Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I too wish to speak on the funding and disclosure report tabled today from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The Australian Democrats have a long history of activism for greater accountability, transparency and disclosure in political finances. We have raised funding and disclosure issues at length in our minority reports on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiries into the 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2004 elections. Long before I held this portfolio, of course, other Democrats, such as former senator Michael Macklin, have been very heavily involved in this area.

However, despite this consistent Democrat effort, progress in achieving greater accountability in political funding and disclosure has been slow. In many ways, the major political parties have thwarted meaningful change. Today, with the Senate under coalition control, Senate scrutiny has become less effective. I must acknowledge that the Labor Party is a little more anxious for better standards than is the coalition; but, in our opinion, neither goes anywhere near far enough. The few funding and disclosure amendments that have gone through since the disclosure scheme was first introduced in 1984 under the Hawke Labor government have not closed the loopholes. In light of the strong resistance to change, we, as the Democrats, make no apology for repeating our concerns for the current funding and disclosure scheme.

Two major trends mark the last 10 years: firstly, a very large increase in the benefits of incumbency, paid for by taxpayers, disproportionately benefiting the major parties as a result, since they hold the majority of seats; and, secondly, a funding arms race that, while it appears to presently benefit the major parties, is of growing concern to many in those parties and, in my view, needs to be addressed. These developments do not add to the strength and stability of our pluralist democracy. Indeed, the aims of a comprehensive disclosure regime should be to prevent or at least discourage corrupt, illegal or improper conduct; to stop politicians being, or being perceived to be, beholden to wealthy and powerful organisations, interest groups or individuals; and to protect politicians from pressure being brought to bear on them by secret donors.

In some quarters, resistance to funding reforms is still argued on the grounds that the privacy and commercial confidentiality of donors must be respected. For those of us who cherish our democratic ideals, it is difficult to accept that secrecy is valued more than openness, that political donations are valued over grassroots political involvement, that political equality is a furphy and that incumbency and influence are what really matter.

This reveals a wide gulf between a central tenet of pluralist theory and its practice. This is the notion that of the multiplicity of groups in society no one interest group dominates—that political power is somehow fluid and can be accessed by all groups. However, every time electoral commissions release the annual returns of political parties, the real picture emerges: that of the close nexus between big corporate unions, big corporate business and big corporate politics—those with independent or corporate wealth are purchasing political capital and media political support. The domination of the rich has become so blatant that although some politicians—from all parties—feel quite uncomfortable about it no federal, state or territory government or opposition seeks to end it.

Disclosure proposals can be seen from two perspectives: improving present principles or establishing new principles. The first should in theory be easiest, but in practice it is not so. For instance, while it is a present principle that the source of donations should be known, there remains great resistance to ensuring that donations from clubs, trusts, foundations, fundraisers and overseas donors are publicly sourced. The Democrats’ principal recommendations for reform either build on those already in place or seek to introduce new principles.

Those Democrat recommendations that build on those disclosure principles already in place are: that the existing loophole allowing donations made to separate federal, state and territory divisions of the same political party at values just below the disclosure level be closed; that professional fundraising be subject to the same disclosure rules applying to donations; that political parties receiving donations from trusts or foundations be subject to additional disclosure requirements; and that political parties receiving donations from clubs be obliged to return those funds unless full disclosure of the true donor’s identities are made.

Those Democrat recommendations that introduce new principles of disclosure into electoral law include: that the media or any media entity be prohibited from donating in cash or kind to the electoral or campaign funding of a political party. It is particularly dangerous to democracy if the fourth estate becomes more partisan in politics. The next principle we seek to put into electoral law is that all electoral and campaign funding be subject to a financial cap, indexed to inflation and controlled by the Australian Electoral Commission. We also seek that cash or in-kind donations to a political party or its candidates be capped at $100,000 per annum. I know that is arbitrary, but we have to start somewhere in limiting the cost of democracy.

We also recommend that large donations—for instance, over $10,000—be disclosed regularly—that is, quarterly—and be made public immediately; that donations and loans from overseas individuals or entities be banned, unless they are from Australian citizens; and that donations with strings attached be prohibited. That would really hurt those unionists who stand outside the Western Australian parliament and threaten the preselection of good Labor members of parliament because they will not do what they want them to do. Our other recommendations are that shareholders and members of corporations and registered organisations such as trade unions be required to approve donation policies, and that the funding and disclosure provisions apply to other elections administered by the Australian Electoral Commission.

In our minority report, we discussed the role of the media. The value of funding disclosure rests on the premise of the availability of and accessibility to documentation for public scrutiny. This is the role of the media as governmental scrutineer. Comprehensive public scrutiny can only be achieved if issues such as political donations are covered by the mass media and if the media campaign for greater integrity. To this end, Joo-Cheong Tham and Graeme Orr submitted:

... funding disclosure schemes still serve to put the public, assuming a virile media, on notice of the risk of corruption and undue influence. If armed with such information, independent journalists (and indeed in a truly competitive electoral system, rival parties) will vigorously ‘shine a bright light and poke around with a long stick’, then there will be a useful antidote against corruption and undue influence. In the context of lazy journalism and lax political morality, however, the information disclosed by the disclosure scheme will by and large be meaningless.

In those circumstances the media have to be assisted by strong freedom of information laws, by an atmosphere of openness and not secrecy, and by better disclosure laws. I remind the chamber that in the United Kingdom the disclosure laws go to such an extent that you can actually find out how much each party leader paid to have make-up applied throughout the election or to have their hairdos done for their campaigns. That might seem petty, but it is an absolutely open system where you declare what you spend, what you intend to spend and where you spend it.

However, the relationship of disclosure by the media to the public is potentially undermined, according to a 2004 report by the Democratic Audit of Australia. The audit report notes that the symbiotic relationship the media maintains with government may lead in some cases to a reluctance to fully cover political donations for fear of a backlash in government access. It says the result could be reduced public pressure on the government due to a lack of scrutiny by the media regarding funding sources and, consequently, reduced transparency. There have been suggestions by a member of the House of Representatives that members of the media should be required to declare all conflicts of interest that may reflect on their reporting of political matters. These fears become more important if media concentration accelerates as a result of changed government policies. It is vital that any potential perception of political influence over the media, or vice versa, be avoided.

Because of those concerns, we did move a recommendation that no media company or related entity or individual acting in the interests of a media company may donate in cash or kind to the electoral or campaign funding of a political party. I think that, as media becomes concentrated, we have to pay more attention to the attempts of either the fourth estate or our own political class to interact too closely, to the detriment of our overall democracy. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.