MEDIA RELEASE

The problem of the influence of big money on our democracy is real. It allows wealthy individuals and corporations to have undue influence over decision makers, undermines public trust and risks corrupting policy making.

The lack of transparency of Commonwealth political donations has long been criticised. We welcome the Government’s proposal to reduce the donation disclosure threshold to $1,000 and finally implement real-time disclosure; these provisions are neither complex nor contentious, and should be passed by the Parliament as a matter of urgency.

However, while our groups represent a diversity of views in respect of how the problem of the influence of big money on our democracy should be fixed, we are united in our view that the Government’s proposed Bill should otherwise not proceed in its current form.

It’s likely that the Bill doesn’t fix the problem of big money in politics that it sets out to address. Nominated entities risk creating major loopholes that would allow billionaires like Clive Palmer to circumvent donation caps and spend millions on the election.

The Bill would also entrench major party and incumbency advantage, and further disadvantage independent and challenger candidates in elections. These laws include over $40 million in additional taxpayer funding of political parties and candidates, most of which would go to the major parties.

Legislation that will have such significant consequences for our democracy must only be passed after a parliamentary inquiry has had an opportunity to thoroughly scrutinise its provisions. To do otherwise is not in the interests of the Australian public.

 

 

 

Clancy Moore, CEO of Transparency International Australia said:

“The transparency provisions are very strong including ‘real time’ disclosures of donations on a monthly basis, and then more frequently around election campaigns, and lowering the disclosure threshold to $1000.”

“But the bill contains the most comprehensive changes in a generation and some potential gigantic loopholes so requires proper scrutiny, consultation and an in-built statutory review.”

“Some of the potential loopholes include the exemptions of what constitutes a ‘gift’, the $90 million major party expenditure cap, the $11 million expenditure cap for associated entities like the ACTU or Advance Australia, and the $30K administration fund each MP will receive.”

“We strongly support capping donations from wealthy individuals and big business and spending during election campaigns in order to reduce the corrupting risk of big money and avoid a US style ‘arms race’ of political financing. However, international experience shows that caps must carefully calibrated to ensure that they don’t entrench the power of incumbents and disadvantage independents and minority groups that are underrepresented in parliament.”