    • Dick says:

      02:49pm | 05/08/09

      @Lucy: fair enough, pretty pissweak of GetUp to endorse Labor when their campaigns are and almost uniformly inconsistent with Labor policy.

      @Watty: yes. $2500 < $1.3 million (assuming “Old Fortian” is right about the Construction Union donation to Labor).  But, as I pointed out in my original comment, you can’t limit private lobby-groups from receiving donations, and no one is suggesting that.  It’s legislators that are the problem, and I agree with Sheikh that a potential solution is to limit donations to LEGISLATORS to an amount within the reach of most individuals - say, $1,000, like he suggests. But if you wanna donate $2,500 to GetUp or the Won’t Somebody Please Think of the Children Foundation, go for your life.

      GetUp’s criticisms are probably shared by the “Green Left” types. What of it? How does it follow that they’re “attacking with a feather duster”? I mean, if organising and getting requisite donations to get ads on national TV that paint Rudd as a clone of Howard is a feather duster attack, what constitutes a real attack? Same goes for their 100,000 signature petition against Rudd’s clean feed, and their ad which paints it as a Nanny-state means of censorship. Or is your definition of a proper “attack” limited to criticism that comes from the right?

      http://dullsvillain.wordpress.com

    • Andrew says:

      02:51pm | 05/08/09

      Corporate director’s have a legal responsibility to make decisions that best serve the shareholders of their company with increased profits and/or company value. 

      I find it very, very hard to believe the director of any corporation can justify donating money to any of the political parties if it doesn’t result in any benefit to the company.  That benefit may not be policy decisions but would generally be access to politicians.

      The union affiliations/donations you could argue are the collective donations from individual union members who are citizens/voters; whereas corporate donations are on behalf of their shareholders, whether they be Australian citizens, other companies or even other national governments.

      If politicians hope to gain our trust they need to be get some courage and let go of the money bags…

    • watty says:

      04:04pm | 05/08/09

      Nice try Dick. Looking at GetUp campaigns it appears to be a very pale imitation of the Democrats MoveOn.org which even you would admit is a bit one eyed.

      A s for the” feather duster” comment likening GetUp to Green Lat and Socialist Alliance it is a well known practice to occasionally be seen attack a Labor Government but when it comes to crunch time never ever support a Conservative Government..

      ps the comments about Penberthy were quite unwarranted. After all he decided through the Daily Telegraph that voters should give the tick to Rudd

    • Zeta says:

      04:20pm | 05/08/09

      Political neophytes like Sheikh and his breed of metropolitan alarmists think politicians take these donations and then what, treat themselves to lunch? Buy exotic cars? Mountains of cocaine and dubiously named escorts?

      Every single cent of money donated to political parties is spent on election campaigns. Every. Single. Cent. Occassionally, some State Director or State Secretary might authorise a cab charge for a staffer who needs to take an arvo of work to see their sick Nan. But only if she’s a member of the party, and only if she promises to man a booth on polling day. Because it’s All. About. Elections.

      No matter how much money the parties receive, or from whom, the outcome is the same. You, the punter, have to vote for them. And if you don’t like the inferrence that the Australian Labor Party might have taken a donation from some sketchy property developer and would therefore do them favours, or if you don’t like the fact that the Greens take donations from The Ban Feminine Hygene Alliance because you’re worried about the future of sanitary pad imports, the solution is simple. Tell them at the ballot box. It’s a lot more efficent than supporting the Trots at GetUp, and cheaper too.

    • Dick says:

      05:13pm | 05/08/09

      Zeta: surely the more money you receive, the better equipped you are to fight elections? Otherwise, why the arms race described above?

      The main issue to be addressed in campaign finance reform isn’t the old fashioned, palm greasing corruption you refer to.  It’s the politics of influence and the perception of influence.  It’s decision making by legislators that takes something else (anything else) into account but the public interest and the interests of their constituents. Notice the amount of money donated by the insurance industry to the “Blue Dog” Democrats who are currently stalling Obama’s health care bill.

      Under the current model, pretty much anyone who makes it into parliament owes something to someone other than the electors. And that isn’t democracy.

      http://dullsvillain.wordpress.com

    • James says:

      11:31am | 06/08/09

      The principle in question is whether our democracy shares power among 20 million citizens or among the donors of 80 million dollars. The first is egalitarian the last is a hierarchy based on wealth.

      Anyone with any shred of honesty knows that money buys ads and ads influence votes, if they didn’t parties wouldn’t advertise. Likewise anyone not being deliberately misleading, like Shel, knows that CEO’s spend money to benefit their shareholders, not their workers.

      Unions exist to benefit their members, the question of how they should be regulated is simple: limit their donations to $1000 per member.

      Of course this ban won’t solve the imbalance in our political system in one stroke. The US limited political donations and that led to Big Money interests starting their own independent groups to buy ads in election campaigns outright rather than donating to parties. But you have to take it one step at a time.

      @watty: [citation needed]

      @Zeta: voters don’t have perfect information about political parties, a lot of the information they rely on is put out by the parties through ads and events and those cost money so the parties have to go to someone for the money. Their choice is between a few very rich people or a vast number of small donors. A cap on donations would force them to choose the latter. The more people who have to be convinced to donate to a party, the more representative the money part of the equation becomes.

    • J Elgin says:

      11:47am | 06/08/09

      People need to realise the difference between GetUp and political parties is that GetUp doesn’t make public policy and pass laws - they get people to ask the government to do so.

      The bottom line is the debate about regulating 3rd parties, and the difficulty in reaching a perfect solution, doesn’t excuse not getting big corporate and union donations out of politics. Good on you GetUp for raising what must be a difficult issue for an organisation that lives through donations, for the greater good of our democracy!

    • Phil says:

      11:37am | 09/08/09

      The ALP is historically a product of the Trade Union Movement.  All Social Democratic parties are.

      The greatest problem with the ALP is that it has strayed too far from its historical base in order to attract an artificially created petty middle class (an artificial creation for which the ALP is in part responsible).  This has also resulted in the ALP working too uniquely through middle class created central Parliamentary structures that are based on the operation of powerful and corruptible caucuses

      This is the key to the donations problem.  Centrist Caucus based parliamentary politics are all too easily corrupted into being ANTI- democratic.  The donations (when disclosed) are not so much the problem - the mode of operation is the problem. Donations - be they public or secret - are inevitable when we have the kind of centrist structures that form State, Federal and even Local Government.  We have yet to “learn” democracy.

      The bottom line is that we need to build a broader based democratic structure for modern Australia.  In this vital need for change even the Monarchy/Republic argument pales into insignificance.

      There is no room in modern society for the archaic tribalism of class based social structures , all powerful Centrist Parliaments, cliques, elites, castes etc - they are almost by definition anti-democratic

      In particular the left needs to move on from the romantic delusion that ancient tribal societies - aboriginal included - were some form of primitive socialism or communism.

      They had far more in common with Feudalism.  This analytical error - made in the days of Engels still dominates the left and becomes revived in an impractical and romantic pseudo religious Green Movement

      It is long past time that the level of political donations was revealed - but you won’t stop them unless you politically restructure our society as a genuinely democratic society -  and you won’t manage that until you get your understanding of history in order.

    • ConcernedCitizen038821842x says:

      11:23pm | 30/08/09

      Dick: Well said generally
      James: That is one of the most succinct presentations of this issue I have ever heard, I hope you can distribute it!
      Phil: Well put, espessially about the ‘Noble Savage’ fallacy and the left

      I would add the comment that we all seem to be assuming that politicians are going to favour donators, and that we need to manage this weakness in our elected representatives.

      But perhaps this is a symptom of a broader problem which Phil hit upon too.

      We need a broader based participatory public.

      I think some people say ‘We get the democracy we deserve’ but I think thats blaming the victim. I would put it thusly…

      ‘We get the democracy we earn’

      And more people need to put in some effort and escape the emotional decision based on familiar brands which has us victimised by a duopoly with strong brand recognition.

      Peace, Out!

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

David Penberthy

@michelangeloruc not at all mate it is a great story and photo

tory_maguire

@nswpolice very polite and helpful officers manning the Pyrmont road closures this morning

David Penberthy

@KevCorduroy @SallyHitchiner it's a great idea I doubt he'd go for it though far too laid back

ToryShepherd

. @mcguiremi is journo of the year! #samediaawards

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter