Matt Johnston: Devil is in the detail of new donation laws
THE state government’s plan to fix political donation rules looks mostly sensible but there are still murky areas, writes Matt Johnston.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
SNEAKING out controversial announcements on federal Budget day is a classic state political device. My favourite example was in 2009, when the Brumby government slipped out a deal it had struck with Crown casino to increase table numbers and electronic table games.
This year, Premier Dan Andrews sent out his bearded henchman, Gavin Jennings, to reveal that plans to “fix” political donation laws also cost taxpayers $45 million over four years.
Jennings said that funding campaigns through the public purse was a better idea than letting donors with big wallets have a big influence. Parties would get $6 per vote received in the Legislative Assembly, up from $1.79, and $3 per vote in the Legislative Council, plus each MP will get an $40,000 annual “administration payment”.
VICTORIAN POLITICAL ELECTION REFORM 2018
INDEPENDENT MP TO PROBE LABOR RORTS FOR VOTES
ANDREWS INTRODUCES CHANGES TO POLITICAL DONATIONS
The Bill also includes changes to electoral laws, such as how close to polling booths political signs are allowed, how postal votes can be accessed and so on.
Some headline reforms in the Bill are:
REDUCING donation disclosure limits from $13,500 to $1000;
CAPPING donations at $4000 from the same source during a term of government;
BANNING foreign donations;
ALLOWING voters to cast early ballots without giving a reason; and
FORCING MPs or political parties to disclose donations within 21 days.
Most of it sounds sensible. The murky world of donations is a mess and the fact that details aren’t released for many months after they are given is a joke.
Details of the Bill are now emerging. The donations aspect of the Bill affects MPs, political parties, unions and fundraising clubs and third-party campaigners — for example GetUp! or an animal rights group.
Most established parties or state MPs get a sweetener in some way in a bid to get the laws through the Upper House. For example, the number of advisers who can be employed by crossbench MPs or the Opposition won’t be restricted by the government of the day, some money will be paid in advance and parties can go into debt to recoup money later.
Labor’s affiliation fees from unions are exempt, but it has given the Opposition a sop by saying a “nominated entity and its political party will be exempt”. For example, the Liberals could — putting aside its scrap since Michael Kroger became Victorian party president — nominate the Cormack Foundation as an associated entity that is allowed to provide “gifts”.
Some Coalition MPs are nervous about the whole Bill, believing it to be filled with booby-traps, or are suspicious of a political law created by Labor’s political animals. Others fear they would be taking cash now for something that might disadvantage them down the track.
Labor has technically banned donations from unions, but unions can still run organised campaigns alongside Labor, which gets a public funding boost. The laws only stop unions from directly advocating “vote Labor” during campaigns. Other entities would face the same rules. For example, an animal rights group running a pet shops campaign won’t be able to say “vote Animal Justice Party”.
The Greens back the reforms, despite losing the ability to get funds from unions — as it once did from the ETU and the CFMEU.
Another issue for smaller parties is that while donations to individuals will be more or less cut off (or limited to $4000 a term) extra money from elections will go into a central pool and be controlled by state directors.
This is also causing some consternation within Liberal branches and the party room.
DESPITE lingering concerns, Coalition MPs are backing the changes in the Lower House while leaving open the prospect of amending them in the Upper House.
Some MPs believe they may as well go along with the plan because “otherwise the government will just do a deal with the Greens”. Others want ongoing money sores healed.
Regardless of how they felt this week, on Thursday, state MPs were slapped with another story about the Liberal member who arranged the infamous Lobster Cave meeting between Matthew Guy and donors. It may have originated from an internal Liberal hit, but Labor is milking it for all it’s worth.
Removing the need for parties to be so focused on donations in the short-term is tempting. All parties have their own self-interests, but Labor seems likely to benefit most.
It’s worth remembering that at the last election, the ALP ripped off taxpayers to the tune of $388,000 by using parliamentary staff to run organised field campaigns. None of its MPs faced punishment for what they did and there has been almost no contrition.
Now in government, Labor is creating a law — details of which were released under the cover of a federal Budget — that will see it get a huge taxpayer-funded windfall.
Matt Johnston is state politics editor
Human cost of pandemic goes much further than virus
Whether you are pro or anti-lockdown the grim, unintended consequences of the fixation on coronavirus are undeniable, as other diseases — including cancer and heart disease — go unchecked, and despair from joblessness, poverty and financial stress rises, writes Rita Panahi.
Premier must outline his plan so Melbourne can recover
As the community overwhelmingly complies with the Premier’s stage four restrictions, he must clearly outline his virus strategy so we can make plans to rebuild confidence and employment in our city, which right now is a ghost town, writes Jeff Kennett.