Political donation cap shouldn’t come at a cost to voters

If politicians think the public should carry the burden of supporting them in the manner they’re accustomed to, they’ve got another thing coming, writes Terry Sweetman.

Of all the promises, pledges, hints, winks and nudges delivered during this phony election campaign, some Labor Party tummy rumbling over reforming political donation laws is among the more significant.

The major proposal reportedly being considered by party officials is a $4000 cap on donations, a parsimonious move that would lock out large corporate and union contributions.

This would be a partial cure for the corrosive disease of big money influence that is undermining our democracy, although it will take more than a soothing bedside manner to convince the party to turn off its trade union transfusions.

And while there have been some comforting noises from the other side, conservative politicians would be equally nervous about losing the patronage of their corporate sugar daddies.

MORE FROM TERRY SWEETMAN: Departing pollies are the luckiest people in Australia

Equally, the union movement would not be entirely happy to find itself spurned by the party it created and deprived of the influence it wields. Nor would corporate Australia be overly thrilled by the fact it could no longer exert its financial muscle to support kindred spirits and sponsor policies from which it would benefit.

However, this isn’t about unions or corporate gladhanders. It is about the people of Australia being able to make sober and informed decisions without being steamrolled by megabuck political machines.

Gina Rinehart has been a longtime Nationals Party Donor. Picture: supplied

Our elections have become extraordinarily expensive, with little or no discernible improvement in the running of the parliament and the country, or the quality of our representatives.

According to Australian Electoral Commission returns for 2015-16, the major parties received $188,052,113 and spent $156,122,007.

The big three were the Liberals and Nationals ($95,826,360 in, $78,014,006 out), Labor ($60,973,958, $49,136,883) and the Greens ($15,914,547, $14,502,922).

Not all the receipts were donations and not all of the expenses were election-related but, according to the parliamentary library, the figures give some indication of the scale of the amounts involved.

Of this, $62,778,275 was public funding paid to the parties and candidates after the 2016 Federal election, with 75 per cent of it ($47,394,840) going to the Liberal-National and Labor parties.

This, of course, is on top of all the money creamed off on junkets and jaunts, printing and propaganda by sitting members in the name of parliamentary duties or party business.

Any doubts that this rort is in overdrive should be settled by the barrage of backdoor campaigning disguised as public service information emanating from the Government and saturation back slapping from Opposition heavies.

Sam Dastyari was forced to resign from his Senate seat after intense scrutiny of his interactions with a Chinese businessman and political donor. Picture: AAP/Perry Duffin

For all this, our democracy seems no more functional and our elections no more productive than when pollies jumped up on the back of trucks and traded jibes with interjectors.

Yet, the immediate reaction to capping donations at $4000 was that the taxpayers should be stung to compensate for the absence of big donors.

Given that the shortfall between public funding and private donations in 2015-16 was a shade over $125 million, you can sort of see where this is heading.

Those wanting to give the elbow to big donors believe the electorate would accept that a larger bill is a small price to pay for fairer and more transparent federal elections.

MORE FROM TERRY SWEETMAN: Politicians still haven’t got the message on perks

That may well be so but I don’t think voters would be willing to continue to support the political parties in the manner to which they have become accustomed while milking both the public and private purse.

And the accompanying proposal that public funding be disbursed on the basis of seats won rather than votes cast, would guarantee loud objections from the minor parties and independents who would be weaned off the teat.

Much of the extraordinary amount of money spent on elections seems to be directed towards ever more inventive ways of getting into the pubic ear.

According to the AEC, in 2015-16, the Greens Party received $15,914,547 and spent $14,502,922. Picture: supplied

A few years back it was targeted letterbox drops; this year it seems to be robotic telephone calls and orchestrated social media campaigns.

The only thing that seems to be missing is dropping leaflets from aircraft and, if they could see a way around the littering laws, I’m sure our political parties would try that.

For the sake of the argument, I accept that the Labor Party brainstormers mean well — as do those on the other side of politics who are nodding wisely — but they are also concerned with making life easier for themselves and their parties.

MORE FROM TERRY SWEETMAN: Will we ever trust our banks again?

However, unless there can be some legislative block to third party campaigning, these proposals seem doomed to failure. I confidently expect that if a $4000 donation cap was mandated, we would see an infestation of such covert campaigning disguised as special interest activism.

And I think most people would be pretty happy to pay a little more for a lot more honesty and transparency, but they would baulk at signing a blank cheque for a political campaigning process that is incrementally spinning out of control.

[e-mail]