One of the great myths peddled by opponents of transparency of political donations is that being revealed as a donor will lead to intimidation. For example, the Coalition has routinely argued against any effort to lower the current federal disclosure threshold to $1000 on the basis that, as Bronwyn Bishop and friends put it in one inquiry report, it “will lead to potential intimidation of small donors”.
The image the Coalition wanted to conjure was of union thugs entering the small business of a Liberal donor and pointing out it was a nice shop and it’d be a shame if anything happened to it. Of course, not a single scintilla of evidence was ever evinced to justify this.
How times, if not arguments, have changed. Allegra Spender, the independent candidate hoping to end the short-but-already-far-too-long political career of Wentworth MP Dave Sharma, now says she won’t reveal her donors in real time because they tell her: “I can support you but I can’t do this publicly because I have a contract with the government, I’m on a government board, and I know that if I stand up and do this publicly, that will come under threat.” That small business donor has clearly moved up in the world and now fears losing their spot on a government-appointed board.
Not to be outdone in the non-transparency stakes, Sharma says he too won’t reveal his donors, but graciously allows he’d have a “conversation” about donations reform.
But there’s a jurisdiction that requires virtual real-time disclosure of donations now. It’s Queensland, where parties and donors have to disclose donations over $1000 within seven days. Within a week of a state election, they have to be disclosed within 24 hours.
Both sides of politics appear to have coped just fine with this requirement. As for the idea that Queensland union thugs have been identifying and intimidating LNP donors, somehow that didn’t stop the Liberal National Party generating $23.4 million in revenue in 2020-21 compared with Queensland Labor’s $18.7 million.
In NSW the requirements aren’t as strict but you have to report your donations six-monthly, and you have to reveal pre-election donations within 21 days.
In fact, if we’re to keep our wretched, corrupt system of political funding there is no reason why the Queensland law should not be adopted nationwide. Indeed, the 24-hour requirement for election periods should be the standard. Even seven days is unnecessarily generous.
It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that a government of either persuasion would decide that an individual who was donating to its opponents was not someone who should benefit from government largesse — any more than that a safe seat of its opponents should enjoy much in the way of pork-barrelling. The problem is the appointment of individuals or the awarding of contracts based not on merit but on mateship, and the solution is to remove politicians from appointments processes in the same way they should be removed from allocating funds.
And imagine the following scenario: Spender defeats Sharma and ends up a crossbench member under a minority Labor government. A piece of legislation crucial to the interests of a donor who has been on a government board or has a government contract comes before the house. What are the chances of that donor having their phone call returned?
Spender — and for that matter Sharma — would deny such a scenario, insisting donations create no obligation or special access. Tell that to the business donors who crowd into party fundraisers for a chance to bend the ears of ministers and Labor spokesmen and women.
Our entire system of political funding is rotten. But for the moment, anyone interested in integrity should be committed to as much transparency as possible — and revealing their donors immediately.
