Tasmania’s political donation disclosure rules must be changed

It is surely now clear that no sustainable argument can made in support of not changing the rules that govern the public disclosure of donations to political parties in Tasmania.

Hands of businessman passing Australian dollar (AUD) banknote with blurred office building background. . Picture: iStock

IT is surely now clear that no sustainable argument can made in support of not changing the rules that currently govern the public disclosure of donations made to political parties in Tasmania.

Yesterday’s long-awaited disclosures for the period that included last year’s state election show that the source of $4.44 million of the $5.72 million donated to the state’s three major parties NEVER has to be revealed — 77 per cent of the total, basically four-fifths.

It’s ridiculous. And it’s also just as ridiculous that we have had to wait a full year to see even that detail.

The reason is that Tasmania is the only state to not have its own rules; instead the Commonwealth’s are used. That means that only donations over $13,800 (it was $13,500 at the election last year) have to be declared, there are no caps on the size of donations, and the disclosures only need to be made annually. Further, each donation is treated separately — so multiple payments under the threshold could be made from one person or organisation and the source never needs to be disclosed.

RELATED:

LIBERALS DECLARE $4.1 MILLION IN DONATIONS

ANALYSIS: VOTERS BEING PLAYED FOR MUGS

Premier Will Hodgman pledged to introduce a new state-based disclosure system the day after he won the election last March. Public submissions to the discussion paper into that change close in a fortnight. The Mercury urges everyone with an interest to make their own submission, as we have. That is because the introduction of local rules in other states has resulted in a much stricter regimen that — while still always controversial — goes a long way towards delivering trust back in the process.

And that’s the key point. Making public figures accountable for the money they receive and spend is a cornerstone of democracy as it helps to guard against waste, unfair influence and, in extreme cases, corruption. But even if nothing untoward is going on, it is important because trust in government relies on politicians to be seen to be doing the right thing.

And the truth is that full disclosure might well reveal there is nothing to hide. Despite the suggestion, for example, that the Liberal campaign was this time bankrolled by the gambling industry thanks to Labor’s anti-pokies policy, the Liberals actually declared a higher total at the 2014 election ($4.24 million).

But then, the critics of what happened in Tasmania during the last state campaign would point out that there are no disclosure rules in place here covering third parties — meaning other bodies can effectively campaign on behalf of a party without any oversight. Again, this much change because, again, while there might or might not have been anything untoward going on last year, the rules as they stand mean we will never know for sure.

Finally, don’t be fooled by Labor’s claims that it is the Liberals with the most to hide here. The rules mean Labor only had to reveal the source of 21.7 per cent of its $1.13 million of donations. For the Liberals it was 22.19 per cent of its much larger total of $4.17 million.

When we recently asked our readers if they wanted greater transparency around political donations, 94 per cent said they did. We agree. It’s way past the time that these next-to-useless rules are replaced with ones that might actually deliver trust in the electoral process.