This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/03/political-donations-australians-deserve-more-transparency

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Political donations: Australians deserve more transparency Political donations: Australians deserve more transparency
(7 months later)
Want to know who gave large donations to Want to know who gave large donations to the major political parties in the months before last year’s federal election? Well you won’t be able to for another year yet. That’s right, details about large donations made during the crucial last months of the campaign between July and September 2013 won’t be released by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) until February next year.
the major political parties in the months before last year’s federal election? Money given in the year leading up to July 2013 was, however, released today. That’s because political parties are given until October to report the previous financial year’s donations, then the AEC has around four months to process the information and publish it. As the last election was held in September and the financial year does not finish until this June, the AEC will be releasing 2013 election data in February 2015.
Well you won’t be able to for another year yet. That’s right, details about large donations To make matters even less transparent, the electoral commission only publishes donations exceeding $12,400. And because the state, territory, and federal divisions of each party are considered separate legal entities, it’s possible to donate that $12,400 to nine different branches of your chosen party – that’s $111,600 – before the party has to tell the AEC who you are.
made during the crucial last months of the campaign between July and September In short, you can donate over $100,000 to one party and no-one ever has to know. Even if you decide to go bigger, it could be 19 months before the public knows.
2013 won’t be released by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) until This situation did not, of course, come about by accident. Prior to 2006, the disclosure threshold was $1,500. The Howard government lifted the limit to $10,000 (adjusted each year for inflation), arguing this was necessary to ensure a “fairer, more competitive” political system. How exactly the reform fulfilled this promise was not explained.
February next year. Despite its policy to reduce the threshold to $1,000, in six years of government Labor failed to fix the problem. Instead, prime minister Gillard tried to do a deal with the Coalition to reduce it to $5,000 and apportion a larger share of public funding to political parties. Outrage at the cynicism of this proposal led to it being dropped – and now we’re back to square one.
Money given in the year leading up to July Then there are the loopholes. It’s common practice for parties to use so-called "associated entities" – what some people might call "front organisations" – to funnel donations. Because the associated entity is making the donation, the original donor does not need to be identified in the party’s own disclosures. Labor’s John Curtin House Ltd took $3.6m in donations in the 2012-13 period, while the Liberals’ Cormack Foundation received $3.3m in donations.
2013 was, however, released Associated entities aside, federal Labor does more than is required by law in its declarations, reporting the identities of donors over $1,000 to the AEC, though state branches and John Curtin House Ltd do not do so. The Liberal party does only what is legally required– reporting anything above $12,400 to the AEC. The Greens, however, publish information on donors over $1,500 every quarter on their own website.
today. That’s because political parties are given until October to It’s little wonder that Transparency International polling suggests that Australians see political parties as the most corrupt institution in the country. Leaving aside the relatively uncommon clear-cut examples of illegal corruption, many Australians believe that political parties have been morally corrupted by allowing large donors influence in the policy-making process.
report the previous financial year’s donations, then the AEC has around four It’s not unreasonable to wonder whether the strange reluctance of the major parties to do anything about problem gambling could somehow be linked to the $800,000+ given in donations to the Liberal, Labor and National parties by Clubs NSW between 2009 and 2012 (see the numbers here, here and here). It’d be naive to think that such vast piles of cash had no influence at all. Even if there’s no explicit agreement, a quarter of a million dollars a year is one hell of a sweetener.
months to process the information and publish it. As the last election was held The reality is that political parties in contemporary Australia need money, and lots of it, to fuel the political advertising arms race. Realising this dilemma, other countries have sought to reduce the influence of corporate money in the political system. The UK does not allow paid political advertising on television or radio, but instead assigns parties a small slot free of charge. Canada caps the amount that can be donated to, and spent by, parties. It also disallows corporate donations, though this is not perfect –some companies still try to funnel cash through individuals. Australia should consider such caps and restrictions, building on the lessons learned by other countries.
in September and the financial year does not finish until this June, the AEC Increased transparency is perhaps the easiest remedy for the problem of influence-buying. Lowering the disclosure threshold, closing loopholes and making information publicly available more quickly would allow a greater level of scrutiny about who gives money to whom, and what effect this may have on our political system. If the major parties are unwilling to end their addiction to corporate cash, we should at least be able to see where the money is coming from.
will be releasing 2013 election data in February 2015. In the meantime, we’ll all just have to wait another 12 months to see who gave the big bucks in 2013.
To make matters even less transparent, the
electoral commission only publishes donations exceeding $12,400. And because the
state, territory, and federal divisions of each party are considered separate
legal entities, it’s possible to donate that $12,400 to nine different branches
of your chosen party – that’s $111,600 – before the party has to tell the AEC
who you are.
In short, you can donate over $100,000 to
one party and no-one ever has to know. Even if you decide to go bigger, it
could be 19 months before the public knows.
This situation did not, of course, come
about by accident. Prior to 2006, the disclosure threshold was $1,500. The
Howard government lifted the limit to $10,000 (adjusted each year for
inflation), arguing this was necessary to ensure a “fairer, more competitive”
political system. How exactly the reform fulfilled this promise was not
explained.
Despite its policy to reduce the threshold
to $1,000, in six years of government Labor failed to fix the problem. Instead,
prime minister Gillard tried to do a deal with the Coalition to reduce it to
$5,000 and apportion a larger share of public funding to political parties.
Outrage at the cynicism of this proposal led to it being dropped – and now
we’re back to square one.
Then there are the loopholes. It’s common
practice for parties to use so-called "associated entities" – what some people
might call "front organisations" – to funnel donations. Because the associated
entity is making the donation, the original donor does not need to be
identified in the party’s own disclosures. Labor’s John Curtin House Ltd took $3.6m in donations in the 2012-13 period, while the Liberals’ Cormack
Foundation received $3.3m in donations.
Associated entities aside, federal Labor does
more than is required by law in its declarations, reporting
the identities of donors over $1,000 to the AEC, though state branches and John
Curtin House Ltd do not do so. The Liberal party does only what is legally
required– reporting
anything above $12,400 to the AEC. The Greens, however, publish information on donors over
$1,500 every quarter on their own website.
It’s little wonder that Transparency
International polling suggests that
Australians see political parties as the most corrupt institution in the
country. Leaving aside the relatively uncommon clear-cut examples of illegal
corruption, many Australians believe that political parties have been morally
corrupted by allowing large donors influence in the policy-making process.
It’s not unreasonable to wonder whether the
strange reluctance of the major parties to do anything about problem gambling
could somehow be linked to the $800,000+ given in donations to the Liberal,
Labor and National parties by Clubs NSW between 2009 and 2012 (see the numbers here, here and here). It’d be naive to
think that such vast piles of cash had no influence at all. Even if there’s no
explicit agreement, a quarter of a million dollars a year is one hell of a
sweetener.
The reality is that political parties in
contemporary Australia need money, and lots of it, to fuel the political
advertising arms race. Realising this dilemma, other countries have sought to
reduce the influence of corporate money in the political system. The UK does
not allow paid political advertising on television or radio, but instead
assigns parties a small slot free of charge. Canada caps the amount that can be
donated to, and spent by, parties. It also disallows corporate donations,
though this is not perfect –some companies still try to funnel cash through
individuals. Australia should consider such caps and restrictions, building on
the lessons learned by other countries.
Increased transparency is perhaps the
easiest remedy for the problem of influence-buying. Lowering the disclosure threshold,
closing loopholes and making information publicly available more quickly would
allow a greater level of scrutiny about who gives money to whom, and what
effect this may have on our political system. If the major parties are
unwilling to end their addiction to corporate cash, we should at least be able
to see where the money is coming from.
In the meantime, we’ll all just have to
wait another 12 months to see who gave the big bucks in 2013.