Political donations are a cancer on the body politic

Political donations erode the public’s trust and confidence.

Eric Lobbecke

The furore about Nine Entertainment hosting a Liberal Party fundraiser on its premises represents just one part of a much wider problem when it comes to political don­ations in this country.

Yes, of course a media organisation hosting a political fundraiser is a bad look, which presumably is one of the reasons Nine Entertainment chief executive Hugh Marks admitted hosting the event was a mistake. But when the chairman of the board, Peter Costello, is a former partisan political player, is anyone really surprised?

Error of judgment aside, what about the conga line of ministers, including Scott Morrison, who duti­fully rocked up to the Nine Entertainment fundraising event, doing what they were told, so the Liberal Party could pocket a cool $700,000? Their collective presence was required to bring in the big bucks, and ministers and shadow ministers perform this act of servitude all the time. It is the political equivalent of prostitution — buying time with ministers.

How many of the interstate ministers at the event claimed taxpayer-funded travel entitlements that evening? How many just happened to have “other business” in Sydney that day or the following day to justify the travel?

Business leaders using the Nine Network studio to purchase a chunk of time with political decision-makers is tawdry stuff. So is any such transaction whereby our elected leaders sell their time to the highest bidder. It happens right across the business community. And union dollars for the Labor Party certainly aren’t handed over without strings attached, although at least Labor and the unions have a formal affiliation.

You can’t tell me those making donations don’t expect to get something for the cash they dish out. The transaction may not include a direct benefit, but indirectly most people and organi­sations that donate to parties at the very least want access or influence for the money spent.

That said, plastic bags being delivered to ALP headquarters in NSW stuffed with $100,000 in actual cash is a more serious concern. Especially if the donation has the taint of overseas influence. Or if it comes from a source banned from making political donations. We like to think such dodgy dealings are the exception to the rule, but maybe not. How many such deliveries get made that we never know about?

The sheer volume of time our elected members of parliament spend on political fundraising, even that which is declared and considered above board, detracts from their legislative and ministerial functions. The amount of time politicians spend on fundraising and party political events — to shore up their own preselections, for example — doesn’t leave much room for the activities they are paid to perform; that is, to serve their electorates and to serve as ministers. Perhaps this explains, in part at least, the growth of political offices and how so many ministers get captured by their departments. They are too busy doing other things. At the very least the time spent fundraising is a distraction for busy politicians. At worst it compromises the roles elected representatives play. And no matter where the inappropriateness sits on the above yardstick, the perception of influence that political donations create erodes the public’s trust and confidence in the body politic. This of itself is reason for reform.

Make no mistake, most politicians loathe the time they are expected to spend on fundraising. They openly complain to one another about it. And in an era of nearly permanent campaigning, fundraising drives are no longer restricted to election time. It’s a year-round activity, right throughout parliamentary terms. Ironically, the busier MPs get as they secure promotion and garner extra responsibilities, the more time they are expected to spend on fundraising. This highlights that political donations are about accessing powerful decision-makers. The major parties don’t roll out backbenchers with little or no policy responsibilities to be the headline act at expensive fundraising dinners.

Buying time with ministers and shadow ministers is a serious cancer on our democratic system. And doing so has become an arms race, as both major parties scramble to raise as much money as they can to fund their political campaigns. Another sign that the real aim of those giving money is to access decision-makers is the price ministers can command compared with mere shadow ministers. Unless shadow ministers look as if they will be crossing over to the government benches soon.

Advertising on mainstream television isn’t cheap. Nor is taking out full-page newspaper advertisements, or indeed targeted online ads designed to cut through with generation next. Political don­ations fund all of the above.

Major parties estimate that at least $500,000 is needed to pay for basic marginal-seat campaigns. Often budgets crack the million-dollar mark. Such spending is only the micro level of political campaign costs. Macro campaigns across TV, print and online can be even more expensive.

Then the parties need to fund their track polling and focus group research, as well as the campaign operatives who aren’t already paid via the public purse (hidden within political offices). These costs are substantial, which is why our politicians do so much fundraising.

When ministers and shadow ministers fly across the country for official engagements, they rarely do so without squeezing in fundraising activities. In fact, often the tail wags the dog: the fundraising event is the primary purpose for the travel so a ministerial event gets thrown in, such that travel costs can be picked up by the taxpayer.

Party conferences — where most if not all ministers or shadow ministers are present — include business events. The process can look a little like speed dating for politicians. Booths are set up, clocks at the ready, as business types pay their money and work their way through the ministers who matter most to their business. All diligently taking their seats and donating their time to these paying customers.

The difficulty comes when trying to look at ways to reform the system. Donation disclosures have been brought down to try to at least unveil who donates to whom. But there are ways to get around these laws, and even where they can’t be avoided, the time lag between money handed over and full disclosure can be many months — diminishing the significance of the disclosure. It might be better than a cover-up, but disclosure doesn’t resolve the problem of our politicians’ time being sold to the highest bidder.

Peter van Onselen is a professor of politics at the University of Western Australia and Griffith University.