By Andrew Lowcock
In the wake of the hung Parliament created by the deadlocked Federal Election result, a range of reforms are set to place to the system of political donations, but don’t expect businesses to be troubled by them.
Both the regional independents and the Greens have listed political funding as an issue where change must occur in return for their support, and the Liberals and Labor have committed in-principle support to reform.
While the final details will be determined by the party which takes power, it’s likely they’ll involve a limit or perhaps a ban on donations from businesses and unions to political parties, as advocated by former Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull.
Mr Turnbull has proposed that parties should only accept donations from people listed on the electoral roll – ruling out corporations, unions and any other third parties from giving political parties money.
Other proposals suggest a cap of $1000 per year should be placed on donations, like the one that now exists in Canada.
Labor has firmly committed to reducing the current donation disclosure threshold from $11,500 to $1000, as part of a deal struck with the Greens. And Tony Abbott has committed to reform too, as long as third party advertising like the ads screened by the ACTU on WorkChoices could no longer be shown.
In the most recent list of donations, most corporates donated close to equal amounts to both major parties, so it’s unlikely one party will be particularly disadvantaged; mainly because businesses don’t want to be seen preferencing one party over another.
This raises the question: why do businesses choose to donate at all? Traditionally donations have been made to gain access to high ranking officials, or because they support a party’s policy agenda. But former ALP secretary Tim Gartrell argues donations don’t give businesses closer to access to politicians anyway. Perhaps new rules will benefit businesses by convincing them to keep their hands in their pockets.
Trade unions may be more affected by any reforms, with donations like the ETU’s $325,000 contribution to the Greens out of order in the future under proposed changes. As Lisa Pryor correctly points out, shouldn’t it be up to individual members to decide where they want their hard earned fees directed? And the same philosophy could easily be applied to business, where shareholders and stakeholders may not have a say either.
Ultimately, a ban or cap on political donations may be largely a perceptual fix to our political system. Political parties will continue to fundraise in many other innovative ways, like exclusive events and the long-forgotten method of raising funds – membership. Business has little reason to fear or care about these proposed changes.
