Right: Marian Sawer, Emeritus Professor and Public Policy Fellow, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University, recently published a web article 'Democracy for sale?' calling into question Australian laws on political donations.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Background information
Background
(The information below is abbreviated from a Wikipedia entry titled 'Political funding in Australia '.
The full text of the entry can be accessed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_funding_in_Australia)
Political funding in Australia
In Australia, the majority of political donations come in the form of donations from corporations, which go towards the funding of the parties' election advertising campaigns. Donations and affiliation fees from trade unions also play a big role, and to a lesser extent donations from individuals. Donations occasionally take the form of non-cash donations, referred to as gifts-in-kind.
The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) monitors donations to political parties, and publishes a yearly list of political donors. Donors can sometimes hide their identities behind associated entities.
Corporate political donations
Between the years 1995-1998, corporations donated $29 million to Australian political parties. The largest corporate donor during this period was Westpac. By the year 2002-2003, the amount of corporate funding to Australian political parties had risen to $69.4 million. In 2004-2005, the Labor Party raised $64.8 million from both the corporate sector and public funding, while the Liberal Party raised over $66 million. Most of the large corporate donors conduct business in an area greatly affected by government policy, or are likely to benefit from government contracts.
Trade union political funding
The Australian Labor Party is the main beneficiary of trade union affiliation fees, special levies and donations. The Labor Party received $49.68 million from trade unions in 2004/05. Critics have accused the unions of buying seats at ALP state conferences. In 2001/02, money from trade unions amounted to 11.85% of the Labor Party's income.
Public funding for political parties
In 1984, the Labor Hawke Government introduced public funding for political parties, with the intention that it would reduce the parties' reliance on corporate donations. To be eligible for public funding a political party needs to be registered with the Australian Electoral Commission under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. A candidate or Senate group is eligible for election funding if they obtain at least 4% of the first preference vote in the division or the state or territory they contested.
The amount payable is calculated by multiplying the number of first preference (i.e., primary) votes received by the rate of payment applicable at the time. The rate is indexed every six months in line with increases in the Consumer Price Index. At the time of the 1984 election the rate was 61.2 cents for the House of Representatives and 30.6 cents for the Senate. That amount was based on the cost of a standard 30¢ postage stamp per elector per year. By the 1996 election, the rate was set at $1.58 per vote for both Houses. By the 2013 election the rate was $2.49. At 1 January 2014 the rate was $2.52 per vote. By the 2016 election, the election funding rate from 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016 is 262.784 cents per eligible vote.
As a result of the 2013 election, political parties and candidates received $58.1 million in election funding. The Liberal Party received $23.9 million in public funds, as part of the Coalition total of $27.2 million, while the Labor Party received $20.8 million. When public funding was introduced in 1984, the amount paid was $12 million. For the 1996 election, the total public funding had increased to $32.2 million, and was $41.9 million for the 2004 election.
Disclosure of political donations
At the time of introducing public funding for political parties in 1984, the Hawke Government also introduced a requirement for public disclosure of political donations. The threshold amount was set at $1,500. The disclosure scheme was introduced to increase overall transparency and inform the public about the financial dealings of political parties, candidates and others involved in the electoral process.
In May 2006, the Howard Government increased the disclosure threshold to $10,000, which is then increased six-monthly by the consumer price index. In announcing the laws, the government said it will result in a 'fairer' and 'more competitive' electoral system, however, failed to discuss how the changes achieved these goals. Critics of the change claimed the new law would increase the chances of corruption, by making political donations harder to track, and by making conflicts of interest harder to detect. The change allowed corporations to secretly donate up to $90,000 spread across the national and the eight state/territory branches of political parties without public disclosure of that funding. In 2007, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library estimated this disclosure change will increase the number of non-disclosed political donations from 25% to 36%.
Since 2006, the donations limit has increased by $200 or $300 each year so that by 2014 the threshold was $12,400, and $13,200 for 2016/17 (and applicable to the 2016 federal election). This meant that in 2014 up to $111,600 could be donated to a political party from a donor without disclosure, if donations are spread across the national and the eight state/territory branches.
Another way of getting around the donation disclosure limits is for donations to be channelled through more than one entity or individual.
Criticism of political donations
The Australian Shareholders Association has called for political donating to end, arguing that the donations are a gift and a form of bribery.
Former Qantas chief, John Menadue, said, 'Corporate donations are a major threat to our political and democratic system, whether it be state governments fawning before property developers, the Prime Minister providing ethanol subsidies to a party donor, or the immigration minister using his visa clientele to tap into ethnic money.'
Political researchers Sally Young and Joo-Cheong Tham from the Australian National University concluded, 'There is inadequate transparency of funding. Moreover, there is a grave risk of corruption as undue influence due to corporate contributions and the sale of political access.'
Some critics say Australia should follow the example of the United Kingdom, where corporate donors must disclose their political donations in the company's annual report to shareholders.
Other critics have called for limits to cap the amount that corporations and unions can donate to political parties, similar to the $5000 personal donation limit in Canada, with a virtual ban on union and corporate donations. Some point to the success New Zealand has had, limiting the amount of money that political parties can spend on their election campaigns.
In January 2008, New South Wales Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell demanded political donations be limited to $30,000 per candidate, and a cap of $250,000 on what a corporation or union can donate to a political party. Describing the NSW government of Morris Iemma, O'Farrell said, 'This is a Government where many people are of the view donations buy influence and decisions. That's why we need to take action to clean up the system.'
Under a proposal launched by Shadow Federal Treasurer Malcolm Turnbull in January 2008, only individuals who are Australian citizens or on the Electoral Roll would be eligible to donate to political parties, and must declare the money came from their own funds. Turnbull said that the democratic system was not working properly when there is such a disparity between the amount of political donations a government can raise compared to the opposition.