tag:theconversation.com,2011:/nz/topics/political-donations-1153/articlesPolitical donations – The Conversation2024-03-18T19:22:04Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2259012024-03-18T19:22:04Z2024-03-18T19:22:04ZPolitical donations rules are finally in the spotlight – here’s what the government should do<p>Australia’s political donations rules are woefully inadequate, but donations reform is finally on the agenda. The federal government has signalled its interest in reform and will soon <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/big-money-to-be-taken-out-of-politics-in-radical-electoral-overhaul-20240308-p5faxq.html">begin briefing MPs</a> on its plan. Greater transparency on who is donating, caps on donations, and limits on campaign expenditure are all on the table. Here’s what the government should – and shouldn’t – do.</p>
<p>Rules around political donations at the federal level have long lagged the states. Under the federal rules, only donations of more than $16,300 need to be on the public record. Before the last federal election, Labor promised to lower this threshold to $1,000, in line with NSW, Victoria, and Queensland, and it is now seeking to fulfil this promise.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-special-minister-of-state-don-farrell-wants-donation-and-spending-caps-for-next-election-208107">Politics with Michelle Grattan: Special Minister of State Don Farrell wants donation and spending caps for next election</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Donations from the same donor should also be aggregated by political parties to prevent “donations splitting”.</p>
<p>Quicker reporting of political donations is long overdue. Under the current system, it takes at least seven months and sometimes up to 19 months for a large donation to be made public. Introducing “real time” disclosure requirements would mean that Australians know who’s donating while policy issues – and elections – are still “live”.</p>
<p>These three changes – reducing the donations disclosure threshold, aggregating donations from the same donor, and publishing the data in real time – are all quite simple reforms that could be implemented quickly. And there is likely to be widespread support across parliament for these sorts of transparency measures, so this would be a good place to start. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1767357229114794059"}"></div></p>
<p>Where things get trickier is around caps – on both political donations and campaign spending. Both types of caps were supported by a recent parliamentary committee inquiry into the 2022 election, and Labor has <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/big-money-to-be-taken-out-of-politics-in-radical-electoral-overhaul-20240308-p5faxq.html">signalled its interest</a> in these bigger reforms.</p>
<p>A cap on political donations aims to reduce the influence of any one donor. Clive Palmer’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/big-money-was-spent-on-the-2022-election-but-the-party-with-the-deepest-pockets-didnt-win-198780">record-breaking donations</a> in the lead-up to the 2019 and 2022 federal elections have highlighted the potential for wealthy individuals to have substantial influence in Australian elections. </p>
<p>The trick will be in setting the right level for the cap: low enough to be meaningful, yet high enough to enable new entrants to raise the funds necessary to compete with existing players. Some people show their political support with time, others with money, so donations caps need to allow for different forms of democratic participation too. </p>
<p>Caps on campaign spending would be the real game-changer though. Parties and candidates can currently spend as much money as they can raise, so big money means greater capacity to sell your message to voters.</p>
<p>Capping expenditure in the lead-up to elections would limit the “arms race” to raise more and more funds, and ultimately reduce parties’ dependency on major donors. It is this dependency that <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/whos-in-the-room/">“buys” donors substantial access</a> to politicians – and access means opportunities to sway public decisions in the donor’s favour.</p>
<p>Caps on campaign spending would be a big reform to reduce the influence of money in politics. But there are several design issues that still need to be resolved.</p>
<p>Given that other groups, such as unions and industry peak bodies, may campaign on political issues, their political expenditure would also need to be capped. A higher cap should apply for political parties – the primary players in an election – than for third parties.</p>
<p>Independents have warned that spending caps could create <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2022federalelection/Interim_Report/Additional_comments_by_Kate_Chaney_MP">barriers for new entrants</a>. A “one-size-fits-all” model would favour the major parties because they are already well known and usually contest every seat. At a minimum, caps are needed both for total spend and per electorate, to prevent major parties pooling their resources to fight just a few seats. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-full-ban-on-political-donations-would-level-the-playing-field-but-is-it-the-best-approach-81821">A full ban on political donations would level the playing field – but is it the best approach?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>These challenges are not insurmountable. NSW has long had expenditure caps in place for state elections and offers a model the federal government could follow. </p>
<p>Another way to resolve many of the concerns would be for the cap to apply to political advertising expenditure only. The idea would be to limit political-party and third-party advertising during election campaigns, but not restrict political expression through more grass-roots channels, or at other times. </p>
<p>The government should take the time to get this right. Campaign spending caps would be a bold reform that would strongly benefit from agreement across the parliament. Even if a quick consensus could be reached, the Australian Electoral Commission would still need time to implement the changes, so this reform would not be ready for the next federal election. </p>
<p>The government should take a consultative approach on caps to land a model that has broad support and trust. But there is no need to delay the transparency reforms. If the government moves quickly, Australians could have much better information on who funds political parties when we head to the polls in 2025.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225901/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute's activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.</span></em></p>There are simple (and some not-so-simple) measures that would make donations more transparent and fairer.Kate Griffiths, Deputy Program Director, Budgets and Government, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2219762024-02-01T02:57:48Z2024-02-01T02:57:48ZLabor is in power - but the Coalition still attracts the most money<p>Who funds Australia’s political parties? Besides the occasional scandal – think <a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-announces-inquiry-by-former-attorney-general-lavarch-into-scandal-ridden-nsw-head-office-125209">Aldi bags full of cash</a> – most Australians would not hear much about it. </p>
<p>But money matters: political donations can <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/whos-in-the-room/">buy access to politicians</a> and create opportunities to sway public decisions in the donor’s favour. </p>
<p><a href="https://transparency.aec.gov.au/Download">New data</a>, released today by the Australian Electoral Commission, provide the best information available on political party funding and Australia’s major donors. So let’s follow the money.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/big-money-was-spent-on-the-2022-election-but-the-party-with-the-deepest-pockets-didnt-win-198780">Big money was spent on the 2022 election – but the party with the deepest pockets didn't win</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Even in a non-election year, fundraising continued apace</h2>
<p>In the 2022-23 financial year, Australia’s political parties collectively raised $259 million, with most of the money (81%) flowing to the major parties.</p>
<p>It initially appeared that Labor had raised a whopping $220 million, but this has since been revised down to just $84 million after correcting for a typo in Labor’s ACT branch return.</p>
<p>This leaves the Coalition well ahead at $125 million – continuing their long history as the frontrunner in fundraising.</p>
<h2>Who are the major donors?</h2>
<p>A few big donors dominate the $16.6 million in donations to political parties that are on the public record.</p>
<p>The single largest donor to Labor was Anthony Pratt, the paper and packaging businessman, who gave $1 million. This continues Pratt’s long history of big donations to both major parties, totalling more than $11 million over the past ten years.</p>
<p>Other major donors to Labor were Labor Services & Holdings ($598,000) – an investment vehicle for the party – and Labor Business Roundtable ($100,000), which runs fundraising events for the party.</p>
<p>The Coalition’s biggest donors were the Cormack Foundation ($3.46 million) – an investment vehicle for the party – and fundraising body the Kooyong 200 Club ($193,000). The Coalition also received $100,000 from Meriton Property Services, $90,000 from Laneway Assets, and $80,000 from John McEwen House.</p>
<p>But some of the largest single donations were to minor parties. Former MP Clive Palmer’s mining company Mineralogy gave $7 million to the party he founded, the United Australia Party. And Heston Russell, a former member of the defence force, gave $650,000 to the now-disbanded Australian Values Party that he founded.</p>
<h2>Federal politics is awash in dark money</h2>
<p>These are the big donors on the record, but declared donations make up only 6% of political parties’ total income. There are other sources of income on the public record, including public funding, but about a quarter of the money remains hidden.</p>
<p>Labor’s funding is a little more murky: 27% of Labor party income in 2022-23 was hidden, compared with 22% for the Coalition.</p>
<p>In the main, this isn’t because pollies are walking away with briefcases full of cash from shadowy carpark rendezvous. Giant holes in disclosure laws create plenty of perfectly legal dark corners. </p>
<p>At the federal level, parties were not obliged to disclose donations below $15,200 in 2022-23. This means, hypothetically, a donor could have donated $15,000 every week, adding up to $780,000 over the year, and political parties would not be required to declare it. The donor themselves has an obligation to tally their own donations and declare themselves when they reach the threshold, but there is no effective way to police this.</p>
<p>Even among the declared funds, it can be difficult to distinguish investment income from political fundraising, because income from fundraising events is not classified as a “donation” – it is instead grouped in with everything else in an ambiguous category of “other receipts”. </p>
<h2>Are donations swaying decisions?</h2>
<p>Some groups only donate – or donate much more – when particular policy issues are “live”. </p>
<p>Gambling was one of the top issues in the 2023 NSW state election, with the Liberal Party proposing tighter regulation of pokies. Gambling groups <a href="https://theconversation.com/tasmanias-gambling-election-shows-australia-needs-tougher-rules-on-money-in-politics-110977">have a history</a> of making big political donations when gambling restrictions are on the table. </p>
<p>Donations from gambling groups to NSW election campaigns are banned, but industry players still made their presence felt nationally. The ALP received $197,000 in income from pokies supporters (including Clubs NSW, Clubs Australia, and the federal and NSW branches of the Australian Hotels Association), while the Coalition received $123,000.</p>
<p>And accounting firm PwC – whose <a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-the-pwc-scandal-should-be-ripe-for-the-national-anti-corruption-commissions-attention-206867">unethical behaviour</a> in managing conflicts of interest in work for the public service came to the fore last year – continued its regular pattern of political donations and other party support, giving $422,000.</p>
<p>Explicit quid pro quo is probably rare, but there is still substantial risk in more subtle influences – that donors get more access to policymakers and their views are given more weight. These risks are exacerbated by a <a href="https://theconversation.com/influence-in-australian-politics-needs-an-urgent-overhaul-heres-how-to-do-it-103535">lack of transparency</a> in dealings between policymakers and special interests.</p>
<h2>The states show us a better way</h2>
<p>Many of the states have <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2122/Quick_Guides/ElectionFundingStates">stronger rules</a> on money in politics than the Commonwealth.</p>
<p>For example, NSW and Victoria require election donations to be reported within 21 days, and cap total donations. They have lower thresholds for when donations must be made public, and have banned donation-splitting, so it’s harder to flout the threshold. And NSW sets limits on election spending, taking away the drive for politicians to fundraise quite so frenetically.</p>
<p>The effect of these rules is clear. Donations in the lead-up to the last federal election were dominated by a handful of people and organisations: 5% of donors contributed 73% of declared donations. In contrast, in the most recent NSW and Victorian elections, the top 5% of donors contributed just a third of donations. Better rules help to reduce the potential influence of individual donors.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/federal-parliament-just-weakened-political-donations-laws-while-you-werent-watching-149171">Federal parliament just weakened political donations laws while you weren't watching</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Federal donations reform is on the horizon</h2>
<p>The federal donations disclosure regime has long lagged the states. But there are finally signs of change afoot.</p>
<p>A federal parliamentary committee inquiry into the 2022 election has recommended several changes to better regulate money in Australian politics, including:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>lowering the donations disclosure threshold to $1,000 to reduce the amount of dark money in the system</p></li>
<li><p>introducing “real time” disclosure requirements so that Australians know who’s donating while policy issues – and elections – are still “live”</p></li>
<li><p>introducing expenditure caps for federal elections to reduce the fundraising arms race.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>It is still to be seen if the government will implement these recommendations. It should, because better rules around donations would ensure Australians know who funds our political parties and enable us to keep our politicians in check.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article was amended in several places after the AEC corrected a mistake in Labor’s ACT branch return. The original article stated that Labor raised substantially more ($220 million) than the Coalition ($125 million). This has since been revealed to be incorrect.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/221976/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute's activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth Baldwin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Labor may now be in office, but it’s the Coalition that still attracts the big bucks. And there remains much murkiness about who donates to whom - and why.Kate Griffiths, Deputy Program Director, Grattan InstituteElizabeth Baldwin, Associate researcher, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1966912023-06-06T12:31:12Z2023-06-06T12:31:12ZScientists’ political donations reflect polarization in academia – with implications for the public’s trust in science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/530181/original/file-20230605-25-5v5b99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=175%2C143%2C3722%2C2746&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Under 10% of political donations from academic scholars go to Republican causes.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/political-contributions-super-pacs-and-political-royalty-free-image/1321234653">Douglas Rissing/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>People who lean left politically reported an <a href="https://apnorc.org/projects/amidst-the-pandemic-confidence-in-the-scientific-community-becomes-increasingly-polarized/">increase in trust in scientists</a> during the COVID-19 pandemic, while those who lean right politically reported much lower levels of trust in scientists. This polarization around scientific issues – from COVID-19 to climate change to evolution – is at its peak since surveys started tracking this question over 50 years ago.</p>
<p><iframe id="dDH8G" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/dDH8G/7/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Surveys reveal that people with more education are <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/">more ideologically liberal</a>. And academia has been gradually turning left over the past 40 years. Scientists – the people who produce scientific knowledge – are widely perceived to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum from those who trust science the least. This disparity poses a challenge when communicating important science to the public.</p>
<p>In a recent study, science historian <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=UK9sjJMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Naomi Oreskes</a>, environmental social scientist <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=e138rTwAAAAJ&hl=en">Viktoria Cologna</a>, literary critic <a href="https://www.charlietyson.com/">Charlie Tyson</a> <a href="https://www.kaurov.org">and I</a> leveraged public data sets <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01382-3">to explore the dynamics of scientists’ political leanings</a>. Our analysis of individual political donations confirms that the vast majority of scientists who contribute have supported Democratic candidates. But we contend that this fact doesn’t need to short-circuit effective science communication to the public.</p>
<h2>Digging into individuals’ political donations</h2>
<p>In the United States, all donations to political parties and campaigns must be reported to the Federal Election Committee. That information is <a href="https://www.fec.gov/">published by the FEC on its website</a>, along with the donation amount and date; the donor’s name, address and occupation; and the recipient’s party affiliation. This data allowed us to examine millions of transactions made in the past 40 years.</p>
<p><iframe id="xgAEa" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/xgAEa/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01382-3">In our study</a>, we examined researchers in academia, specifically people with titles like “professor,” “faculty,” “scientist” and “lecturer,” as well as scientists in the energy sector. We conducted this analysis by identifying 100,000 scientists based on their self-reported occupation and cross-referencing them with the <a href="https://www.scopus.com/">Elsevier’s Scopus database</a>, which contains information on researchers and their scientific publications. The findings of our study indicate a gradual shift away from the Republican Party among American researchers, both in academia and the industry.</p>
<p>Overall support of the Republican Party, in terms of individual donations from the general public, has slid down over the past 40 years. But this trend is much steeper for scientists and academics than for the overall U.S. population. By 2022, it was hard to find an academic supporting the Republican Party financially, even at <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01382-3/figures/1">Christian colleges and universities</a>. The trend also persists <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01382-3/figures/3">across academic disciplines</a>.</p>
<p><iframe id="0xrLo" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0xrLo/9/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Notably, scientists working at fossil fuel companies have also become more liberal, while their management has remained conservative, based on both groups’ political donations. We suspect this buildup of political polarization within companies may at some point intensify the public conversation about climate change.</p>
<h2>Who shares science messages</h2>
<p>People tend to accept and internalize information delivered by someone they consider trustworthy. Communication scholars call this the “<a href="https://ssir.org/articles/entry/finding_the_right_messenger_for_your_message">trusted messenger</a>” effect. Various factors like socioeconomic status, race and, increasingly, political leanings influence this perceived credibility.</p>
<p>Science communication gets stalled because of what appears to be a positive feedback loop: The more liberal academia gets, the fewer “trusted messengers” can communicate with the half of the U.S. that leans right. Trust in science and scientific institutions among Republicans declines and it gets reflected in their policies; academia, in response, leans even more left.</p>
<p>The increased clustering of scientists away from Republicans risks further damaging conservative Republicans’ trust in science. But we contend there are ways to break out of this loop.</p>
<p>First, academia is not a monolith. While our study may suggest that all academics are liberal, it is important to admit that the data we analyzed – political donations – is only a proxy for what people actually think. We don’t capture every scientist with this method since not everyone donates to political campaigns. In fact, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/05/17/5-facts-about-u-s-political-donations/">most people don’t donate to any candidate at all</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/book/31449">According to</a> <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/">surveys</a>, many academics have traditionally considered themselves moderate. The question, then, is how to communicate to the public the diversity of political views in academia, given the degree of current polarization, and how to elevate these other voices.</p>
<p>Second, the evident left leaning of academia <a href="https://social-epistemology.com/2020/08/07/the-american-university-the-politics-of-professors-and-the-narrative-of-liberal-bias-charlie-tyson-and-naomi-oreskes/">is not necessarily proof of a “liberal bias</a>” that <a href="https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/">some people worry is corrupting research</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430">impeding the pursuit of truth</a>. Overall, higher education does appear to have a <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/">liberalizing effect on social and political views</a>, but universities also play an important role in the formation of <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691163666/becoming-right">political identity for</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-020-09446-z">young conservatives</a>.</p>
<p>We believe that clear data about academia’s left-leaning orientation, as well as understanding the underlying reasons for it, could help interrupt the feedback loop of declining scientific trust.</p>
<p>For now there’s a shortage of centrist and conservative scientists serving as trusted messengers. By engaging in public conversation, these scientists could offer visible alternatives to the anti-scientific stances of Republican elites, while at the same time showing that the scientific world is not homogeneous.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/196691/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexander Kaurov receives funding from Harvard University. </span></em></p>Public data about individual donors’ political contributions supports the perception that American academia leans left.Alexander Kaurov, Research Associate in History of Science, Harvard UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2000842023-02-16T07:45:08Z2023-02-16T07:45:08ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: Kate Chaney on life as a teal MP<p>Kate Chaney was one of half a dozen new “teal” MPs elected to parliament last year, winning the previously solid Liberal seat of Curtin in Western Australia.</p>
<p>“It’s been a fascinating and steep learning curve over the last eight months,” Chaney tells the podcast. “As a crossbencher, you really have to think very carefully about how you vote on every piece of legislation and try as much as possible to connect with community and ensure that those votes are informed by community.”</p>
<p>Against the background of the stoush between fellow teal Monique Ryan and a staffer over long hours, Chaney says the workload is massive. “It’s definitely challenging trying to get across all of the legislation with only one personal staff member [working on legislation]. I do think that challenge is quite different to the work of a backbencher in a party. I have been very lucky to find [staff] who are passionately engaged and have experience that has made them very well-suited for the job while still bringing a freshness to it.”</p>
<p>Being a member from distant WA presents its distinct challenges. “My parliamentary and policy adviser has three young kids, and she is definitely experiencing those challenges of being a working mother. But with a background in DFAT she has experience and is managing to prioritise things.</p>
<p>"That’s the big challenge – you inevitably have to be prioritising regularly and saying which are the things that we really need to get done.”</p>
<p>Chaney is a strong advocate for an Indigenous Voice to parliament, and will be campaigning for a Yes vote. “I’ve worked in Aboriginal affairs at Wesfarmers when it was the largest private sector employer in the country […] and also with Noel Pearson up in Cape York a long time ago. From that I’ve really learned that listening and understanding has to be a precondition to finding solutions, and I’ve learnt some of that the hard way by not doing it.</p>
<p>"We can’t ignore the need for a long term fundamental change to the way we approach these issues, which needs to be based on listening. Now, First Nations people don’t have all the answers either, but we’re more likely to be able to find them if it’s based on listening to the people who are affected by policy.”</p>
<p>Integrity is one of Chaney’s main focuses in Canberra. This week she blasted communications minister Michelle Rowland about her acceptance of pre-election support from Sportsbet. Chaney wants better regulation on which companies can donate to political parties, and how the information is shared with the public.</p>
<p>“We have real problems when we’ve got gambling companies supporting the people who are regulating them. Between Sportsbet, Tabcorp and Star combined, they donated $700,000 to the major parties in the last 12 months.”</p>
<p>What other areas would she target, in banning certain donations?</p>
<p>“Well, I would like to see a community discussion of that. People will draw the line in different spots. But tobacco, alcohol, gambling – one day it might be fossil fuels, too.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/200084/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>This week, Politics with Michelle Grattan features independent MP Kate Chaney. They discuss climate change, integrity, the economy, challenges of the job and moreMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1982862023-02-13T13:26:11Z2023-02-13T13:26:11ZBig Oil’s trade group allies outspent clean energy groups by a whopping 27x, with billions in ads and lobbying to keep fossil fuels flowing<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/los-grupos-aliados-de-las-grandes-petroleras-gastaron-miles-de-millones-en-publicidad-y-grupos-de-presion-para-mantener-el-negocio-de-los-combustibles-fosiles-199848">Leer en español</a>.</em></p>
<p>You’ve probably seen ads promoting gas and oil companies <a href="https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-generate-b5679c38-e2cf-40b1-9b9b-cf3e5476a693.html">as the solutions to climate change</a>. They’re meant to be <a href="https://www.ispot.tv/ad/ovGn/exxon-mobil-algae-potential">inspiring and hopeful</a>, with scenes of a green, clean future.</p>
<p>But <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKfLYRtCGY4">shiny ads</a> are not all these companies do to protect their commercial interests in the face of a rapidly heating world. Most <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-022-03466-0">also provide financial support</a> to industry groups that are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on political activities, often to thwart polices designed to slow climate change.</p>
<p>For example, The New York Times recently reported on the Propane Education and Research Council’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/11/climate/climate-propane-influence-campaign.html">attempts to derail efforts</a> to electrify homes and buildings in New York, in part by committing nearly US$900,000 to the New York Propane Gas Association, which flooded social media with misleading information about energy-efficient heat pumps.</p>
<p>The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, which represents oil refiners and petrochemical firms, has <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zahrahirji/edelman-fossil-fuel-pr-climate">spent millions</a> on public relations campaigns, such as promoting a rollback of federal fuel efficiency standards.</p>
<p>These practices have been going on for decades, and evidence shows that industry groups have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac8ab3">played key roles</a> in <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780429402074/business-battles-us-energy-sector-christian-downie">blocking state and federal climate policies</a>. This matters not just because of the enormous sums the groups are spending, but also because they often act as a <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Business-Battles-in-the-US-Energy-Sector-Lessons-for-a-Clean-Energy-Transition/Downie/p/book/9781138392717">command center</a> for political campaigns to kill pro-climate policies.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1446189362622996485"}"></div></p>
<p>We study the political activities of industry groups. In a recent <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03466-0">research paper</a>, we dug through U.S. tax filings to follow the money trail of trade associations engaged on climate change issues and track the billions they have spent to shape federal policy.</p>
<h2>What we found</h2>
<p>After NASA scientist James Hansen <a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/260149292/Transcript-of-pivotal-climate-change-hearing-1988">sounded the alarm on climate change</a> in 1988, three trade associations – the National Association of Manufacturers, the Edison Electric Institute and the American Petroleum Institute – banded together with a couple of electrical utilities to form the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2022.2058815">Global Climate Coalition</a>, or GCC.</p>
<p>The GCC systematically opposed any international regulation of climate-warming emissions, and successfully prevented the U.S. from ratifying the <a href="https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol">Kyoto Protocol</a>, a 1997 international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>This was the first example of trade associations working together <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing">to stall government action</a> on climate change. Similar efforts continue today.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1121316135318818817"}"></div></p>
<p>So, how much do trade associations spend on political activities, such as public relations? As not-for-profit organizations under the Internal Revenue Code, trade associations have to report their revenue and spending.</p>
<p>We found that trade associations historically opposed to climate policies <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03466-0">spent $2 billion</a> in the decade from 2008 to 2018 on political activities, such as advertising, lobbying and political contributions. Together, they outspent climate-supporting industry groups 27 to 1. </p>
<p>The oil and gas sector was <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03466-0">the largest</a>, spending $1.3 billion. Across the 89 trade associations we examined in nine different sectors of the U.S. economy between 2008 and 2018, no other group of trade associations came close.</p>
<p><iframe id="PcNSM" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/PcNSM/8/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>No. 1 expense: Advertising and promotion</h2>
<p>What came as more of a surprise as we were tallying up the data was how much trade associations are spending on advertising and promotion. This can include everything from mainstream media ads promoting the industry to hiring public relations firms to target particular issues before Congress.</p>
<p>For example, until they parted ways last year, Edelman, the world’s largest public relations firm, <a href="https://heated.world/p/edelmans-climate-cop-out">received close to $30 million</a> from American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers to promote fossil fuels, reporters at the online news site Heated found.</p>
<p>Our study found that trade associations engaged on climate change issues spent a total of $2.2 billion on advertising and promotion between 2008 and 2018, compared with $729 million on lobbying. As <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-petroleum-institute/summary?id=D000031493">2022 lobbying data shows</a>, their <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-fuel-petrochem-manufacturers/summary?id=D000027874">spending continues</a>. While not all of this spending is directly targeting climate policy, climate change is one of the <a href="https://influencemap.org/landing/-a794566767a94a5d71052b63a05e825f-20189">top political issues</a> for many industries in the energy sector.</p>
<p>Media buys are expensive, but these numbers also reflect the specific role trade associations play in protecting the reputation of the firms they represent.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/w4KvOJlu5Xo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Trade groups run promotional ads for their industries, as well as negative ads.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One reason that groups like the American Petroleum Institute have historically taken the lead running negative public relations campaigns is so that their members, such as BP and Shell, are not tarred with the same brush, as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03466-0">our interviews with industry insiders confirmed</a>. </p>
<p>However, many firms are now coming under pressure to leave trade associations that oppose climate policies. In one example, the oil giant Total <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/01/15/french-oil-giant-total-quits-american-petroleum-institute/">quit API in 2021</a>, citing disagreements over climate positions.</p>
<p>Spending on social media in the weeks ahead of the U.S. midterm elections and during the U.N. Climate Conference in November 2022 offers another window into these groups’ operations.</p>
<p><a href="https://caad.info/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/DDD_ExposingClimateDisinfo-COP27.pdf">A review</a> by the advocacy group Climate Action Against Disinformation found that 87 fossil-fuel-linked groups spent roughly $3 million to $4 million on more than 3,700 ads through Facebook’s parent company alone in the 12 weeks before and during the conference. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dgP4O_uacUA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Facebook received millions of dollars to run ads promoting natural gas.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The largest share came from a public relations group representing the American Petroleum Institute and focused heavily on advocating for natural gas and oil and discussing energy security. America’s Plastic Makers spent about $1.1 million on climate-related advertising during the two weeks of the U.N. conference.</p>
<h2>Funneling money to think tanks and local groups</h2>
<p>Trade associations also spent $394 million on grants to other organizations during the decade we reviewed. For example, they gave money to think tanks, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/31/climate/frank-mitloehner-uc-davis.html">universities</a>, charitable foundations and political organizations like associations of mayors and governors.</p>
<p>While some of these grants may be philanthropic in nature, among the trade associations we spoke to, most have a political purpose in mind. Grants channeled to local community groups, as one example, can help boost an industry’s reputation among key constituent groups, and as a result their social license to operate.</p>
<h2>What this means for climate policy</h2>
<p>Fossil fuel companies, which reported <a href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2023/2/8/23587955/exxon-chevron-bp-oil-profits-climate">record profits</a> in 2022, still <a href="https://academic.oup.com/book/9937?login=true">spend more</a> on political activities than their trade associations do.</p>
<p>But industry groups historically opposed to climate policies are also big spenders, as our research shows. They outspent those that support actions to slow climate change, such as the solar and wind industries, by a whopping $2 billion to $74.5 million over the 10 years we reviewed.</p>
<p>This likely <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60bed54ea75154265d5f3862/t/60bee2b67579be685d2e4715/1623122616896/Downie-2018-Business-and-Politics.pdf">helps to explain</a> why it took Congress almost 35 years after Hansen first warned representatives about the dangers of climate change to pass a major climate bill, the 2022 <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5376">Inflation Reduction Act</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/198286/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Researchers looked at a decade of political spending by the oil and gas industry and others engaged in climate policy. If money talks, one side had a giant megaphone.Christian Downie, Associate Professor, Australian National UniversityRobert Brulle, Professor of Sociology, Brown UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1987802023-02-01T02:04:29Z2023-02-01T02:04:29ZBig money was spent on the 2022 election – but the party with the deepest pockets didn’t win<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/507497/original/file-20230201-13-hyfh82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Nine months after the 2022 federal election, voters finally get a look at how much the parties spent and who funded their campaigns.</p>
<p>Data <a href="https://transparency.aec.gov.au/download">released today</a> reveal Australia’s political parties collectively spent a whopping $418 million in the year leading up to the federal election. </p>
<p>Money matters in Australian elections because it helps spread political messages far and wide. But political parties remain highly dependent on a small number of powerful individuals, businesses, and unions, to fund their campaigns. In the <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/whos-in-the-room/">shadowy world</a> of donations and lobbying, this dependence creates enormous risks of private influence over public decision-making.</p>
<h2>The Coalition was the biggest spender, followed by Clive Palmer</h2>
<p>The Coalition outspent Labor in the year leading up to the 2022 federal election, declaring $132 million in expenditure compared to Labor’s $116 million. The Coalition has been the biggest spender at every federal election since 2007.</p>
<p>Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party came in second in 2022 (on $123 million), outspending Labor. Palmer was a <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-big-money-influenced-the-2019-federal-election-and-what-we-can-do-to-fix-the-system-131141">big presence</a> in the 2019 federal election campaign too, but this is the first time he has edged out a major party in the spending stakes.</p>
<p>The 2022 election is the first federal election since 2010 where the party with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-big-money-influenced-the-2019-federal-election-and-what-we-can-do-to-fix-the-system-131141">biggest wallet</a> didn’t win.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/507498/original/file-20230201-14-nadod4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/507498/original/file-20230201-14-nadod4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507498/original/file-20230201-14-nadod4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507498/original/file-20230201-14-nadod4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507498/original/file-20230201-14-nadod4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507498/original/file-20230201-14-nadod4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507498/original/file-20230201-14-nadod4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Clive Palmer broke his own previous record by donating $117 million to his United Australia Party.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/James Ross</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Who funded the 2022 election?</h2>
<p>Clive Palmer broke records again, with his mining company Mineralogy donating $117 million to his United Australia Party. This breaks his own previous record of $84 million in the lead up to 2019 election, and dwarfs all other donations on record. </p>
<p>Anthony Pratt’s paper and packaging company Pratt Holdings was the next largest donor in 2022, at $3.7 million, with the funds more or less evenly split between the Coalition and Labor.</p>
<p>Most of the major donors to Labor were unions (Figure 1), who collectively contributed more than half of all Labor’s declared donations. Labour Holdings, an investment arm of the party, was also a major contributor, and Pratt Holdings was the largest individual donor for Labor. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-big-money-influenced-the-2019-federal-election-and-what-we-can-do-to-fix-the-system-131141">How big money influenced the 2019 federal election – and what we can do to fix the system</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>By contrast, most of the major donors to the Coalition were wealthy individuals and corporate donations funnelled through fundraising entities associated with the Liberal or National parties. The Coalition’s top five donors accounted for more than a third of their declared donations and included $3.9 million from the Cormack Foundation (an investment arm for the Liberal Party). Other big donors to the Coalition included Sugolena Holdings, owned by businessman and investor Isaac Wakil, and Jefferson Investments (Figure 1).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/507488/original/file-20230201-12-qg0cdg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Figure 1: Top Labor donors were mostly unions, while top Coalition donors were mostly wealthy individuals" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/507488/original/file-20230201-12-qg0cdg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/507488/original/file-20230201-12-qg0cdg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507488/original/file-20230201-12-qg0cdg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507488/original/file-20230201-12-qg0cdg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507488/original/file-20230201-12-qg0cdg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507488/original/file-20230201-12-qg0cdg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507488/original/file-20230201-12-qg0cdg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Figure 1: Top Labor donors were mostly unions, while top Coalition donors were mostly wealthy individuals.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What about the Teal independents?</h2>
<p>Independents and other individual candidates collectively spent about $21 million at the 2022 federal election. While this was a lot more than the $7 million they spent in the 2019 federal election, it was only 5% of party expenditure in the 2022 election.</p>
<p>A big chunk of independent candidate funds came from pro-climate action donors – largely under the banner of Climate 200, an organisation set up to fund political action on climate change, with wealthy backers including Mike Cannon-Brookes, Scott Farquhar, and Simon Holmes à Court. Climate 200 donated $6 million across 19 candidates. Most other large donors were also Climate 200 donors.</p>
<p>But many of the Teal candidates ran strong grassroots campaigns too. For example, Monique Ryan raised $1.8 million from 3,762 donors for her successful campaign to unseat former treasurer Josh Frydenberg in the Melbourne seat of Kooyong.</p>
<h2>How to prevent donors ‘buying’ influence</h2>
<p>As a <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/whos-in-the-room/">2018 Grattan Institute report</a> showed, political donations buy access and sometimes influence over public policy. While explicit quid pro quo is probably rare in Australia, the risk is in more subtle influences – that donors get more access to policymakers and their views are given more weight. These risks are exacerbated by a <a href="https://theconversation.com/influence-in-australian-politics-needs-an-urgent-overhaul-heres-how-to-do-it-103535">lack of transparency</a> in dealings between policymakers and special interests.</p>
<p>Political donations and lobbying activity should be much more transparent. This would in turn give politicians, journalists, and the broader public the information to call out those “in the room” – and speak out for those who are not.</p>
<p>There is a lot of private money we know nothing about in federal elections (Figure 2). To improve transparency, we believe the donations disclosure threshold should be lowered from the current threshold of $15,200. Labor has a policy to lower it to $1,000, which would mean all donations big enough to matter are on the public record. Political parties should be required to aggregate multiple donations from the same donor, so big donors can’t hide. And it is frankly ridiculous that donations data is released long after the election is over. Real-time disclosure already happens in some states, and it should happen federally as well. Voters should know who’s funding political campaigns when they go to the polls.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/507485/original/file-20230201-20-uh6uyc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Figure 2: There’s a lot of private money funding elections" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/507485/original/file-20230201-20-uh6uyc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/507485/original/file-20230201-20-uh6uyc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507485/original/file-20230201-20-uh6uyc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507485/original/file-20230201-20-uh6uyc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507485/original/file-20230201-20-uh6uyc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507485/original/file-20230201-20-uh6uyc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507485/original/file-20230201-20-uh6uyc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Figure 2: There’s a lot of private money funding elections.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Transparency is important, but it is not enough on its own. Ultimately, to reduce the influence of money in politics, parliament should introduce an expenditure cap during election campaigns. Limiting expenditure by political parties – and third parties – would reduce parties’ dependency on major donors and limit the “arms race” to raise more and more funds. </p>
<p>Politicians could still spread their messages far and wide – but they’d have to rely more on people power and less on private money.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/198780/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute's activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Iris Chan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Among the more arresting figures are that Clive Palmer spent more than the Labor Party on the 2022 election, and for the first time since 2010, the party that had the biggest wallet didn’t win.Kate Griffiths, Deputy Program Director, Grattan InstituteIris Chan, Fellow, Budgets and Government Program, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1966372022-12-26T16:26:29Z2022-12-26T16:26:29Z3 reasons local climate activism is more powerful than people realize<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/502317/original/file-20221221-26-sxt7zi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=86%2C49%2C1191%2C800&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Students rally for fossil fuel-free energy at the University of California, San Diego.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://today.ucsd.edu/media-contacts">Erik Jepsen/UCSD</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Global warming has increased the number of extreme weather events around the world <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088">by 400%</a> since the 1980s. Countries know how <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/working-group/wg3/">to stop the damage</a> from worsening: stop burning fossil fuels and shift to renewable energy, electrify transportation and industry, and reduce the carbon intensity of agriculture.</p>
<p>But none of this is happening fast enough to avoid <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/">warming on a catastrophic scale</a>.</p>
<p>In my <a href="https://aronclimatecrisis.net/">new book</a>, “<a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/climate-crisis/DC85CA555290CCEC08B047BC515ADF96">The Climate Crisis</a>,” I lay out the mechanisms and impacts of the climate crisis and the reasons behind the lack of serious effort to combat it. One powerful reason is the influence that the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922175117">fossil fuel industry</a>, electric utilities and others <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104">with a vested interest in</a> fossil fuels have over policymakers. </p>
<p>But there’s another reason for this inaction that everyone has the ability to change: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.08.012">response skepticism</a> – the public doesn’t believe in its own political power enough or use it.</p>
<p>When people speak up and work together, they can spur powerful changes. You can see this in university students demanding that their chancellor <a href="https://dailybruin.com/2022/05/12/uc-community-discusses-progress-limitations-of-universitys-sustainability-goals">retire the campus fossil fuel power plant</a> and switch to renewable electricity. You can also see it in <a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Big-Fix/Hal-Harvey/9781982123987">ranchers in Colorado</a> pushing their governor to enact a clean electricity standard so that they can benefit from having wind turbines on their lands. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A female student sits on a yoga ball in a hallway reading a book. Other students are on laptops behind her." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/502455/original/file-20221221-15-ajs88d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/502455/original/file-20221221-15-ajs88d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502455/original/file-20221221-15-ajs88d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502455/original/file-20221221-15-ajs88d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502455/original/file-20221221-15-ajs88d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502455/original/file-20221221-15-ajs88d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502455/original/file-20221221-15-ajs88d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">MIT students study while staging a sit-in outside the university chancellor’s office in 2016 calling for the university to divest from fossil fuels.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/freshman-carissa-skye-sits-atop-a-yoga-ball-while-taking-news-photo/514663304">Photo by Jonathan Wiggs/The Boston Globe via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet, while <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2021/05/PS_2021.05.26_climate-and-generations_TOPLINE.pdf">70% of American adults describe climate change</a> as an important concern, only 10% say they volunteered for an activity focused on addressing climate change or contacted an elected official about it in the previous year, according to a 2021 Pew Research Center poll.</p>
<p>Why do so few adults participate in actions to encourage governments and decision-makers to do more about climate change, even though surveys show they support doing so, and how can they overcome the skepticism holding them back?</p>
<h2>What prevents people from speaking out</h2>
<p>Polls show some people see how <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01">money from wealthy industries</a> and individuals influences politicians and <a href="https://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/spring-2022-harvard-youth-poll">don’t believe politicians listen to the public</a>.</p>
<p>Others are <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/discourses-of-climate-delay/7B11B722E3E3454BB6212378E32985A7">distracted by arguments</a> that can tamp down engagement, such as campaigns that urge people to focus on individual recycling, or ask why the U.S. should do more if other countries aren’t, or argue that that there’s no need to rush because future technology will save humanity. Some <a href="https://www.theclimatechangereview.com/post/uc-says-it-ll-meet-2025-carbon-neutral-goal-yet-remains-a-massive-california-polluter">believe that corporate and university promises</a> to reach carbon neutrality in the future – often far in the future – are enough.</p>
<p>These narratives can be seductive. The focus on recycling, for example, offers <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.102">a sense of satisfaction</a> that one accomplished something. The arguments that China emits more greenhouse gases and that <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2021/05/PS_2021.05.26_climate-and-generations_TOPLINE.pdf">future technology</a> will fix everything <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/climate-crisis/DC85CA555290CCEC08B047BC515ADF96">appear to exonerate</a> people from having to take any steps now.</p>
<p><iframe id="4bEdb" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/4bEdb/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Studies have found that participating in local climate actions may require a <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.210006">constellation of values, attitudes and beliefs</a>, including believing in one’s own ability, and the group’s, to get things done. Some of these beliefs can be developed through practice in organizing together, which is often downright fun, and has <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813130-5.00008-4">other psychological benefits</a> that flow from increased solidarity in an often <a href="https://bpsi.org/psychological-roots-of-the-climate-crisis-book-review/">alienating society</a>.</p>
<p>What I believe is particularly important is having a <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/climate-crisis/DC85CA555290CCEC08B047BC515ADF96">local theory of change</a> – believing that, while human-caused climate change is a global problem, it is worthwhile taking local action.</p>
<h2>3 reasons local activism matters</h2>
<p>Research and history suggest that local action is more powerful than many people realize. Here are three key reasons:</p>
<p>First, much of the policy change that can affect climate change is local rather than national.</p>
<p>For example, replacing fossil fuel power plants with renewable energy technology can help lower greenhouse gas emissions. Much of this is under the control of state governments, which delegate the authority to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/background_paper.pdf">public utility commissions</a>. The public can pay attention to what utilities and public utility commissions do, and let their governors know that they are watching by writing letters and joining local groups that make their voices heard.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A man in a plaid shirt sits at a desk with a microphone, his hands folded as in prayer. He stares intently at whomever is speaking outside the image." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/502454/original/file-20221221-22-pehu50.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/502454/original/file-20221221-22-pehu50.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502454/original/file-20221221-22-pehu50.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502454/original/file-20221221-22-pehu50.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502454/original/file-20221221-22-pehu50.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502454/original/file-20221221-22-pehu50.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502454/original/file-20221221-22-pehu50.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">South Dakota landowners whose property is crossed by the Keystone XL pipeline attended public utilities commission hearings in 2015 to make their opposition known.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/OilPipelineHearing/811a121d4f63479b8498bc4d3552c8d6/photo">AP Photo/James Nord</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Cities can set policies to replace natural gas with electric appliances in homes and buildings, encourage homeowners to install efficient electric heat pumps and determine whether investments are made in public transit instead of freeways. When pressured, <a href="https://theithacan.org/news/city-of-ithaca-to-become-100-decarbonized-by-2030/">city officials do enact these policies</a>.</p>
<p>Second, local wins can become contagious. In 1997, a handful of advocates in Massachusetts won their battle for a local policy under which a portion of electricity bill payments went to a not-for-profit agency that funneled money toward renewables. By 2022, this policy, known as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102393">community choice aggregation</a>, was adopted by over 1,800 local governments across six states, affecting millions of people. Local action can also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2022.08.009">create learning curves for technology</a> – pushing for more solar and wind turbines leads to increased manufacture and price drops.</p>
<p>Third, local action can trigger national policy, spread to other countries and ultimately trigger global agreements.</p>
<p>There are many historical examples, from the suffragette movement that won U.S. women the right to vote, to the fight for a 40-hour work week. Local action in the Southern U.S. <a href="https://sociology.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/165/2016/12/Gaby-Sociological-Forum.pdf">catalyzed 1960s civil rights laws</a>. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjs018">Local action for same-sex marriage</a>, starting in San Francisco, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjs018">led to state laws</a> and ultimately to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/13/us/politics/biden-same-sex-marriage-bill.html">federal legislation</a> signed in December 2022 that prohibits states from refusing to recognize out-of-state marriages based on sex, race or ethnicity.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An historical photo of several women in fancy hats holding signs advertising a meeting about the right to vote." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/502453/original/file-20221221-17-2fjp6o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/502453/original/file-20221221-17-2fjp6o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502453/original/file-20221221-17-2fjp6o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502453/original/file-20221221-17-2fjp6o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502453/original/file-20221221-17-2fjp6o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502453/original/file-20221221-17-2fjp6o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502453/original/file-20221221-17-2fjp6o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Suffragettes succeeded in winning the right of women to vote by working together and speaking out.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/new-york-society-woman-suffragettes-as-sandwich-men-news-photo/514892136">Bettmann via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Environmental regulation in the 1970s is <a href="https://www.abebooks.com/9780896085572/Earth-Sale-Reclaiming-Ecology-Age-0896085570/plp">a striking case</a>. It started with public alarm about cities clouded in smog, rivers catching fire from industrial waste and beaches fouled by oil spills. Citizens organized thousands of protest actions, and municipalities responded by implementing environmental enforcement. </p>
<p>The lawsuits that followed were very costly for corporate interests, which then supported federal intervention as a way to have predictable rules. It was President Richard Nixon who signed <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/nixon/impact-and-legacy">some of the furthest reaching legislation</a> ever.</p>
<h2>Youth successes in changing climate policy</h2>
<p>In 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which authorizes nearly $400 billion of climate-related spending over 10 years. I believe the youth-led <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/02/politics/biden-administration-sunrise-movement-climate/index.html">Sunrise Movement can claim a major role</a> in its success. </p>
<p>The group has relentlessly organized marches and demonstrations in dozens of cities since 2019 and pressured Democrats in Congress. While the result fell short of the group’s vision for a Green New Deal, it went further than any previous climate-related law.</p>
<p>Group action targeted at local decision-makers is a time-honored tradition – and I believe necessary in the current political environment for action on climate change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/196637/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam Aron does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When people work together, they can move governments to action. Just ask the suffragettes. Still, few people do it. A psychologist explains why, and how to turn that around.Adam Aron, Professor of Psychology, University of California, San DiegoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1871422022-07-22T05:13:37Z2022-07-22T05:13:37ZA penguin farm in the Australian desert: a thought experiment that reveals the flaws our in environment laws<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475086/original/file-20220720-22-a48amd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C67%2C5515%2C3665&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Imagine this fictitious scenario. The federal environment minister announces government approval for a large-scale penguin farm near Alice Springs. It will produce 300,000 penguins each year for the high-end feather market in Europe. </p>
<p>Penguin feathers are also, in this make-believe world, proven superconductors that could provide an alternative to lithium for renewable energy batteries. The $40 million farming project promises to create jobs and growth in regional Australia.</p>
<p>To any informed reader, the idea of farming cold-ocean seabirds in the Australian desert is mind-numbingly silly. But this hypothetical idea helps us better understand how environmental governance in Australia has gone badly wrong.</p>
<p>The real-world problems were laid bare on Tuesday when the <a href="https://theconversation.com/this-is-australias-most-important-report-on-the-environments-deteriorating-health-we-present-its-grim-findings-186131">State of the Environment report</a> was released. It showed a devastating loss of plants, animals and habitat on land and in oceans. And without dramatic action, the problem will only get worse.</p>
<p>So let’s look at the policies the federal government should fix to tackle this sorry state of affairs.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="mother and child koala huddle on logs" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475343/original/file-20220721-25-au1ju6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475343/original/file-20220721-25-au1ju6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475343/original/file-20220721-25-au1ju6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475343/original/file-20220721-25-au1ju6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475343/original/file-20220721-25-au1ju6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475343/original/file-20220721-25-au1ju6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475343/original/file-20220721-25-au1ju6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The report showed a devastating loss of plants, animals and habitat.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">WWF</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Penguins R Us</h2>
<p>First, let’s explore our make-believe penguin farm a little further.</p>
<p>The venture would use river water to create a new, cool aquatic environment for the penguins. It will be located near two other large farm projects that also draw water from the river. The proponent, Penguins R Us, will monitor environmental impacts at the site. </p>
<p>Environmental groups oppose the plan. But the fictitious environment minister said the department thoroughly reviewed the proposal and it represents “world’s best practice” penguin farming. </p>
<p>Environmental conditions attached to the project stipulate that water from only one river can be diverted to the project. Loss of habitat for the endangered orange-throated parrot – a fictitious species invented for the purposes of this example – will be offset by tree planting on a neighbouring pastoral station. </p>
<p>Penguins R Us is a generous donor to major political parties. The fictitious federal government of the day will provide 50% of the project’s initial finance. </p>
<p>No-one – yet – has proposed this silly farming idea. But all too often, a similar script plays out in real life. Here are five reasons why.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/this-is-australias-most-important-report-on-the-environments-deteriorating-health-we-present-its-grim-findings-186131">This is Australia's most important report on the environment's deteriorating health. We present its grim findings</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="five penguins" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475088/original/file-20220720-12-plykfn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475088/original/file-20220720-12-plykfn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=180&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475088/original/file-20220720-12-plykfn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=180&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475088/original/file-20220720-12-plykfn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=180&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475088/original/file-20220720-12-plykfn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=226&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475088/original/file-20220720-12-plykfn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=226&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475088/original/file-20220720-12-plykfn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=226&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>1. Weak endangered species protection</h2>
<p>Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek this week signalled reform of Australia’s key environment law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. As an <a href="https://epbcactreview.environment.gov.au/resources/final-report">independent review</a> in 2020 by Graeme Samuel showed, the law has done a woeful job of preventing actions that harm threatened species, such as land clearing.</p>
<p>As the State of the Environment report revealed, about 93% of terrestrial habitat used by threatened species, and cleared between 2000 and 2017, was not referred to the federal government for assessment under national laws.</p>
<p>Compounding the problem, the cumulative effects of developments across a landscape are largely ignored during the approvals process. This is the case with the hypothetical penguin farm, which is located alongside other developments that also disturb the landscape.</p>
<p>Orange-throated parrots are hypothetical threatened species. Protection of threatened species should take precedence over destructive developments – but this almost never occurs. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="woman with short blonde hair holds report" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475089/original/file-20220720-21-j44r1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475089/original/file-20220720-21-j44r1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475089/original/file-20220720-21-j44r1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475089/original/file-20220720-21-j44r1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475089/original/file-20220720-21-j44r1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475089/original/file-20220720-21-j44r1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475089/original/file-20220720-21-j44r1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek this week signalled reform of Australia’s key environment law.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2. Gross underfunding</h2>
<p>Proper conservation of the fictitious orange-throated parrot is likely to be hampered by inadequate funding for conservation actions.</p>
<p>Australia is a true laggard on environmental spending. Current expenditure is just 15% of what’s <a href="https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/conl.12682">needed</a> to avoid extinctions and recover threatened species. </p>
<p>Good science is needed to ensure funding is well-targeted and effective. The federally funded Threatened Species Recovery Hub once conducted targeted <a href="https://www.nespthreatenedspecies.edu.au">practical research</a> on how to best and most effectively conserve threatened plants, animals and ecosystems. It partnered closely with land mangers, including Traditional Owners.</p>
<p>But the hub was axed last year by the Morrison government. With it went a huge amount of capacity to tackle Australia’s biodiversity crisis in many parts of the continent. This, and many other shortsighted funding decisions, must be reversed.</p>
<h2>3. Poor offset process</h2>
<p>Under our make-believe scenario, loss of habitat for the endangered orange-throated parrot will be compensated by planting trees elsewhere. This is known as “biodiversity offsetting”.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/523401a">body</a> of <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632071730349X">evidence</a> on poorly performing offsets is vast. They are supposed to prevent net loss of habitats or populations of a particular species. This almost never happens.</p>
<p>The Samuel review <a href="https://epbcactreview.environment.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-01/EPBC%20Act%20Review%20Final%20Report%20October%202020.pdf">found</a> environmental offsetting should be “immediately improved” to ensure, among other things,
it delivers genuine protection and restoration.</p>
<p>This reform is urgent. Offsets must be properly assessed, rigorously verified and robustly monitored to ensure they deliver.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Fallen tree and bare dirt next to forest" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475087/original/file-20220720-22-m9527u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475087/original/file-20220720-22-m9527u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475087/original/file-20220720-22-m9527u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475087/original/file-20220720-22-m9527u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475087/original/file-20220720-22-m9527u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475087/original/file-20220720-22-m9527u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475087/original/file-20220720-22-m9527u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Biodiversity offsetting is supposed to compensate for environmental damage.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>4. Inadequate environmental monitoring</h2>
<p>In this fictitious scenario, the proponent will monitor the impacts of the penguin farm. This <a href="https://birdlife.org.au/media/adanis-black-throated-finch-management-plan-falling-short/">often means</a> a poorly designed and executed monitoring <a href="https://www.publish.csiro.au/book/7812/">program</a>. </p>
<p>What’s more, it will be almost impossible for governments and the general public to evaluate the proponents’ efforts to fix any environmental problems it causes. A <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479720302474?via%3Dihub">string</a> of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.04.023">reviews</a> have shown Australia’s record on monitoring species recovery and environmental remediation is woeful. </p>
<p>Mandatory monitoring of projects should be conducted independently – and by people who know how to design and implement such programs.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/bad-and-getting-worse-labor-promises-law-reform-for-australias-environment-heres-what-you-need-to-know-186562">'Bad and getting worse': Labor promises law reform for Australia's environment. Here's what you need to know</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="hands holding bandicoot joeys" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423277/original/file-20210927-27-1x266mp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423277/original/file-20210927-27-1x266mp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423277/original/file-20210927-27-1x266mp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423277/original/file-20210927-27-1x266mp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423277/original/file-20210927-27-1x266mp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423277/original/file-20210927-27-1x266mp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423277/original/file-20210927-27-1x266mp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Self-monitoring often fails to protect many of Australia’s most vulnerable species.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>5. Problematic political donations</h2>
<p>Penguins R Us is a major donor to the fictitious party in government. The government then invested in the penguin project to get it off the ground. </p>
<p>Australia’s political donations system <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320873018_Political_Donations_in_Australia_What_the_Australian_Electoral_Commission_Disclosures_Reveal_and_What_They_Don%27t">lacks transparency</a>. But from what we do know, the donations often buy companies access to politicians and <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/908-Who-s-in-the-room-Access-and-influence-in-Australian-politics.pdf">influence</a> over the political process, including environmental decisions on developments.</p>
<p>For example, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629621003649">research</a> suggests powerful corporate interests have played a major role in the climate policy decisions and actions in Australia over the past 15 years.</p>
<p>So reform on campaign donations is essential to protecting Australia’s environment. </p>
<h2>Doing better</h2>
<p>Australia may not be farming penguins in one of the world’s hottest and driest environments. But this hypothetical scenario highlights serious deficiencies in species conservation, environmental management, project approvals, and monitoring of major development impacts.</p>
<p>Clearly, non-Indigenous Australians are failing in our custodial role to protect and properly manage the priceless natural assets of this continent. We can - and must - do far better. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/that-patch-of-bush-is-gone-and-so-are-the-birds-a-scientist-reacts-to-the-state-of-the-environment-report-186135">'That patch of bush is gone, and so are the birds': a scientist reacts to the State of the Environment report</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/187142/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Lindenmayer receives funding from the Australian Government, the Victorian Government and the NSW Government</span></em></p>This fictitious project approval helps us better understand how environmental governance in Australia has gone badly wrong.David Lindenmayer, Professor, The Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1868172022-07-19T01:43:54Z2022-07-19T01:43:54ZWhat’s climate got to do with electoral reform? More than you might think<p>What do electoral laws, social media, climate change and secure work have in common?</p>
<p>All have been prioritised for reform by the Labor government – and all are areas where democratic reform is essential. In fact, the links between these four priorities provide a unique opportunity for change. </p>
<h2>Disinformation and manipulation</h2>
<p>The age-old problem of political falsehoods has been given steroids by the <a href="https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/how-might-digital-campaigning-affect-problems-political-finance">speed, targeting and anonymity</a> of digital media. Disinformation is <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/653635/EXPO_STU(2021)653635_EN.pdf">besieging</a> democracies across the world – and Australia is <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/AECAnnualReport2017-18/Status_report/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024259%2F27101">not immune</a>.</p>
<p>To tackle the “deceit [that is] degrading our democracy” Labor’s <a href="https://alp.org.au/media/2594/2021-alp-national-platform-final-endorsed-platform.pdf">national platform</a> commits the government to introducing truth in political advertising laws. Recently <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/10/labor-aims-to-legislate-spending-caps-and-truth-in-advertising-says-don-farrell">reiterated</a> by Special Minister of State Don Farrell, this pledge should be welcomed. While truth in political advertising laws must be <a href="https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-19-2123-0">carefully designed</a>, measures are undoubtedly needed to protect the information environment in which Australian democracy operates.</p>
<p>Indeed, the reform focus should broaden to other forms of political manipulation enabled by “big data”. It should grapple with the threats to democracy and political autonomy posed by “<a href="https://www.booktopia.com.au/the-age-of-surveillance-capitalism-shoshana-zuboff/book/9781781256855.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwoMSWBhAdEiwAVJ2ndn9ORlMNCUamTGbiM9e_mZmSDxZkhwFWi8v5sRalyk6t5DsYzSYLhRoCKgUQAvD_BwE">surveillance capitalism</a>”, including <a href="https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/digital-microtargeting">micro-targeting</a> and the “<a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/363/363.pdf">choice architecture</a>” created by big tech companies. These tools have fuelled (<a href="https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/830928">echo chamber</a> polarisation and put a premium on emotional appeals. </p>
<p>A key priority here, which dovetails with the government’s <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/technology/data-next-battle-for-facebook-other-social-media-giants-20220617-p5auo1.html">data transparency initiatives</a>, is “<a href="https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1631686/usage?ln=en">radical transparency</a>”. The other is coverage of digital campaigning under political finance laws, to which we’ll return.</p>
<h2>Money in politics</h2>
<p>Labor’s national platform commits the government to </p>
<blockquote>
<p>minimise the disproportionate influence of vested interests in the democratic process [including] through the introduction of spending caps. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Laissez-faire regulation has not only resulted in the federal government becoming a laggard <a href="https://law.unimelb.edu.au/centres/errn/research/research-projects/regulating-money-in-democracy">domestically</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-trails-way-behind-other-nations-in-regulating-political-donations-59597">internationally</a>. It has also allowed excessive campaign spending, notably by Clive Palmer and his <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/09/clive-palmers-party-spent-nearly-15m-on-election-eve-social-media-ads-amid-blackout">United Australia Party</a>, which undermines the fairness of elections. Farrell has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/10/labor-aims-to-legislate-spending-caps-and-truth-in-advertising-says-don-farrell">confirmed</a> Labor’s commitment to “overdue campaign finance reform”. </p>
<p>To be effective, spending caps should cover all digital campaigning (including “<a href="https://demtech.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2019/09/CyberTroop-Report19.pdf">cyber armies</a>” and the gathering and use of data. They should be accompanied by <a href="https://theconversation.com/eight-ways-to-clean-up-money-in-australian-politics-59453">other measures</a>, particularly:</p>
<p>• a <a href="https://insidestory.org.au/new-york-where-political-finance-never-sleeps/">real-time donation disclosure system</a> </p>
<p>• <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-advertising-may-be-legal-but-its-corrupting-our-electoral-process-115061">controls on government advertising</a> in the lead-up to elections</p>
<p>• <a href="https://researchmgt.monash.edu/ws/portalfiles/portal/270797118/270796977_oa.pdf">robust regulation of lobbying</a>.</p>
<h2>Connecting with climate</h2>
<p>Democracy and the climate crisis are linked by money. As <a href="https://www.penguin.com.au/books/a-life-on-our-planet-9781529108279">David Attenborough</a> has pointed out, powerful vested interests are “the most formidable obstacle” to switching to clean energy. Australia bears out the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/pops/Papers_on_Parliament_70/Democracy_before_Dollars">truth</a> of this observation: our fossil fuel industries have blocked climate action for decades. And political donations and lobbying are a key part of their arsenal. </p>
<p>Effective political finance regulation has multiple dividends: it promotes political equality, curbs corruption and enables climate action.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-has-a-once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity-to-break-the-stranglehold-fossil-fuels-have-on-our-politics-184748">Australia has a once in a lifetime opportunity to break the stranglehold fossil fuels have on our politics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But there is a deeper connection between democracy and the climate crisis. The very same features lauded as democracy’s defining virtues – popular sovereignty, the accountability and responsiveness of elected officials, public debate and deliberation – can hinder climate action. </p>
<p>Democracy at its worst – dominated by inexpert and ineffectual judgements, short-termism, and slow, cumbersome policy processes – can seem like a fair-weather regime unable to navigate crises, and particularly existential crises such as climate change. For some, “<a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/20/democracy-is-the-planets-biggest-enemy-climate-change/">democracy is the planet’s biggest enemy</a>”.</p>
<p>The climate crisis will require significant <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5abb53e6372b9691939ac577/t/616e055a47cfe021f348feb2/1634600300962/GDC+Policy+Brief+14_Climate+Crisis_COP26+re-issue.pdf">democratic innovation</a> to deal with shortcomings in the way our democracy operates. Four pillars of reform are central: a democratic planning state; an ethos of solidarity; invigorated multilateralism; fair and inclusive politics.</p>
<p>But the conversation has <a href="https://unsw.press/books/living-democracy/">barely begun</a>; progressing it should be one of the reform priorities of the Labor government.</p>
<h2>The world of work</h2>
<p>The final priority for electoral reform puts democracy to work – literally.</p>
<p>The climate crisis highlights the importance of democratising work. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate has <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/">stressed</a> that a climate-safe future requires “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”. The International Labour Organization has said the impact of the climate crisis on the world of work will be “<a href="https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---cabinet/documents/publication/wcms_644145.pdf">akin to an industrial revolution</a>”.</p>
<p>Critical here are “a just transition of the [fossil fuel] workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs”, as emphasised by the <a href="https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf">Paris Agreement</a>. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/documents/publication/wcms_432859.pdf">International Labour Organization</a> has identified workers’ voices (including through trade unions) as an essential element of a just transition. Labor’s policy platform affirms the Paris Agreement’s “requirement for just transition planning involving local communities, unions, and industry”. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://democratizingwork.org/">manifesto</a> signed by more than 6,000 leading scholars proposes similar action, issuing a call to “[d]emocratise firms; decommodify work; stop treating human beings as resources so that we can focus together on sustaining life on this planet”.</p>
<p>A just transition connects the Labor government’s climate action with its <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/policies/secure-australian-jobs-plan">secure work agenda</a>. Voice security is a key part of <a href="https://link.springer.com/book/9780333776520">labour security</a>. </p>
<p>Democracy should extend to workplaces. After all, our working lives are a key part of our lives.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-next-government-must-start-talking-about-a-just-transition-from-coal-heres-where-to-begin-181707">Australia's next government must start talking about a 'just transition' from coal. Here's where to begin</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Labor’s <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/media/1574/alp_national_constitution.pdf">constitution</a> recognises this fact by calling for </p>
<blockquote>
<p>the application of democracy in industry to increase the opportunities for people to work in satisfying, healthy and humane conditions; and to participate in and to increase their control over the decision making processes affecting them. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Australia’s democracy faces serious challenges – challenges that also provide opportunities to more fully realise democracy as a system in which “<a href="https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights">the will of the people shall be the basis of authority in government</a>”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/186817/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joo-Cheong Tham has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, European Trade Union Institute and International IDEA. He is a Director of the Centre for Public Integrity; a National Councillor and Victorian Division Assistant Secretary (Academic Staff)-elect of the National Tertiary Education Union.</span></em></p>Four of Labor’s reform pledges are linked to the urgent issue of democratic reformJoo-Cheong Tham, Professor, Melbourne Law School, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1855742022-07-08T00:46:56Z2022-07-08T00:46:56Z‘They’re nice to me, I’m nice to them’: new research sheds light on what motivates political party donors in New Zealand<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472916/original/file-20220707-23519-t1z57l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C6720%2C4466&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Proposed changes to New Zealand’s <a href="https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/policy/political-donations/">political donation rules</a> have put the spotlight on donors who give thousands and the motivations they have for their generosity. Our current research into New Zealand’s political donations system aims to shed light on this often obscure process.</p>
<p>Last year, just over <a href="https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/political-parties-in-new-zealand/party-donations-and-loans-by-year/">NZ$2.73 million was donated</a> to ten of New Zealand’s 15 registered political parties.</p>
<p>Current rules require the public disclosure of any donations over $15,000. The government has <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/political-donations-national-act-cry-foul-over-government-changes-to-donations-rules-greens-want-a-cap/UAJQC26OGZYIC3EYUR5BWBAWMQ/">proposed dropping</a> this public disclosure threshold to $1,500 (a move opposed by both the National and Act parties).</p>
<p>The proposed reforms to the political donation rules follow Serious Fraud Office investigations into the handling of donations received by the National, Labour and NZ First parties. All three investigations have resulted in court proceedings, with the first case just ended with the judge reserving his decision.</p>
<p>Given the apparent confusion and disputed legal requirements around transparency, a basic question needs to be asked: why do wealthy New Zealanders donate to political parties?</p>
<h2>The motivation for political donations</h2>
<p>As part of our research into political donations, we have interviewed several party donors across the political spectrum. </p>
<p>We asked them why they donate, whether they expect to exert any sort of influence from their donation, and what views they have on other features of the current system, such as the disclosure of their name and the size of their donation. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-do-businesses-get-in-return-for-their-political-donations-59601">What do businesses get in return for their political donations?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Our interviewees were not concerned about transparency. Having each given over $30,000, their names were published online within ten days of their donation. </p>
<p>All accepted this transparency as a necessary part of a democratic system. Some even believed it had positive effects, for instance in encouraging others to donate. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="New Zealand flag in front of the Beehive" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472678/original/file-20220706-23-t1z57l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472678/original/file-20220706-23-t1z57l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472678/original/file-20220706-23-t1z57l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472678/original/file-20220706-23-t1z57l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472678/original/file-20220706-23-t1z57l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472678/original/file-20220706-23-t1z57l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472678/original/file-20220706-23-t1z57l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Three of New Zealand’s political parties have been the subject of investigations by the Serious Fraud Office.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/photo/new-zealand-flag-and-the-beehive-royalty-free-image/520641718?adppopup=true">P A Thompson/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Self-interest or public interest?</h2>
<p>Our interviewees’ reasons for donating varied. Most invoked some desire to “participate”. Participation took different forms – from supporting a party that had similar values to the donor, to just being part of the political process. </p>
<p>Perhaps unsurprisingly, academic research suggests political influence is <a href="https://doras.dcu.ie/608/">expected from donations</a> – although supporting existing policies is also a factor. But the donors we spoke to said they did not gain extra influence as a result of their donation, nor did they seek it. </p>
<p>A couple of cautions are in order, however. The fact they were willing to be interviewed by researchers may suggest our interviewees were more comfortable with their donations than other donors might be.</p>
<p>Second, even while insisting they did not gain extra influence, some made other comments suggesting some level of influence was a consequence of the donation. One noted interactions with multiple prime ministers and party leaders, some of them directly connected to fundraising. Such figures had, for instance, been to the donor’s house for meals. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-politics-how-political-donations-could-be-reformed-to-reduce-potential-influence-105805">New Zealand politics: how political donations could be reformed to reduce potential influence</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Another donor said making a large donation would generate the opportunity to arrange a direct meeting. Even if policy is not explicitly discussed in such contexts, donors and politicians are clearly building close relationships.</p>
<p>These are the conditions in which the interests and beliefs of political leaders may gravitate towards those of donors, especially since ordinary voters do not generally get such privileged access.</p>
<p>Some donors alluded to such closeness. One said, speaking of the party to which they donate, “They are nice to me, and I’m nice to them.” </p>
<p>Another acknowledged that while donations were made in self-interest, “The self-interest is [seen as] public interest.” That is, donors rationalise actions designed to further their own interests by arguing this overlaps perfectly with the public interest, even though such a correlation is far from guaranteed.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Voting sign" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472680/original/file-20220706-24-xr74f6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472680/original/file-20220706-24-xr74f6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472680/original/file-20220706-24-xr74f6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472680/original/file-20220706-24-xr74f6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472680/original/file-20220706-24-xr74f6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472680/original/file-20220706-24-xr74f6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472680/original/file-20220706-24-xr74f6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Beyond the donation rules there are other electoral reforms being proposed, and review of the Electoral Act.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/photo/sign-to-direct-voters-to-polling-location-royalty-free-image/1282673607?adppopup=true">Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Do our rules need to be more robust?</h2>
<p>Some would argue the process for regulating donations works, evidenced by the ongoing court cases. However, those cases were <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/428454/exclusive-the-secret-case-of-the-nz-first-foundation">triggered by whistleblowers</a>, not because of regulatory oversight in the first instance. We cannot rely on whistleblowers to report all instances of alleged wrongdoing.</p>
<p>Much electoral reform work is currently taking place, including the contested changes to donation disclosure rules and a wider independent review of the Electoral Act. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/money-makes-world-of-politics-go-round-and-keeping-it-clean-isnt-simple-44888">Money makes world of politics go round, and keeping it clean isn't simple</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>With two more <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/sfos-national-and-labour-party-donations-cases-to-be-heard-together-high-court-rules/WO4DMJF543DD6XDUIPTCOQHS6Q/">donations-related court cases</a> to come this year, pressure is mounting for changes to the way political parties are funded. </p>
<p>Such reform appears necessary to create greater transparency about donations and ensure that trust in Aotearoa New Zealand’s political funding system is not permanently eroded.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185574/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Max Rashbrooke receives funding from the Gama Foundation Governance and Policy Studies Endowment Fund.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa Marriott receives funding from the Gama Foundation Governance and Policy Studies Endowment Fund. </span></em></p>A number of court cases on political donations raises the question as to why wealthy New Zealanders donate thousands to political parties – and why some people try to hide their contribution.Max Rashbrooke, Research Associate, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of WellingtonLisa Marriott, Professor of Taxation, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of WellingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1761292022-02-01T03:34:56Z2022-02-01T03:34:56Z$177 million flowed to Australian political parties last year, but major donors can easily hide<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443636/original/file-20220201-18-13caikh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Australian Electoral Commission has updated its <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/financial_disclosure/transparency-register/">database</a> of financial disclosure information for 2020-21. </p>
<p>This happens once a year and is keenly watched by political observers because it includes information about who is donating what to whom.</p>
<p>And yet, despite Australia’s political parties collectively reporting A$177 million in income, only a tiny fraction of this is identifiable. So the public is left with a woefully inadequate picture of what is actually going on with political funding in Australia. </p>
<p>What does the data tell us? </p>
<h2>State elections attracted the big bucks</h2>
<p>Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory all went to the polls last year. So it is perhaps no surprise that most of the donations in Tuesday’s <a href="https://transparency.aec.gov.au/Download">data release</a> were made to political party branches in these states.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443637/original/file-20220201-27-1u4alju.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443637/original/file-20220201-27-1u4alju.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443637/original/file-20220201-27-1u4alju.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443637/original/file-20220201-27-1u4alju.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443637/original/file-20220201-27-1u4alju.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443637/original/file-20220201-27-1u4alju.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443637/original/file-20220201-27-1u4alju.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Queensland election in particular attracted some very large donations, including almost $4 million from entities directly associated with the Labor Party. These associated entities are controlled by the party and their income is <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/whos-in-the-room/">opaque</a>, but usually includes money from fundraising functions and investments.</p>
<p>Typically, the party in power receives slightly more income than the opposition, but donations last year were particularly skewed towards the incumbents – at both state and federal levels. </p>
<h2>Who are the major donors?</h2>
<p>The biggest donor for the Coalition was <a href="https://www.ibisworld.com/au/company/pratt-holdings-proprietary-limited/141/">Pratt Holdings</a>, with more than $1.2 million in donations to the Liberal Party. </p>
<p>Other significant donations to the Coalition were received from fundraising vehicles and investment bodies (for example, the <a href="https://www.npf.org.au">National Policy Forum</a> and <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-19/victorian-liberals-in-funding-fight/9564330">Cormack Foundation</a>). Liberal candidate Scott Edwardes also made a large donation ($224,000), presumably to support his own (ultimately unsuccessful) campaign in the WA election. </p>
<p>Labor’s biggest support came from its associated entities and several unions, including the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association, United Workers Union, and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443638/original/file-20220201-23-dqgklw.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443638/original/file-20220201-23-dqgklw.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443638/original/file-20220201-23-dqgklw.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443638/original/file-20220201-23-dqgklw.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443638/original/file-20220201-23-dqgklw.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443638/original/file-20220201-23-dqgklw.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443638/original/file-20220201-23-dqgklw.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some companies such as ANZ bank and Wesfarmers regularly contribute more than $100,000 to both major parties and did so again this year. Village Roadshow cinemas is also a regular donor in election years. Indeed, despite cinemas suffering substantial losses during the pandemic, Village managed to stump up $25,000 for both sides in the Queensland state election.</p>
<p>Donations open powerful doors. Australia’s political parties typically rely on just a handful of major donors, and these donors can achieve significant <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/whos-in-the-room/">access and influence</a>. In 2020-21, the top five donors represented 39% of the Coalition’s declared donations and 57% of Labor’s. </p>
<p>Beyond the political parties, two major grassroots political movements declared substantial funding: the right-wing movement Advance Australia raised $1.3 million, mainly from companies with no public presence, and left-wing movement GetUp! raised $553,000, all from individuals.</p>
<h2>War chests</h2>
<p>Political donations help parties campaign and spread their message at election time. Four of the past five federal elections have been won by the major party with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-big-money-influenced-the-2019-federal-election-and-what-we-can-do-to-fix-the-system-131141">bigger war chest</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-big-money-influenced-the-2019-federal-election-and-what-we-can-do-to-fix-the-system-131141">How big money influenced the 2019 federal election – and what we can do to fix the system</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Coalition was the big winner in 2020-21 with 23% more income than Labor, despite declaring fewer donations. The Coalition has raised more in both financial years since the last federal election, with about 20% more than Labor in 2019-20 too.</p>
<h2>Is this the full picture?</h2>
<p>The two major parties declared income totalling more than $150 million to the AEC in 2020-21. But the data released on Tuesday shows declared donations make up just 9% of this.</p>
<p>Most political party income is undeclared or falls into a messy bucket called “other receipts”. This includes money contributed by individuals and corporates at fundraising functions - money clearly intended to support the party and buy access. Parties declare their “other receipts” but it is impossible for the public to distinguish between money raised at fundraising events and income associated with party investments or services.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443639/original/file-20220201-21-mhfg20.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443639/original/file-20220201-21-mhfg20.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443639/original/file-20220201-21-mhfg20.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443639/original/file-20220201-21-mhfg20.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443639/original/file-20220201-21-mhfg20.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443639/original/file-20220201-21-mhfg20.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443639/original/file-20220201-21-mhfg20.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another major problem is donations received below the threshold of $14,300 do not need to be declared by the party. This enables large donors to split their donations into several below-threshold payments to avoid scrutiny. </p>
<p>Together, these loopholes mean major donors can hide, and Australian voters cannot be sure who is really backing our political parties.</p>
<h2>Election to shine spotlight on integrity</h2>
<p>Australia’s major parties will be scrambling right now to bring in funds for this year’s federal election campaign. </p>
<p>Yet this 2020-21 data release does not tell us who is donating now in the lead up to the federal election. Nor who is likely to get priority access to the next government. Unless the rules are changed, voters won’t know the answers to these questions until it’s too late.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/more-than-half-of-funding-for-the-major-parties-remains-secret-and-this-is-how-they-want-it-154364">More than half of funding for the major parties remains secret — and this is how they want it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Despite consistent calls for donations reform from many minor parties and independents over more than a decade, the major parties continue to resist greater transparency. </p>
<p>The federal Coalition has a <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/whos-in-the-room/">terrible track record</a> on transparency. Meanwhile, Labor may have proposed <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-pushing-to-make-political-parties-disclose-donations-over-1000-20191126-p53edm.html">lowering</a> the donations disclosure threshold, but it has failed to put any pressure on the government to close loopholes and make the data more timely.</p>
<p>However, there is some hope for reform. Many independents and minor parties will be campaigning on integrity issues in the 2022 election, and this could force pre-election commitments from the major parties. If crossbenchers end up with the balance of power after the election, they are likely to demand much greater transparency from the next government.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/176129/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute's activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Owain Emslie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Australian Electoral Commission has released parties’ financial disclosures for 2020-21. But our picture of what is going on with political funding in Australia is still woefully inadequate.Kate Griffiths, Deputy Program Director, Grattan InstituteOwain Emslie, Senior Associate, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1648412021-08-13T12:28:07Z2021-08-13T12:28:07ZWomen make fewer political donations and risk being ignored by elected officials<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415717/original/file-20210811-21-1544jms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=42%2C0%2C4679%2C3102&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">From 2001 to 2020, female donors accounted for 23% of all general election contributions in statewide races while men accounted for 77%. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/close-up-of-hand-holding-paper-currency-against-red-royalty-free-image/1195597555?adppopup=true">Mykola Sosiukin / EyeEm via GettyImages</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Candidates ignore female voters at their peril: <a href="https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/voters/turnout">Women have outvoted men</a> since 1980. <a href="https://cawp.rutgers.edu/census-data-voter-turnout">Census data</a> shows that nearly 10 million more women than men cast ballots in the 2020 elections.</p>
<p>But when it comes to another form of political participation – giving money to candidates – it’s men who take the lead. <a href="https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/money-matters-in-the-states.pdf">We found that</a> men gave more money than women to candidates in statewide elections for executive offices such as attorney general and secretary of state, between 2001 and 2020. </p>
<p>We found that men contribute more financially overall in statewide races, creating a large gender gap in political voice. This disparity exists in primary and general elections, across both political parties, and is seen in the most recent election cycle from 2017 to 2021.</p>
<p>Political contributions do not guarantee victory or political influence. However, helping candidates win through campaign contributions is a way to influence their policies once they’re in office. Indeed, some political science <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2018.1518965">research</a> finds that elected officials are more responsive to their donors than to other Americans. </p>
<p>So while candidates may court women’s votes on the campaign trail, they may be less interested in women’s priorities once elected.</p>
<h2>Party differences</h2>
<p>State officeholders attract less public attention than the president and members of Congress, but we studied these races because the work of these officeholders has profound effects on people’s lives. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/election-administration-at-state-and-local-levels.aspx">Secretaries of state</a>, for example, administer state voting laws and elections, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/565657-new-spotlight-on-secretaries-of-state-as-electoral-battlegrounds">an increasingly high-profile and controversial role</a>. <a href="https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/why-state-attorneys-general-races-are-the-next-frontier-for-out-of-state-influence/">State attorneys general</a> make sure state laws are enforced. And they often work together to collectively challenge <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/496425-white-house-sticks-with-coalition-of-ags-fighting-to-overturn-obamacare">federal policies from Obamacare</a> to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/18-attorneys-general-support-challenge-trump-rule-expanding-rapid-deportations-n1045356">immigration</a>. A state’s elections are consequential both inside and beyond its boundaries.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415719/original/file-20210811-15-giiyxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="sectary of state behind a lectern and microphones" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415719/original/file-20210811-15-giiyxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415719/original/file-20210811-15-giiyxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415719/original/file-20210811-15-giiyxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415719/original/file-20210811-15-giiyxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415719/original/file-20210811-15-giiyxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415719/original/file-20210811-15-giiyxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415719/original/file-20210811-15-giiyxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger holding a press conference on the status of ballot counting on Nov. 6, 2020, in Atlanta, Georgia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/georgia-secretary-of-state-ben-raffensperger-holds-a-press-news-photo/1229492029?adppopup=true">Jessica McGowan/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our study, done in <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/">collaboration with OpenSecrets</a>, a nonpartisan research organization that tracks money in politics, found that from 2001 to 2020, female donors gave just 23% of general election contributions in statewide races for offices such as attorney general and secretary of state. Men donated 77%. </p>
<p>These results <a href="https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/cawp_money_politics_race-for-governor.pdf">echo our companion report</a> on gubernatorial elections. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09619-0">Other scholars</a> who estimate both the race and gender of donors find that women of color represent the smallest percentage of donors. </p>
<p>The gender gap is not symmetric across the two major political parties. Women are a larger percentage of contributors to Democrats than Republicans in statewide races for offices such as attorney general and secretary of state, as is the case in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1065912909333131">congressional</a> and <a href="https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/cawp_money_politics_race-for-governor.pdf">gubernatorial</a> races. </p>
<p>In some of the primary contests we examined, women are at parity with men as a proportion of contributors to Democrats. But overall, women constitute fewer than half of donors and provide less than half of the money raised by Democratic statewide candidates. </p>
<h2>Implications for female candidates</h2>
<p>We find that winners usually raise more money than their opponents, confirming that money matters. </p>
<p>The underrepresentation of female donors may contribute to the underrepresentation of women among <a href="https://cawp.rutgers.edu/women-statewide-elective-executive-office-2021">statewide elected officials</a>. Because women disproportionately give to female statewide executive candidates, the low percentage of women among donors disproportionately harms female candidates: More female donors means more resources for female candidates.</p>
<p>Resources are especially scarce for candidates who are women of color. There is a dearth of <a href="https://genderpolicyreport.umn.edu/waiting-for-women-of-color-governors/">women of color</a> in statewide executive positions, despite the election of Vice President Kamala Harris and record-setting numbers of women of color serving in <a href="https://cawp.rutgers.edu/fact-sheets-women-color">Congress</a> and <a href="https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/press-release-women-of-color-st-leg.pdf">state legislatures</a>. No Black woman or Native American woman has ever won the office of governor in any state. Our research finds that women of color are raising less than white female candidates and that they are much less likely to seek statewide office. </p>
<p>The current number of female governors – eight – is one less than the historic high, <a href="https://cawp.rutgers.edu/history-women-governors">first achieved in 2004</a>. Without any major-party women among gubernatorial nominees in the <a href="https://cawp.rutgers.edu/election-2021-women-candidates-statewide-state-leg">two states</a> with elections in 2021, no women will be elected governor this year. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415902/original/file-20210812-14-1m44148.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Letitia James, New York attorney general, standing at a lectern, talking into a microphone, with a U.S. flag behind her." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415902/original/file-20210812-14-1m44148.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415902/original/file-20210812-14-1m44148.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415902/original/file-20210812-14-1m44148.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415902/original/file-20210812-14-1m44148.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415902/original/file-20210812-14-1m44148.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415902/original/file-20210812-14-1m44148.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415902/original/file-20210812-14-1m44148.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">New York Attorney General Letitia James announces a lawsuit to dissolve the NRA on Aug. 6, 2020, in New York City.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/new-york-state-attorney-general-letitia-james-speaks-during-news-photo/1264324698?adppopup=true">Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Both of our reports show that female statewide executive candidates are less likely to finance their own campaigns and that women raise more money from small contributions than men. These differences likely mean that fundraising is more difficult for statewide executive candidates who are women. </p>
<p>According to several <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgQLgwgH6DNZAXUC0PlbwN9EPM0dR0L_I">female statewide candidates and political practitioners</a> we interviewed, men are more likely than women to have personal relationships with wealthy donors and access to networks of contributors; and donors and other political gatekeepers may believe, falsely, that women – particularly women of color – won’t be successful candidates, making fundraising harder for them.</p>
<p><a href="https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190265144.001.0001/oso-9780190265144-chapter-4">Research</a> shows that women have closed many long-standing political participation gaps such as volunteering in campaigns and contacting public officials. Gains in women’s educational and labor force opportunities have expanded women’s personal resources in terms of income and civic skills, facilitating women’s political giving. And women’s organizations and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgQLgwgH6DNZAXUC0PlbwN9EPM0dR0L_I">networks</a> such as <a href="https://emilyslist.org/">EMILY’s List</a>, <a href="https://viewpac.org/">View PAC</a> and <a href="https://www.higherheightsforamericapac.org/">Higher Heights</a> have mobilized women to donate on a regular basis. <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/12/women-ran-won-donate-record-numbers-2020-nimp">Recent elections</a>, including those in <a href="https://fairvote.app.box.com/s/19kj1faa8ofy9vy69cq09s42f3hanq0d">2018</a>, saw an increase in <a href="https://www.representwomen.org/">female donors</a> </p>
<p>With the persistence of inequalities in earnings due to gender and race, and challenges wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, the future of women’s giving is unclear. But as the <a href="https://cawp.rutgers.edu/election-2022-potential-women-candidates">2022 election</a> unfolds, observers can watch for whether women give – and not just whether women run.</p>
<p>[<em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/politics-weekly-74/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=politics-important">Get The Conversation’s most important politics headlines, in our Politics Weekly newsletter</a>.</em>]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/164841/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) acknowledges the support of Pivotal Ventures for making this research possible. Pivotal Ventures is an investment and incubation company founded by Melinda French Gates.</span></em></p>Men give more money than women to candidates in high-level statewide elections. Money can equal political influence, so that may lead candidates to be less interested in women’s issues once elected.Kira Sanbonmatsu, Professor of Political Science and Senior Scholar, Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers UniversityClaire Gothreau, Research Associate at the Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1555312021-03-16T16:27:50Z2021-03-16T16:27:50ZDonald Trump: social media ban shows corporate responsibility can win out over profit<p>Following the January riot at the US Capitol in Washington, tech giants moved rapidly to “de-platform” Donald Trump, in a move that could well have hurt more than any impeachment could have. Social media was a key tool for the former US president who would use it to unceremoniously <a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2018/0313/947109-donald-trump/">fire personnel</a>, settle scores – even threaten war, as he famously did in 2017 in response to North Korean nuclear weapons tests when he tweeted that the US was “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/world/asia/trump-north-korea-locked-and-loaded.html">locked and loaded</a>”.</p>
<p>All the signs are that he wants to maintain his hold over large sections of the Republican Party, but he’ll struggle without the help of Big Tech. And there’s no sign yet that the social media giants are planning to roll back on their bans. Despite what a drawcard the former president undoubtedly is, platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have clearly come to the conclusion that his brand of incendiary rhetoric is simply too dangerous – for the country and for their brands.</p>
<p>Within two days of the Capitol riots, Twitter released a <a href="https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html">detailed statement</a> to explain its ban: Trump had breached the company’s <a href="https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorification-of-violence">glorification of violence</a> policy in two specific tweets sent after the riots. One, in which Trump informed his followers that he wouldn’t be attending Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20, “may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a "safe” target, as he will not be attending", it said.</p>
<p>Other tech giants responded in a similar way by disabling platforms associated with Trump. Facebook suspended Trump’s profile <a href="https://www.axios.com/trump-facebook-capitol-7772583f-1d1a-480a-adbd-36c22710b203.html">indefinitely</a> pending the outcome of a <a href="https://www.axios.com/review-of-trump-ban-marks-major-turning-point-for-facebook-4a18e219-d471-4e77-ae5e-5f55a01ac2a1.html">review</a> by its new oversight board. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://oversightboard.com/news/175638774325447-announcing-the-oversight-board-s-next-cases/">five-member panel</a> has begun its review of Trump’s suspension. This is likely to be the board’s most significant review since it commenced work in October 2020. That’s partly due to Trump’s profile – but mostly because its decision (which will be binding on Facebook) will have implications for how the platform responds to political speech going forward. Its decision will be published <a href="https://oversightboard.com/decision/">here</a>.</p>
<p>Google, which also owns YouTube, suspended Trump’s YouTube channel – initially for seven days “<a href="https://twitter.com/YouTubeInsider/status/1349205689395245056">minimum</a>”, but the suspension was subsequently made “indefinite” due to “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/26/youtube-trump-ban-suspension">concerns about the ongoing potential for violence</a>”.</p>
<p>Big Tech is notoriously slow to crack down on incendiary contributors – perhaps because it’s in their financial interest to maintain the status quo. Certainly, the fact that Twitter’s <a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0111/1188989-twitter-shares-slump-after-trump-suspension-decision/">share price slumped</a> after Trump’s removal suggests that he and others like him are valuable assets for these platforms and that it’s in their interests to hang on to these assets, even if that means hosting contributors that fray societal cohesion, threaten democracy and ultimately lead to the type of violence that engulfed the Capitol.</p>
<h2>Don’t blame the shareholders</h2>
<p>Corporations regularly become embroiled in controversial situations, but it’s not just hosting divisive characters on your social media platform that gives rise to controversy. There are plenty of examples of enterprises that make the most of tax loopholes or exploit “<a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/01/18/whats-wrong-with-the-way-we-work">gig workers</a>”. You’ll often hear them blaming the “profit-maximising shareholders” and claiming that they are obliged to take these tough decisions to maximise shareholder wealth. </p>
<p>This is simply not true. In fact, most corporate law frameworks around the world allow management to decide whose interests they’ll prioritise in making decisions. They could prioritise employees’ interests, those of the environment and society at large or they could prioritise shareholders’ interests. The point is that they don’t have to prioritise the latter.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Billboard with the thumbs-up icon at Facebook HQ in Menlo Park, California." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389842/original/file-20210316-15-bbm89i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389842/original/file-20210316-15-bbm89i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389842/original/file-20210316-15-bbm89i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389842/original/file-20210316-15-bbm89i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389842/original/file-20210316-15-bbm89i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389842/original/file-20210316-15-bbm89i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389842/original/file-20210316-15-bbm89i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It was thumbs down for Donald Trump after the Capitol riots in January.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">achinthamb via Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is certainly the case for Big Tech. All of the tech firms referred to above – <a href="https://investor.twitterinc.com/contact/faq/default.aspx">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_downloads/governance_documents/FB_CertificateOfIncorporation.pdf">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://abc.xyz/investor/other/certificate-of-incorporation/">Google</a> – are incorporated in the US state of Delaware. The significance of Delaware is that its courts have recognised that management have discretion to pursue interests other than shareholder wealth maximisation.</p>
<p>So, if these tech firms decide to reinstate the accounts of Trump and his acolytes having realised that his removal is hurting their bottom line, don’t believe them if they say, “The shareholders made us do it.” From a corporate law perspective, the power rests with the chief executives.</p>
<p>It’s up to these businesses whether they host Trump and others like him because he attracts the <a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0111/1188989-twitter-shares-slump-after-trump-suspension-decision/">eyeballs</a> and thus the money – just as it’s up to them whether they remove incendiary contributors in the interests of social harmony.</p>
<p>You could reasonably argue “de-platforming” incendiary or divisive voices has a chilling effect on free speech (regardless of what it does for a social media platform’s bottom line). But, perhaps more important is that by taking steps to detoxify the worst content, social media companies are finally recognising their potential impact on democracy – and the responsibility that comes with it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/155531/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael James Boland receives funding from the Irish Research Council.</span></em></p>When social media platforms banned Donald Trump they acknowledged that sometimes social good is more important than shareholder profits.Michael James Boland, PhD Researcher, IRC Government of Ireland Scholar, University College CorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1543642021-02-01T03:07:45Z2021-02-01T03:07:45ZMore than half of funding for the major parties remains secret — and this is how they want it<p>Political parties in Australia collectively received $168 million in donations for the financial year 2019-20. Today, Australians finally get to see where some of the money came from with the release of data from the <a href="https://transparency.aec.gov.au/Download">Australian Electoral Commission</a>. </p>
<p>While the big donors will make the headlines, they are only the tip of the iceberg. More than half of the funding for political parties remains hidden from public view. And that is exactly how the major parties want it. </p>
<h2>What does the data tell us?</h2>
<p>The Coalition and Labor received more in donations than all other parties combined. The Coalition received 41% of all funds (or A$69 million), while Labor received 33% ($55 million). The Greens came a distant third at 11% ($19 million), bumping Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party out of the position it held during the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-big-money-influenced-the-2019-federal-election-and-what-we-can-do-to-fix-the-system-131141">2019 election</a>. </p>
<p>The largest 5% of donors accounted for half of declared donations. For the second year in a row, the largest individual declared donation was made by Palmer’s company Mineralogy, which gave $5.9 million to his own party. </p>
<hr>
<hr>
<p>The Coalition’s largest donor, <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/major-party-finances-dive-millions-during-covid/news-story/65afa0900e745066340a34a482135082">Richard Pratt’s Pratt Holdings</a>, donated $1.5 million. Other major donations to the Coalition included the <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/02/04/political-donors-unknown/">Greenfields Foundation</a> ($450,000), an investment company linked to the Liberal Party; and <a href="https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-business-journal/enigmatic-chinese-businesswoman-sally-zou-has-registered-an-ethereal-new-company/news-story/62b376be3f531634e4e520db8435b528">Transcendent Australia</a> ($203,000), a company owned by Chinese businesswoman <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-12/businesswoman-sally-zou-places-ausgold-into-administration/11405672">Sally Zou</a>.</p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, many of Labor’s largest donors are unions, led by the <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/02/01/shoppies-united-voice-labors-reliable-funders/">“Shoppies” union</a> (the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association, or SDA), which donated almost $500,000. Labor also received large donations from fundraising vehicles associated with the party, including <a href="https://transparency.aec.gov.au/AnnualClientEntity/EntityDetail?clientFileId=1156">Labor Holdings Pty Ltd</a>, which donated $910,000.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/eight-ways-to-clean-up-money-in-australian-politics-59453">Eight ways to clean up money in Australian politics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Other large donors are bipartisan givers. The <a href="https://aha.org.au/">Australian Hotels Association</a> gave $154,000 to the Coalition and $271,000 to Labor. <a href="https://www.woodside.com.au/">Woodside Energy</a> gave $198,000 to the Coalition and $138,000 to Labor. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.macquarie.com/au/en/about.html">Macquarie Group</a> gave $139,000 to the Coalition and $113,000 to Labor, while <a href="https://macquarietelecomgroup.com/">Macquarie Telecom</a> gave $115,000 to the Coalition and $71,000 to Labor. And <a href="https://www.anz.com.au/about-us/esg/our-approach/public-policy-advocacy/">ANZ</a> continued its regular donations to both sides with $100,000 each.</p>
<p>Total donations were smaller than the previous year (an election year). But those who donate “off-cycle” can still have substantial influence, whether they are political devotees, or playing the “long game” of using donations to <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/whos-in-the-room/">open doors and wield political influence</a>.</p>
<h2>But a lot of the money remains hidden from public view</h2>
<p>Declared donations are only a fraction of the total money flowing to our political parties. </p>
<p>Out of $168 million in party funding, only $15 million of donations were declared (or just 9%). Another $59 million — around one-third — is public funding provided by electoral commissions. </p>
<p>The rest? A murky combination of undeclared donations and a messy bucket of funds called “other receipts”, which includes everything from investment income to money raised at political fundraising dinners. This chart shows the breakdown for the two major parties. </p>
<hr>
<hr>
<p>More than half of the Coalition’s private funding is undisclosed, and 40% of Labor’s funds. This rises to about 90% across both parties when other receipts are included. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1356018574905671680"}"></div></p>
<h2>The major parties want it this way</h2>
<p>The Commonwealth donations disclosure regime is incredibly weak compared to almost all Australian states and most other advanced nations. Let’s be clear: this is a political choice backed in by the major parties. </p>
<p>In December, both major parties rejected a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1244">bill</a> introduced by crossbench Senator Jacqui Lambie to improve transparency of political donations. It wasn’t revolutionary — the bill didn’t ban donors, or limit donations, or restrict what parties could do with donations. It simply proposed giving the public more and better information on the major donors, including: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>requiring donations over $5,000 to be declared by the parties (the current threshold is $14,300) </p></li>
<li><p>stopping “donations splitting”, in which a major donor can hide by splitting a big donation into a series of small ones</p></li>
<li><p>making income from political fundraising events declarable</p></li>
<li><p>publishing data about donations within weeks (rather than the current eight to 19 months). </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Yet, the bill was whitewashed. The committee <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Finance_and_Public_Administration/ElectrolDonation2020/Report">rejected it</a> on the basis that “there is already an effective regime in place”. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1355984428896559106"}"></div></p>
<h2>Our current system doesn’t have the balance right</h2>
<p>The Commonwealth donations disclosure regime is supposed to <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/financial_disclosure/">provide transparency</a> and to “inform the public about the financial dealings of political parties, candidates and others involved in the electoral process”. But it clearly does not deliver on this in its current form.</p>
<p>There is a balance to be drawn between the interests of donors in protecting their privacy and the interests of the public in knowing who funds and influences political parties. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-full-ban-on-political-donations-would-level-the-playing-field-but-is-it-the-best-approach-81821">A full ban on political donations would level the playing field – but is it the best approach?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But it is very hard to see how the current system – which keeps the majority of private money out of public view and unnecessarily delays the release of all donation data – has got the balance right. </p>
<p>A good disclosure system would close the loopholes that allow major donors to hide, while protecting the privacy of small donors.</p>
<p>Australians consistently say that they are suspicious that politicians are corrupt and that governments serve themselves and their mates rather than the public interest. Perhaps they’re right. Today’s donations release reminds us of the shortfalls of a system designed for donor and party interests over the public interest. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>Update: This article has been amended since publication to provide separate donation totals for Macquarie Group and Macquarie Telecom.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/154364/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute's activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Danielle Wood and Tom Crowley do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A good political donation disclosure system would close the loopholes that allow major donors to hide, while protecting the privacy of small donors.Kate Griffiths, Fellow, Grattan InstituteDanielle Wood, Chief executive officer, Grattan InstituteTom Crowley, Associate, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1491712020-11-04T01:35:44Z2020-11-04T01:35:44ZFederal parliament just weakened political donations laws while you weren’t watching<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367347/original/file-20201103-19-e27hhz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>While Australians were distracted last week by Melbourne’s lockdown ending and the final days of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-peat-palaszczuk-why-queenslanders-swung-behind-labor-in-historic-election-149076">Queensland</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-day-is-finally-here-in-the-us-heres-what-to-expect-148998">United States elections</a>, both major parties joined forces in federal parliament to weaken political donations laws.</p>
<p>This will make it easier for federal politicians to accept secret donations from property developers.</p>
<h2>What’s the backstory?</h2>
<p>In 2019, the High Court <a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2019/15.html">upheld</a> Queensland laws <a href="https://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/donations-and-gift-disclosure/prohibited-donors-scheme">banning property developers</a> from making donations to political parties. The ban was introduced by the Palaszczuk government after a <a href="https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/property-developer-donation-ban-to-take-effect-from-today-20171012-p4ywfr.html">recommendation</a> by the state’s Crime and Corruption Commission.</p>
<p>The Queensland ban applies to donations made to state and local political campaigns as well as general donations to political parties. A general donation might be used for federal, state or local political purposes or for the costs of running a party.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fundraising-questions-have-interrupted-the-queensland-lnps-election-campaign-what-does-the-law-say-147992">Fundraising questions have interrupted the Queensland LNP's election campaign. What does the law say?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>At the same time, the High Court also struck down a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/apr/17/high-court-closes-loophole-that-would-have-allowed-developer-donations-in-federal-election">2018 federal law</a> that said property developers could ignore state laws banning them from making general donations to political parties. (Yes — federal parliament really did pass a law <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/15/bipartisan-push-to-ban-foreign-political-donations-now-at-risk">overriding state anti-corruption</a>powers!). The High Court said federal parliament has no power to regulate political donations that merely “might be” used for federal campaigns. </p>
<p>Property developers are also banned from making political donations in <a href="https://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/Funding-and-disclosure/Political-donations/Unlawful-political-donations/Prohibited-donors">New South Wales</a> and the <a href="https://www.cmtedd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/gordon-ramsay-mla-media-releases/2020/property-developer-donations-to-political-parties-banned-in-the-act">ACT</a>.</p>
<h2>Allowing secret donations from dodgy donors</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1260">legislation</a> passed last week overrides state bans on property developer donations in two ways.</p>
<p>First, the legislation introduces a new provision to replace the 2018 federal law struck down by the High Court. This new provision allows property developers (and others banned from making donations under state laws) to ignore state laws banning them from making political donation where the donation is “for federal purposes”. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="High Court, with Parliament House in background." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367348/original/file-20201103-19-1vteh5r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367348/original/file-20201103-19-1vteh5r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367348/original/file-20201103-19-1vteh5r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367348/original/file-20201103-19-1vteh5r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367348/original/file-20201103-19-1vteh5r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367348/original/file-20201103-19-1vteh5r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367348/original/file-20201103-19-1vteh5r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The High Court struck down a federal law on donations in 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Second, the legislation allows property developers and political parties to ignore state laws requiring that donations be disclosed. In NSW and Queensland, donations of <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1819/Quick_Guides/ElectionFundingStates">$1,000 or more</a> need to be disclosed. Under the new federal law, only donations of <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/public_funding/threshold.htm">$14,300 or more</a> made by property developers “for federal purposes” need to be disclosed. </p>
<p>The explanation given for the new laws is that state laws shouldn’t apply to federal donations.</p>
<p>According to Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, the new laws “better clarify” the interaction between federal and state electoral laws.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The revised provisions ensure that federal law only applies exclusively to donations that are expressly for federal purposes, while fully respecting the application of state laws to amounts used for state purposes. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Labor’s Don Farrell, who is shadow Special Minister of State, told the Senate,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>it’s not Labor’s intention in any way to weaken any of those provisions already in place in the states, but the Commonwealth parliament should be able to make laws with respect to Commonwealth elections, and those laws should not be overridden by the states.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Why this is bad for integrity</h2>
<p>If you are a property developer wanting to curry favour with the NSW Labor Party or the Queensland Liberal National Party, you are now allowed to make a donation of $14,299 and no one will ever know. All you need to do is tell the party the money is “for federal purposes”. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1321631222284496896"}"></div></p>
<p>While the law requires parties to keep money donated “for federal purposes” in separate bank accounts, a donation “for federal purposes” frees up money from other, general donations to be used for state purposes.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/30/its-not-that-theres-no-time-for-a-federal-icac-theres-simply-no-will">Greens</a> and independent MPs <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F401a8e85-65d0-4704-8cfc-ef351b7cb8b6%2F0020%22">lined up to criticise</a> the new law.
As member for Indi, Helen Haines told parliament </p>
<blockquote>
<p>this bill locks in the status quo when it comes to the current political donations culture at the federal level.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Meanwhile, Tasmanian lower house MP Andrew Wilkie <a href="https://twitter.com/WilkieMP/status/1321631222284496896">described</a> the law as allowing “brazen money laundering”. Senator Jacqui Lambie <a href="https://www.lambienetwork.com.au/hidepoliticaldonations">said</a> the law was “a doozy” of a way “to hide big donor money from the voters” and “the latest in a long line of betrayals of the public’s trust”.</p>
<h2>Federal integrity laws are too weak</h2>
<p>Federal parliament had an opportunity to introduce better federal political transparency measures. They could have <a href="https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6773405/proposal-to-lower-donations-disclosure-cap-rejected/">lowered</a> the federal donations disclosure threshold so the public knows where federal politicians get their money. They could have introduced <a href="https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/09/16/mps-donation-disclosure/">real-time reporting</a> of donations so the public doesn’t have to wait until after each election to find out the identities of the biggest donors. </p>
<p>Labor has <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff66ddb49-e0bd-4a17-a197-4a5d525d0d0c%2F0020%22">introduced bills</a> on both these measures. Instead of dealing with those, both major parties took the time and effort to override state anti-corruption laws.</p>
<p>To add icing on top, the Morrison government has now released a draft bill for a <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-the-proposed-commonwealth-integrity-commission-and-how-would-it-work-140734">federal integrity commission</a> with proposed powers so much weaker than existing state anti-corruption commissions that a former judge called it a “<a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/draft-law-brings-national-corruption-watchdog-a-step-closer-20201102-p56arh.html">feather duster</a>”.</p>
<p>Australians deserve much better than this.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-the-proposed-commonwealth-integrity-commission-and-how-would-it-work-140734">Explainer: what is the proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission and how would it work?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149171/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Beck is a member of the Australian Labor Party.</span></em></p>Last week, the Coalition and Labor passed laws that make it easier for property developers to make political donations.Luke Beck, Associate Professor of Constitutional Law, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1479922020-10-14T01:21:52Z2020-10-14T01:21:52ZFundraising questions have interrupted the Queensland LNP’s election campaign. What does the law say?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363293/original/file-20201013-15-vbob0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=75%2C179%2C2260%2C1421&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dan Peled/ AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Liberal National Party has referred some of its own fundraising activities to the Electoral Commission of Queensland (ECQ). </p>
<p>As <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-13/lnp-crisis-as-deb-frecklington-referred-to-election-watchdog/12748400">the ABC reported</a> on Tuesday, this implicates its own parliamentary leader, Deb Frecklington. </p>
<p>Why would a party administration raise concerns with the electoral authorities? The timing of these revelations — in the midst of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/queenslands-unpredictable-election-begins-expect-a-close-campaign-focused-on-3-questions-146927">tight election campaign</a> — is a problem in itself.</p>
<p>To understand the law behind this, we need to think about two things. The first is the <a href="https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/property-developer-donation-ban-to-take-effect-from-today-20171012-p4ywfr.html">strict rules</a> against electoral donations by property developers. The second is the investigatory power and processes that can be brought to bear.</p>
<p>Yet in many ways, the politics behind all this are at least as curious as any legal implications.</p>
<h2>What is the story?</h2>
<p>The ABC reported the LNP leader <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-13/lnp-crisis-as-deb-frecklington-referred-to-election-watchdog/12748400">attended private events</a> earlier this year, where property developers were also present.</p>
<p>Frecklington, for her part, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-13/deb-frecklington-denies-wrongdoing-in-face-of-allegations/12761180?nw=0">denies any wrongdoing</a>. And an <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-13/lnp-crisis-as-deb-frecklington-referred-to-election-watchdog/12748400">LNP spokesperson</a> said </p>
<blockquote>
<p>the ABC’s allegation that the LNP has referred Deb Frecklington to the ECQ is false. It has not. The LNP regularly communicates with the ECQ to ensure that we comply with the act.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Inquiries, to date, have not exposed evidence of forbidden developer money in the mix, just of developers attending small gatherings at which Frecklington was a guest and which were treated by others as political fundraisers. </p>
<p>There is also an allegation that, behind the scenes, people may have considered trying to give money <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-13/lnp-crisis-as-deb-frecklington-referred-to-election-watchdog/12748400">indirectly</a>.</p>
<h2>What is the ban on property developers?</h2>
<p>Why would this be a problem? </p>
<p>Property developers are “<a href="https://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/donations-and-gift-disclosure/prohibited-donors-scheme">prohibited donors</a>” in Queensland. There is a ban on registered political parties, candidates and electoral groups receiving donations (whether gifts of money, or unpaid-for-resources) from any company that makes property development applications, their directors or close associates. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/remember-quexit-5-reasons-you-should-not-take-your-eyes-off-the-queensland-election-146926">Remember Quexit? 5 reasons you should not take your eyes off the Queensland election</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Property industry organisations are also prohibited donors.</p>
<p>A developer who makes such a donation — directly or through a conduit — commits an offence, punishable by up to two years in jail. So too do party agents, if they solicit such donations. The party must disgorge twice the amount of the donation if they know the donor is prohibited.</p>
<p>Above all, if people connive to try to get around the ban on developer donations, each may be guilty of a serious crime, punishable by up to ten years in jail.</p>
<h2>Why is there a ban?</h2>
<p>In 2018, the Palaszczuk government introduced the ban on property developer donations. So these <a href="https://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/donations-and-gift-disclosure/prohibited-donors-scheme">offences</a> are not long established in Queensland. Nor did they originate in the state. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk in parliament." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363295/original/file-20201013-24-172957w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363295/original/file-20201013-24-172957w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363295/original/file-20201013-24-172957w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363295/original/file-20201013-24-172957w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363295/original/file-20201013-24-172957w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363295/original/file-20201013-24-172957w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363295/original/file-20201013-24-172957w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Palaszczuk Government introduced a ban on donations from developers in 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dan Peled/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>NSW has had such a ban on property developers donating since 2010. In 2014, an anti-corruption commission inquiry “Operation Spicer” <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/icac-craig-baumann-becomes-10th-nsw-liberal-mp-to-join-crossbench-after-accusations-of-taking-secret-donations-20140912-10fu12.html">brought down numerous state MPs</a> over donations from developers. </p>
<p>The High Court has upheld such bans <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-17/high-court-decision-property-developer-spence-challenge/11020604">twice</a>. <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-mccloy-case-high-court-finally-embraces-political-equality-ahead-of-political-freedom-48746">It reasons</a> the bans are compatible with freedom of political communication. It also argues they are a rational anti-corruption measure and developers are still free to join parties and to campaign in their own name. </p>
<p>Above all, liberty needs to be tempered by an idea of fairness, which the <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-mccloy-case-high-court-finally-embraces-political-equality-ahead-of-political-freedom-48746">High Court calls</a> the “equality of opportunity to participate politically”. </p>
<p>Wealth buys a lot of things, but it’s not meant to buy political influence, let alone power.</p>
<h2>What happens if property developers donate anyway?</h2>
<p>Political finance affairs often involve an intricate money trail and take many months to plumb. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-big-money-influenced-the-2019-federal-election-and-what-we-can-do-to-fix-the-system-131141">How big money influenced the 2019 federal election – and what we can do to fix the system</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The <a href="https://www.ccc.qld.gov.au">Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission</a> does not have a broad remit over electoral law. It may only lawfully investigate a matter if there is a suspicion of wrongdoing affecting public officials. </p>
<p>For its coercive powers, or public hearings, to be brought to bear, there has to be more than electoral donations at stake.</p>
<p>The Electoral Commission of Queensland, however, has wide new powers. These include <a href="https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1992-028#pt.11-div.15">entering premises with a warrant</a> and the ability to demand records and to obtain statements. That said, it cannot require someone to give a statement incriminating themselves. </p>
<h2>What’s the politics?</h2>
<p>Beyond the law, what is the politics behind all this? </p>
<p>The macro politics is simple. The LNP <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/30/developer-donation-ban-discriminates-against-lnp-court-told">strongly opposes</a> bans on developer donations. They see them as illiberal and unfairly aimed at an industry that happens to be tight with the party and its ideology. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/queenslands-unpredictable-election-begins-expect-a-close-campaign-focused-on-3-questions-146927">Queensland's unpredictable election begins. Expect a close campaign focused on 3 questions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Queensland Labor and the Greens support the law, pointing to a 2017 <a href="https://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/public-hearings/operation-belcarra-reforming-local-government-queensland">Crime and Corruption Commission report</a> recommending such a ban for local government politics. </p>
<p>The Palaszczuk government extended that recommendation to <a href="https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/queensland-s-property-developer-donation-ban-is-valid-20190417-p51exb.html">all of state politics</a>. Its rationale was development projects and Crown land use are often matters of state policy, just as zoning issues and particular development applications are matters for local government.</p>
<h2>Internal politics also at play</h2>
<p>What of the micro, or internal party, politics? Why would the administrative wing of a party refer its own messy linen to an electoral commission? </p>
<p>One explanation is due diligence. The LNP <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-13/qld-deb-frecklington-defends-integrity-ecq-watchdog-referral/12759058">says the laws are complex</a> and it relies on the commission for advice. Another aspect is parties have two sides to them, which generate different ethical pressures.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="LNP leader Deb Frecklington" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363292/original/file-20201013-19-196tgv3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363292/original/file-20201013-19-196tgv3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363292/original/file-20201013-19-196tgv3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363292/original/file-20201013-19-196tgv3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363292/original/file-20201013-19-196tgv3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363292/original/file-20201013-19-196tgv3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363292/original/file-20201013-19-196tgv3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Queensland opposition leader Deb Frecklington has been in the job since 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dave Hunt/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Current politicians want to build networks of support and to win the next election. Party machines have a longer-term view and concern for their own reputation. </p>
<p>In this case, the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-13/lnp-crisis-as-deb-frecklington-referred-to-election-watchdog/12748400">ABC reports</a> the LNP’s administrative wing advised its MPs and leaders to avoid property developers including at “private” events. Frecklington either missed the memo, or didn’t care for that advice.</p>
<p>Shadowing all this is a history of tension between the LNP’s parliamentary leadership and its machine. Earlier this year, this <a href="https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/mass-exodus-at-lnp-headquarters-two-months-out-from-queensland-election-20200904-p55sm7.html">erupted through public fissures</a>, burning the administrative wing. </p>
<p>The conflict has been massaged and suppressed, in the lead up to the election. But as we have seen this week, it has not been fully resolved.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147992/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graeme Orr does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Week two of the Queensland election campaign has been rocked by integrity concerns.Graeme Orr, Professor of Law, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1311412020-02-04T03:36:23Z2020-02-04T03:36:23ZHow big money influenced the 2019 federal election – and what we can do to fix the system<p>Amid the ongoing bushfire and coronavirus crises – and the political kerfuffle surrounding the Nationals and Greens – you’d be forgiven for missing the annual <a href="https://transparency.aec.gov.au/Download">release of the federal political donations data</a> this week. </p>
<p>Nine months after the 2019 federal election, voters finally get a look at who funded the political parties’ campaigns.</p>
<p>The data reveals that big money matters in Australian elections more than ever, and donations are highly concentrated among a small number of powerful individuals, businesses and unions.</p>
<p>These are significant vulnerabilities in Australia’s democracy and reinforce why substantial reforms are needed to prevent wealthy interests from exercising too much influence in Australian politics.</p>
<h2>Largest donations in Australian political history</h2>
<p>The big story of the 2019 election was Clive Palmer, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/what-did-$84-million-buy-clive-palmer-in-the-last-election/11925090">who donated A$84 million</a> via his mining company Mineralogy to his own campaign – a figure that dwarfs all other donations as far back as the records go. The previous record – also held by Palmer – was A$15 million at the 2013 election.</p>
<p>While Palmer failed to win any seats last year, he ran a substantial <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/palmer-says-60m-spending-spree-was-worth-it-20190519-p51ox7">anti-Labor</a> advertising campaign, and <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-19/election-2019-clive-palmer-says-uap-ads-gave-coalition-win/11128160">claimed credit</a> for the Coalition’s victory. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/after-clive-palmers-60-million-campaign-limits-on-political-advertising-are-more-important-than-ever-117099">After Clive Palmer's $60 million campaign, limits on political advertising are more important than ever</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There are obviously many factors in an election win, but this raises a serious question: how much influence should we allow any single interest to hold over the national debate, especially during the critically important election period?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313453/original/file-20200204-41507-j9ebnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313453/original/file-20200204-41507-j9ebnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313453/original/file-20200204-41507-j9ebnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313453/original/file-20200204-41507-j9ebnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313453/original/file-20200204-41507-j9ebnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313453/original/file-20200204-41507-j9ebnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313453/original/file-20200204-41507-j9ebnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Grattan Institute</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Several other large donors also emerged at this election. A A$4 million donation to the Liberal Party from the company Sugolena, owned by a private investor and philanthropist, takes the prize for the largest-ever non-Palmer donation. </p>
<p>Businessman Anthony Pratt donated about A$1.5 million to each of the major parties through his paper and packaging company Pratt Holdings. The hotels lobby, which has been influential in preventing pokies reforms in past <a href="https://theconversation.com/tasmanias-gambling-election-shows-australia-needs-tougher-rules-on-money-in-politics-110977">state</a> and <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/whos-in-the-room/">federal</a> elections, also donated about A$500,000 to the Coalition and A$800,000 to Labor.</p>
<h2>Money buys access and sometimes influence</h2>
<p>A 2018 Grattan Institute report, <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/whos-in-the-room/">Who’s in the room? Access and influence in Australian politics</a>, showed how money can buy relationships and political connections. The political parties rely heavily on major donors, and as a result, major donors get significant access to ministers.</p>
<p>While explicit quid pro quo is probably rare, the risk is in more subtle influences – that donors get more access to policymakers and their views are given more weight. These risks are exacerbated by a <a href="https://theconversation.com/influence-in-australian-politics-needs-an-urgent-overhaul-heres-how-to-do-it-103535">lack of transparency</a> in dealings between policymakers and special interests.</p>
<p>Big money improves the chances of influence. But it also matters to election outcomes.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/mineral-wealth-clive-palmer-and-the-corruption-of-australian-politics-117248">Mineral wealth, Clive Palmer, and the corruption of Australian politics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Looking back at the past five federal elections, an interesting correlation is evident: the party with the biggest war chest tends to form government. </p>
<p>It’s only a sample of five, and it’s unclear whether higher spending drives the election result or donors simply get behind the party most likely to win. </p>
<p>But in 2019, Labor was widely expected to win, so its smaller war chest supports the proposition that money assists in delivering power.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313454/original/file-20200204-41485-1spp733.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313454/original/file-20200204-41485-1spp733.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313454/original/file-20200204-41485-1spp733.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313454/original/file-20200204-41485-1spp733.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313454/original/file-20200204-41485-1spp733.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313454/original/file-20200204-41485-1spp733.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313454/original/file-20200204-41485-1spp733.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Grattan Institute</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<h2>What policymakers should do to protect Australia’s democracy</h2>
<p>Money in politics needs to be better regulated to reduce the risk of interest groups “buying” influence – and elections.</p>
<p>Real transparency is the first step. Half of private funding remains hidden from public view due to Australia’s high disclosure threshold and loopholes in the federal donations rules.</p>
<p>Only donations of more than A$14,000 need to be on the public record, and political parties don’t have to aggregate multiple donations below the threshold from the same donor - meaning major donors can simply split their donations to hide their identity.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313455/original/file-20200204-41516-1qnz5of.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313455/original/file-20200204-41516-1qnz5of.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313455/original/file-20200204-41516-1qnz5of.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313455/original/file-20200204-41516-1qnz5of.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313455/original/file-20200204-41516-1qnz5of.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313455/original/file-20200204-41516-1qnz5of.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313455/original/file-20200204-41516-1qnz5of.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Grattan Institute</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>Parliament should improve the transparency of political donations by</p>
<ul>
<li><p>lowering the federal donations disclosure threshold to A$5,000, so all donations big enough to matter are on the public record;</p></li>
<li><p>requiring political parties to aggregate multiple donations from the same donor, so big donors can’t hide</p></li>
<li><p>requiring quicker release of donations data, so voters have information on who funds elections during the campaign – not nine months later.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>These simple rule changes would bring Australia’s federal political donations regime in line with most <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/state-orange-book-2018/">states</a> and <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/commonwealth-orange-book-2019/">OECD nations</a>. The current regime leaves voters in the dark.</p>
<p>But the donations data shows transparency is not enough to protect Australia’s democracy from the influence of a handful of wealthy individuals. Ultimately, to reduce the influence of money in politics, parliament should introduce an expenditure cap during election campaigns. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/eight-ways-to-clean-up-money-in-australian-politics-59453">Eight ways to clean up money in Australian politics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Parties and candidates can currently spend as much money as they can raise, so big money means greater capacity to sell your message to voters. </p>
<p><a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/whos-in-the-room/">Capping political expenditure</a> by political parties – and third parties – would reduce the influence of wealthy individuals. And it would reduce the donations “arms race” between the major parties, giving senior politicians more time to do their job instead of chasing dollars.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/131141/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute's activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Danielle Wood and Tony Chen do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The release of political donations data reveals the impact of wealthy individuals in the 2019 federal election campaign, as well as the importance of a sizeable war chest to claim power.Kate Griffiths, Fellow, Grattan InstituteDanielle Wood, Program Director, Budget Policy and Institutional Reform, Grattan InstituteTony Chen, Researcher, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1285342019-12-12T14:15:21Z2019-12-12T14:15:21ZHow Canada’s new election law has silenced political debate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306216/original/file-20191210-95115-d0oxdg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2964%2C1841&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People march during a climate strike in Montréal in September 2019. Climate change is a top concern for Canadians, but new Elections Canada rules left civil society organizations fearing they could not speak out on the need for climate action during the election. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Graham Hughes</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s almost 2020, and with a minority government in power, another federal election could be upon Canadians sooner than expected.</p>
<p>So as the dust settles on the 2019 vote, it’s important to examine the data on an issue that clouded the election campaign — the impact of new <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-canadas-environmental-charities-are-afraid-to-talk-about-climate-change-during-the-election-122114">Elections Canada regulations</a> on public debate by civil society organizations.</p>
<p>In June 2019, the federal government amended Canada’s <a href="https://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/E-2.01.pdf">Elections Act</a>. The rules require third parties, including non-profit groups, to register with Elections Canada if they spend more than $500 on “political advertising.” That includes any spending to promote positions during election campaigns on public policy issues on which political parties have taken a stand, or to support or oppose particular candidates and parties.</p>
<p>The new Elections Act also sets specific spending limits on third-party election advertising. </p>
<p>These changes to the Elections Act are important measures to prevent the type of unlimited spending by political action committees (PACs) that followed the <a href="https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2018/03/07/citizens-united-8-years-later/">Citizens United</a> decision by the United States Supreme Court in 2010. The court ruled that spending limits on third-party election advertising was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech.</p>
<p>Since 2010, what are known as <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?chrt=V&type=C">super-PACs</a> have subsequently become major players in American elections, enabling wealthy individuals to exert enormous political influence. Indeed, wealthy donors spent more than <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/11/1-4-billion-and-counting-in-spending-by-super-pacs-dark-money-groups/">US$1.4 billion</a> during the 2016 presidential election campaign. </p>
<h2>Silencing voices</h2>
<p>The new <a href="https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&document=index&dir=thi/ec20227&lang=e">Elections Canada regulations</a> impose spending limits on third parties ($1,023,400 in the pre-election period and $511,700 in the election period) and specific regulations against collusion between third parties that would prevent the type of unlimited spending by super-PACs in the United States.</p>
<p>However, the new Elections Canada regulations have also played a role in silencing the voices of many Canadian organizations on a wide range of public policy issues — from climate change to health care to international aid.</p>
<p>This chilling effect came into play most powerfully when Elections Canada indicated in a training session for non-profits that organizations with public policy positions on climate change would need to register and report on their spending, given that right-wing candidate Maxime Bernier had made <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environment-groups-warned-climate-change-real-partisan-1.5251763">public statements denying climate change</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1112677625619759105"}"></div></p>
<p>The silencing impact may not have been intentional, but it is very real and represents a threat to healthy public debate and democracy in Canada. Elections are important opportunities for Canadians to debate public policy, and it’s crucial that civil society groups are able to contribute to those debates. </p>
<p>On the surface, the new Elections Act appears to strike a balance between free speech and excessive influence by wealthy individuals and corporations. </p>
<p>The Elections Act does not prohibit civil society organizations from spending money to promote public policy positions. However, many organizations saw the requirement to register and report on spending as ominous — especially after the crackdown on charities carried out by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) under <a href="https://www.fasken.com/en/knowledge/2018/08/political-activities-of-charities-a-new-world/">Stephen Harper’s Conservative government</a>. </p>
<h2>Fears of another crackdown</h2>
<p>Justin Trudeau’s government made significant changes to the <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/charities/policies-guidance/public-policy-dialogue-development-activities.html?utm_source=stkhldrs&utm_medium=eml&utm_campaign=PPDDA">CRA regulations</a> in 2019 that allow charities to engage much more freely in public policy debates. But many Canadian civil society groups still worry that the federal government will crack down on organizations that criticize its policies. </p>
<p>The regulations also add bureaucratic headaches and expenses to non-profit organizations, many of which cannot afford to pay additional costs for participation in public policy debates. </p>
<p>Staff with many Canadian civil society groups have reported that their organizations did not speak out on public policy issues during the election campaign for fear they’d be penalized by Elections Canada or the CRA. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-canadas-environmental-charities-are-afraid-to-talk-about-climate-change-during-the-election-122114">Why Canada’s environmental charities are afraid to talk about climate change during the election</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The silencing effect is also clear in data from <a href="https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=fin&document=index&dir=oth/thi/advert/tp43&lang=e">Elections Canada</a>.</p>
<p>There are more than 175,000 registered non-profit and charitable organizations in Canada. Only 147 registered to report election advertising in 2019, only 50 reported spending more than $10,000 (the reporting threshold set by Elections Canada) and only two have charitable status. </p>
<h2>Climate change a key concern</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/Four-Weeks-In-Climate-Change-Fastest-Moving-Health-Care-Still-Top-Issue">Climate change</a> was a top concern for Canadians during the 2019 election campaign. However, <a href="https://johndcameron.com/data-on-ngo-advocacy-in-canada/">my analysis</a> of the Elections Canada data shows that only 17 environmental organizations registered, and only seven reported spending more than $10,000 (for a cumulative total of $634,307) during the election period. </p>
<p>Similarly, while Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer made Canada’s international aid an election issue by proposing to cut it by 25 per cent, only five international social justice organizations registered, and none of them reported spending over $10,000. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/Four-Weeks-In-Climate-Change-Fastest-Moving-Health-Care-Still-Top-Issue">Health care</a> is always an important issue to Canadians, but just one (the Canadian Medical Association) reported spending over $10,000.</p>
<p>The data suggests the new rules kept conservative groups quiet too. Only one gun rights organization reported any spending ($32,091) and just seven explicitly pro-Conservative organizations registered, spending a total of $690,922. As of Oct. 14, 2019 — a week before the election —the total reported by all organizations was just over $9.4 million. </p>
<p>Canada’s new Elections Act may have prevented the type of mammoth spending seen in the United States via super-PACs, but it’s been at the expense of silencing many Canadian organizations with important positions on public policy issues. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306211/original/file-20191210-95159-1tz8r4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306211/original/file-20191210-95159-1tz8r4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306211/original/file-20191210-95159-1tz8r4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306211/original/file-20191210-95159-1tz8r4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306211/original/file-20191210-95159-1tz8r4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306211/original/file-20191210-95159-1tz8r4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=546&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306211/original/file-20191210-95159-1tz8r4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=546&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306211/original/file-20191210-95159-1tz8r4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=546&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The $500 limit must be reviewed.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Elections Canada needs to do more to make sure that the new regulations do not block public policy debates. It should also review the $500 threshold for requiring organizations to register with Elections Canada. </p>
<p>With a minority government in Parliament, Canadians could soon head to the polls again, so there may not be much time to make these changes.</p>
<p><em>This is a corrected version of a story originally published Dec. 12, 2019. This version clarifies details about the amended Elections Act and corrects the number of health-sector organizations that registered with Elections Canada.</em></p>
<p>[ <em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/ca/newsletters?utm_source=TCCA&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/128534/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Cameron receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p>Canada’s new Elections Act may have prevented the type of mammoth election spending seen in the United States via super-PACs, but it’s been at the expense of public debate.John D. Cameron, Associate Professor, Department of International Development Studies, Dalhousie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1252092019-10-13T09:28:41Z2019-10-13T09:28:41ZLabor announces inquiry by former attorney-general Lavarch into scandal-ridden NSW head office<p>The ALP has announced an inquiry into the head office of the NSW ALP, after weeks of shocking revelations at the Independent Commission against Corruption about scandals in the handling of donations.</p>
<p>The review, announced by NSW opposition leader Jodi McKay and federal opposition leader Anthony Albanese will be led by Michael Lavarch - who was attorney-general in the Keating government - and will be in two stages.</p>
<p>The first stage will examine the roles, responsibilities and oversight of the NSW branch’s general secretary, with a report next month.</p>
<p>Evidence to ICAC has discredited the last two secretaries – Kaila Murnain, who was suspended during the ICAC hearings, and her predecessor Jamie Clements.</p>
<p>The ICAC inquiry has centred on a $100,000 cash donation before the 2015 state election. Allegedly it was delivered to the ALP headquarters in an Aldi shopping bag by Chinese property developer Huang Xiangmo, and its origin disguised by the use of false names. Donations from property developers are banned by NSW electoral law.</p>
<p>McKay said there had been “some shocking and appalling evidence” from the ICAC hearings. “Out of the ICAC inquiry it’s become obvious that there is far too much power vested in the general secretary,” she said, as well as there being a cultural problem in the head office.</p>
<p>The second part of the review will look at the head office’s mechanisms, processes and governance which, McKay said, “just seem to be lax and deficit right now”.</p>
<p>The broad-ranging review will examine the role and structure of the state administrative committee, fund raising activities and the reporting of donations.</p>
<p>“It is clear that we need to let the sun shine in to our head office”, McKay said, adding that she had been “distressed by the evidence that has emerged.</p>
<p>"It is no longer ‘whatever it takes’ [the title of the book by Graham Richardson, a one time NSW general secretary]. That ended a long time ago, but our head office has to reflect that. This is about accountability, transparency and honesty.</p>
<p>"It’s also about living up to the expectations of our thousands of decent party members and it’s about ensuring that people can have confidence in who we are as a party as we seek to rebuild trust in New South Wales Labor.”</p>
<p>Albanese told their joint news conference that “clearly party officers have let the party membership down”.</p>
<p>Lavarch’s recommendations would go to both the NSW administrative committee and to the ALP’s national executive. That would mean changes could be implemented immediately, rather than having to wait for a state conference.</p>
<p>Albanese stressed the need for cultural change in the party, while saying the ICAC proceedings reinforced the need for a national integrity commission.</p>
<p>The opposition leader also recalled that many years ago at a NSW Labor conference he had said part of the cultural problem was that the NSW secretary was seen to possess “a Papal infallibility” and “that it was time the white smoke was raised for the last time”.</p>
<p>What had now occurred was “a recognition across the party from senior levels down to rank-and-file members, that that culture needs to change. That the culture whereby the general secretary makes a directive and people fall into line needs to change”. This was something being looked at very explicitly by Lavarch.</p>
<p>McKay said a new secretary would not be appointed until after the Lavarch report. “There will be no appointment of a general secretary until we have a firm definition around the roles and responsibilities, and indeed how this position works within the broader party structure,” she said. There might be some additional roles created as well.</p>
<p>The party is currently recruiting for an assistant general secretary following the resignation of Pat Garcia to head up Catholic Health Australia. He has been acting general secretary since the suspension of Murnain.</p>
<p>McKay said it would be preferable not to have to recruit now “but we have to have someone leading our administrative part of our party”.</p>
<p>She was scathing about both Murnain and Clements.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125209/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Jodi McKay and Anthony Albanese have announced an inquiry into the head office of the NSW ALP, following shocking revelations about scandals in the handling of donations.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1233622019-09-11T06:05:57Z2019-09-11T06:05:57ZLiu defends herself after concerns about her Chinese associations<p>The Liberal member for Chisholm, Gladys Liu, has strongly proclaimed her loyalty to Australia and her support for the government’s policy on China, amid a row over her record of past associations with organisations with links to the Chinese Communist party.</p>
<p>Liu issued a statement following a politically disastrous interview with Sky on Tuesday night in which she repeatedly floundered when pressed on her connections to Chinese organisations - claiming a lack of memory - and her views in relation to China, including its activities in the South China Sea.</p>
<p>In the statement - in which the hand of the Prime Minister’s office was evident - Liu confirmed she had previously been</p>
<ul>
<li><p>honorary president of the United Chinese Commerce Association of Australia. “My involvement was done for no other reason than to support the promotion of trade between Australia and Hong Kong, and to encourage individuals in the Australia-Hong Kong community to undertake community work.”</p></li>
<li><p>honorary president of the Australian Jiangmen General Commercial Association Inc in 2016 </p></li>
<li><p>had honorary role in Guangdong Overseas Exchange Association in 2011.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>She said she no longer had an association with any of these organisations.</p>
<p>These organisations have indirect or direct links to the CCP’s United Front Work Department, which co-opts and organises Chinese in other countries to act in the interests of the CCP.</p>
<p>Liu said some Chinese associations “appoint people to honorary positions without their knowledge or permission.</p>
<p>"I do not wish my name to be used in any of these associations and I ask them to stop using my name.</p>
<p>"I have resigned from many organisations and I am in the process of auditing any organisations who may have added me as a member without my knowledge or consent.”</p>
<p>Liu, who won the Victorian marginal seat of Chisholm at the May election, said she was “a proud Australian, passionately committed to serving the people of Chisholm, and any suggestion contrary to this is deeply offensive”.</p>
<p>Noting she was a new MP, she said she had not been clear in the Sky interview and “should have chosen my words better”. She stressed she was in accord with government policy on issues relating to China.</p>
<p>“Australia’s longstanding position on the South China Sea is consistent and clear.</p>
<p>"We do not take sides on competing territorial claims but we call on all claimants to resolve disputes peacefully and in accordance with international law.</p>
<p>"Our relationship with China is one of mutual benefit and underpinned by our Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. China is not a democracy and is run under an authoritarian system. We have always been and will continue to be clear-eyed about our political differences, but do so based on mutual respect, as two sovereign nations, ” Liu said.</p>
<p>“As a proud Hong Kong-born Australian I do not underestimate the enormity of being the first Chinese-born member of parliament.</p>
<p>"I know some people will see everything I do through the lens of my birthplace, but I hope that they will see more than just the first Chinese woman elected to parliament. I hope they will see me as a strong advocate for everyone in Chisholm.”</p>
<p>Earlier, Labor’s foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong challenged Scott Morrison to assure the parliament and the public “that Gladys Liu is a fit and proper person to be in the Australian parliament”.</p>
<p>“I can recall the Liberal Party making Sam Dastyari a test of Bill Shorten’s leadership - well this is Scott Morrison’s test,” Wong said. Dastyari eventually resigned from the Senate after a scandal involving in particular his links with Chinese political donor Huang Xiangmo.</p>
<p>Labor tried to probe the Liu situation in the House, but was mostly thwarted by the questions being ruled out of order. In the Senate, Foreign Minister Marise Payne defended Liu’s fitness.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123362/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Following a politically disastrous interview, Liberal MP Gladys Liu has issued a statement strongly proclaiming her loyalty to Australia and her support for the government’s policy on China.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1230922019-09-06T05:40:00Z2019-09-06T05:40:00ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the economy - and Channel 9’s fundraiser for the Liberal party<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/68v2heeCVTU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Professor Deep Saini and Michelle Grattan discuss the slowing economy, and how the government plans to prevent a possible recession. They also talk about Channel 9, which has come under fire from its newspaper journalists for hosting a fundraiser for the Liberal party.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123092/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan previously worked for The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Australian Financial Review. </span></em></p>Michelle Grattan discusses the slowing economy, and the response to Channel 9’s decision to host a fundraiser for the Liberal party.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1230322019-09-05T12:15:44Z2019-09-05T12:15:44ZGrattan on Friday: When schmoozing the PM gets you a black eye<p>It was all gain for Scott Morrison when he took a bunch of senior colleagues to <a href="https://www.afr.com/rear-window/nine-s-hugh-marks-hosting-scomo-fundraiser-20190902-p52n5g">Nine’s Monday fundraiser</a> which reaped mega dollars – the exact amount is unclear - for the Liberal party. Maximum productivity for minimum effort.</p>
<p>The pain was worn by Nine and its chief executive Hugh Marks, who faced a backlash from staff at the company’s recently acquired former Fairfax newspapers, the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and the Australian Financial Review. The journalists were appalled, as they should have been, to see such compromising behaviour from their management.</p>
<p>As the papers’ house committees pointed out, “Our mastheads have done much to expose the corrupting influence of money on politics. It is vitally important that we remain independent of the political process.”</p>
<p>Questioned later, Morrison avoided being drawn into the row. Asked on 3AW whose idea the function had been he said, “I couldn’t tell you, I was just invited”. Did he see anything wrong with it? “Well it’s not really for me to say. I mean they were happy to host an event and I attended an event.”</p>
<p>The money-raising hosted by Nine had none of the sleaziness and claimed illegality of the $100,000 donation a Chinese property developer allegedly delivered to the NSW ALP in that now-notorious Aldi bag. (Incidentally, the assistant minister for financial services, Jane Hume, produced an Aldi bag at the Nine function to make a joke about Labor’s woes.)</p>
<p>But while the Nine gathering was above board and nobody will end up on any witness stand, it was, according to those trying to explain it away later, a bid to get into the prime minister’s ear. Just as Huang Xiangmo , the Chinese billionaire, was always <a href="https://theconversation.com/nsw-alp-secretary-suspended-after-revelations-about-huang-xiangmo-money-122563">attempting to get into</a> (multiple) Labor ears.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-truth-about-political-donations-there-is-so-much-we-dont-know-91003">The truth about political donations: there is so much we don't know</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>James Chessell, executive editor of Nine’s newspapers, said in a note responding to staff anger that Marks had told him hosting the function had been a mistake. “Hugh made the point Nine’s primary motivation was to engage with the government on issues of importance to the newsrooms – such as press freedom and the ACCC’s inquiry into digital platforms – which is a valid argument for management to make. But he agrees it could have been handled better.”</p>
<p>Well indeed it could have. There is something bizarre in arguing that a good way to engage with the government on press freedom is to rake in funds for it.</p>
<p>The Nine journalists and the management are at one in wanting to try to guarantee media freedom after it has come into question with the recent raids on a News Corp journalist and the ABC.</p>
<p>But this should be pressed without opening the organisation to criticism on other fronts, by appearing as if it is kowtowing.</p>
<p>If the company wants to make its case with the PM on its own turf (the function was held at Nine’s Willoughby studios), then invite him to a board room lunch, a common practice. By all means give him a free meal, but don’t generate a wad of money to go with it.</p>
<p>Anyway, one wonders how much Morrison will be influenced on media freedom by such lobbying. He sounded hard line this week in comments about everyone being subject to the law. The impression he gives is that he will only cede what ground he absolutely has to.</p>
<p>It’s also difficult to judge whether Nine’s assertion about wanting to use the occasion for representations on press freedom was in part just “spin”, after it emerged Nine hosted a fundraiser for Malcolm Turnbull too.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/consumer-watchdog-journalism-is-in-crisis-and-only-more-public-funding-can-help-121133">Consumer watchdog: journalism is in crisis and only more public funding can help</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Relations between media companies and powerful political figures are often murky. At least this ill-judged effort was out in the open. The first report of it came from Joe Aston, gossip columnist in the AFR, shortly before the event.</p>
<p>Post the fundraiser debacle, media observers will have an even closer eye on how the journalism works out in the merged Nine organisation (which is chaired by Peter Costello, formerly treasurer in the Howard government).</p>
<p>The Nine takeover of Fairfax brought into the fold newspapers which had behind them decades of tough independent editorial cultures. Chessell in his message to staff made the point that nobody at Nine had attempted to influence editorial coverage since the merger.</p>
<p>But it’s early days and whether the newspapers’ cultures will remain in future years as they are now has to be an open question. Remember it was not all that long ago that the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald had competing federal political coverage. Now it is all one, a major change that would have seemed unlikely a few years before.</p>
<p>More immediately, the current focus on political fund raising is a fresh reminder of how distorting – and at its worst, as in NSW Labor, corrupting – this can be for the democratic system. Combined with the professional lobbying industry, it has made access and influence expensive tradable commodities. Vested interests are literally buying the time of political leaders.</p>
<p>On the other side of the coin, occasionally the threatened withdrawal of funds can be invoked to try to twist arms. The CFMEU Victorian branch has warned it would cut off funds to the ALP if its official, John Setka, is expelled (a threat that fortunately does not appear to faze Anthony Albanese).</p>
<p>Legislating various rules around donations hasn’t deterred wrongdoing. In NSW the laws have been flouted over the years by both sides of politics.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australians-think-our-politicians-are-corrupt-but-where-is-the-evidence-101822">Australians think our politicians are corrupt, but where is the evidence?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The most drastic solution is total public funding of election campaigns, which are already partly paid for by the taxpayer.</p>
<p>Moving to full funding should be a last resort, because it raises issues of cost, fairness (how to treat emerging parties), and people’s rights to use their resources to promote their views.</p>
<p>Short of that solution, the shocking story unfolding in NSW emphasises the need for real time disclosure of donations and tighter enforcement of rules.</p>
<p>The lesson of the Nine affair is actually less about donations and more about the importance of those managing a media empire imbibing a central principle of journalism. Its sharp message is that, while it might often seem otherwise, the media must keep a fence between themselves and the politicians.</p>
<p><strong>Postscript:</strong>
Huang, who now lives in Hong Kong, has denied that he made the $100,000 donation. He told the Australian Financial Review: “I am not the source of the alleged donation. I do not know any of the alleged donors of the sum or any of the ‘straw donors’ as referred to in recent reports, nor have I ever had any contact with them”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123032/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan previously worked for The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian Financial Review. </span></em></p>While the Liberal party reaped mega dollars at Nine’s Monday fundraiser, Nine and its chief executive faced a backlash from staff at the company’s recently acquired former Fairfax newspapers.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1109772019-02-01T04:34:19Z2019-02-01T04:34:19ZTasmania’s gambling election shows Australia needs tougher rules on money in politics<p>Today’s Commonwealth donations <a href="https://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/">data release</a> is a stark reminder of the deep flaws in our political donations system. </p>
<p>Contributions to political parties are revealed up to 19 months after the event, and sometimes not at all. </p>
<p>With <a href="https://theconversation.com/states-and-territories-have-improved-integrity-measures-but-commonwealth-lags-far-behind-105046">most states now operating far more transparent regimes</a>, the only conceivable explanation for the current Commonwealth system is that our political leaders don’t want us to see where the money is coming from. </p>
<p>And the information contained in today’s data dump gives clues as to why that might be.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-trails-way-behind-other-nations-in-regulating-political-donations-59597">Australia trails way behind other nations in regulating political donations</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Tasmanian election: where the money came from</h2>
<p>The most concerning revelation in today’s release is the extent of political donations from gambling businesses in the lead-up to the March 2018 Tasmanian election. Tasmania relies on Commonwealth rules and processes to make donations public.</p>
<p>The future of poker machines in pubs and clubs was a key election issue: Tasmanian <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/14/dirty-little-secret-is-the-pokies-industry-australias-version-of-the-nra">Labor proposed to get rid of the machines by 2023</a>, whereas the Liberals wanted them to stay for at least 25 years.</p>
<p>The hotels lobby ran an intensive advertising campaign during the election. Many commentators suspected pro-gambling lobby groups were also using political donations to support their cause. But it’s taken until today to reveal their donations.</p>
<p>The Tasmanian Liberal Party (who won the election) declared more than A$400,000 from pro-gambling groups in the lead-up to the state election – equal to nearly 90% of the party’s declared donations, and a ten-fold increase on the amount gambling groups gave in the previous election. </p>
<p>Some A$50,000 came from the well-known Federal Group, a family business that runs casinos and gaming assets across the state. Pro-gambling donors gave nothing to Labor, and Labor’s Tasmanian branch received a total of only A$160,000 in donations for the year.</p>
<p>Heavy reliance on a single donor industry creates the risk of <a href="https://theconversation.com/influence-in-australian-politics-needs-an-urgent-overhaul-heres-how-to-do-it-103535">undue influence</a> over policy. Tasmanians would be right to question the effect on this inflow of funds from the gambling lobby on their democracy.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-full-ban-on-political-donations-would-level-the-playing-field-but-is-it-the-best-approach-81821">A full ban on political donations would level the playing field – but is it the best approach?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A lot of money remains hidden</h2>
<p>The Tasmanian example also neatly highlights the <a href="https://theconversation.com/time-for-the-federal-government-to-catch-up-on-political-donations-reform-100822">lack of transparency in the Commonwealth regime</a>. Tasmanian voters have waited 11 months to see where the money came from.</p>
<p>In the age of the internet and instant communications, there’s no good reason for this: donations are revealed in close to “real time” in several Australian states.</p>
<p>Tasmanian donations also reveal problems with the disclosure threshold. Parties have to declare donations of A$13,800 or more. But they’re not required to release the details of donations under the threshold – even if a donor makes a series of smaller donations that together exceed the threshold.</p>
<p>The Tasmanian Hotels’ Association declaration reveals that, just two days before the election, they gave A$57,000 to the Liberal Party in seven separate donations.</p>
<p>Because each donation was under the threshold, these donations are not identified in the Liberal Party declaration. The only way for the public to find out about these funds is to guess who might have donated and go hunting in the donor records.</p>
<p>The national returns for the parties shows how significant this issue is. Around half of the Coalition’s funding and a third of the ALP’s funding we know nothing about. A lot of this is likely to be donations below the disclosure threshold. Some of this will doubtless be from “mum and dad” donors who like to give small amounts to their preferred party. </p>
<p>But a lot is probably “donation splitting” from groups adopting a similar approach to the Tasmanian Hotels’ Association.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-is-australia-one-of-the-few-countries-worldwide-to-accept-foreign-political-donations-65343">FactCheck Q&A: Is Australia one of the few countries worldwide to accept foreign political donations?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What the data does tell us</h2>
<p>Despite its deficiencies, the data does reveal some interesting things about how our political parties are funded. Parties received A$154 million in political donations, public funding and other income in 2017-18, down 25% from 2016-17. It’s normal for funding to drop outside of election years, but the parties will be keenly seeking to boost their coffers in the lead-up to this year’s federal election. Unfortunately voters won’t be told anything about that money until 2020.</p>
<p>The data reaffirms the importance of union money to the ALP, and of hotels and mining money to the Coalition. The ALP’s biggest donors and contributors include the shop assistants’ union (A$1.4 million), the Electrical Trade Union (A$940,000) and the CFMEU (A$530,000). </p>
<p>The Coalition’s biggest contributors include the Waratah Group (A$175,000) and the Australian Mining Group (A$170,000). Hotels associations from around the country were also major contributors, giving a combined total of more than A$600,000 to the Coalition.</p>
<p>Both major parties received A$250,000 in donations from ANZ, interesting given the Royal Commission but consistent with the bank’s recent practice of making significant donations to both sides.</p>
<h2>Reform the donations regime, for the sake of our democracy</h2>
<p>Today’s donations data release will only fuel people’s cynicism about the role of money in politics. If political parties want to start to rebuild the public’s trust, making donations releases more timely and transparent would be a good place to start.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110977/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute's activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carmela Chivers and Danielle Wood do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Today the Commonwealth has released data on political donations. It shows high levels of donations from the gambling industry to political parties.Danielle Wood, Program Director, Budget Policy and Institutional Reform, Grattan InstituteCarmela Chivers, Associate, Grattan InstituteKate Griffiths, Senior Associate, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1058052018-10-30T00:28:45Z2018-10-30T00:28:45ZNew Zealand politics: how political donations could be reformed to reduce potential influence<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242843/original/file-20181029-76413-14ayvy9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=137%2C125%2C3730%2C2604&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">New Zealand's government is considering looking into changes to the way political parties are funded, and areas such as donation transparency could be part of the discussion.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the aftermath of the <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12147674">controversy</a> surrounding former MP Jami-Lee Ross and opposition National party leader Simon Bridges, discussions have focused on possible reforms of political donations in New Zealand.</p>
<p>My colleagues <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=12148664">Bryce Edwards</a> and <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/108071655/Line-between-political-access-and-political-influence-is-porous">Michael Macaulay</a> have raised the issue of taxpayer funding of political parties. So too has <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12147251">Minister of Justice Andrew Little</a>. </p>
<p>Green Party MP Marama Davidson has suggested the <a href="https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/369328/greens-urge-political-donation-reform">donation threshold</a> for the disclosure of a donor’s name and address be lowered from NZ$15,000 to NZ$1,000. She has also proposed banning foreign donations outright and capping individual donations at NZ$35,000.</p>
<p>Several of these proposals warrant further discussion and contextualisation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-politics-foreign-donations-and-political-influence-105489">New Zealand politics: foreign donations and political influence</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Donations and foreign money</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09615768.2017.1351661">Foreign interference in domestic politics</a> is an increasing phenomenon worldwide.</p>
<p>Currently in New Zealand foreign donations to a party of up to NZ$1,500 are permissible. Moreover, foreign donations below this amount are not individually or collectively disclosed. </p>
<p>It would be easy for a foreign state or corporate body seeking political influence to channel a large number of donations into the system just under the threshold via numerous proxies. Whether such interference has been happening is unclear, since New Zealanders do not know how much money currently comes in to political parties via foreign actors. </p>
<p>Even if foreign donations are not a problem now, one could rapidly develop. A strong argument can be made that <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09615768.2017.1351661">foreign money has no place in democracy</a>, including New Zealand’s. </p>
<p>New Zealand would not be going out on an international limb by banning foreign donations. Foreign donations to political parties are not permissible in the [<a href="https://fullfact.org/law/most-non-uk-citizens-cant-donate-uk-political-parties/">United Kingdom</a>, <a href="https://www.sipo.ie/en/Guidelines/Donation-Guidelines/Guidelines-for-Political-Parties/Prohibited-Donations.html">Ireland</a> and <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/">the United States</a>. They are also <a href="http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=ces&document=part6&lang=e">banned in Canada</a> but unfortunately a <a href="https://nationalpost.com/opinion/np-view-why-wont-the-liberals-stop-foreign-donors-from-influencing-our-elections">significant loophole</a> exists. Australia is currently in the process of banning foreign donations.</p>
<h2>Lowering threshold for anonymous donations</h2>
<p>As noted, the threshold below which political donations can be anonymous could be lowered. A lower threshold would make it more difficult to evade name disclosure rules by splitting donations and attributing each part to a different donor. </p>
<p>Splitting may be what happened to the <a href="https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018667446/who-is-zhang-yikun-the-alleged-donor-of-100-000-to-national">alleged NZ$100,000 Yikun Zhang donation</a>. The NZ$1,000 threshold proposed by the Greens would be a huge improvement on the status quo. A donor of NZ$100,000 seeking to evade legislation and to remain anonymous would have to coordinate 100 individual donors, rather than seven. </p>
<p>But New Zealand could go lower still, to NZ$200, without being radical. Giving NZ$200 to a political party is huge for an ordinary New Zealander, and the reality is only a very small minority would need to disclose their names under such a law.</p>
<p>There is international precedent for setting much lower thresholds for anonymity than the Greens propose. For example, in Canada, the <a href="https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/party-financing">maximum amount of an anonymous donation</a> was set at C$200 in 2015, while <a href="https://www.sipo.ie/en/Guidelines/Donation-Guidelines/Guidelines-for-Political-Parties/Prohibited-Donations.html">in Ireland</a> it is currently €100.</p>
<h2>Donor privacy versus transparency</h2>
<p>One concern with non-anonymity is that it delivers public transparency at the cost of private donor privacy. Currently the <a href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0087/latest/DLM307519.html">Electoral Act 1993</a> contains a mechanism for anyone wanting to donate to a political party and not wanting their identity disclosed to either the public or to the party receiving the donation. To obtain such anonymity, the donation needs to be more than NZ$1,500. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.elections.org.nz/home">Electoral Commission</a> aggregates all such donations. It passes them on to parties at regular intervals. It does not identify the dollar amount of individual donations, or the number or names of donors.</p>
<p>Not many donors use this protected disclosure avenue. For example, between September 2015 and June 2018, the commission passed on only NZ$150,000 in anonymised money to parties <a href="https://www.elections.org.nz/sites/default/files/plain-page/attachments/donations_protected_from_disclosure_-_general_election_2017.pdf">via this channel</a>. At the same time amounts well in excess of NZ$10 million were passed on by donors identifiable to political parties (but not necessarily to the public). </p>
<p>A preference for identifiable channels suggests current donors get value from non-anonymity. It implies most donors feel they are buying something. The fact that donors feel they are buying something should be cause for concern.</p>
<h2>Capping donations and individualising donors</h2>
<p>The Greens have suggested NZ$35,000 as a maximum cap on donations. Again, New Zealand could go much lower without being out of step with other countries. For example, in Canada donations to each political party are <a href="https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/party-financing">capped at C$1500 a year</a>. Like Canada, Ireland has a <a href="https://www.sipo.ie/en/Guidelines/Donation-Guidelines/Guidelines-for-Political-Parties/Prohibited-Donations.html">maximum annual cap of €2500</a>. </p>
<p>However, Geoff Simmons, leader of the <a href="https://www.top.org.nz/">Opportunities Party</a>, has argued that a cap would make it <a href="https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/26-10-2018/the-greens-proposed-donation-ban-would-serve-to-ban-new-parties-from-parliament/">difficult for small parties to get started</a>. Simmons’ party was kick-started by large donations from <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/99839970/TOP-loses-leader-Gareth-Morgan-and-three-other-candidates-in-matter-of-hours">multi-millionaire Gareth Morgan</a>, who was also the party’s first leader.</p>
<p>Another possibility for the reform agenda is the Canadian approach of only permitting donations from individual people. Corporate and trade union donations are banned. However this proposal is unlikely to be popular with neither National, which receives considerable corporate donations, nor Labour, which traditionally gets significant trade union funding.</p>
<p>All these proposals, inevitably, have pros and cons and possible unintended consequences. They are deserving of wide public debate. One hopes that the current government can provide the public with a credible forum for such discussions, and a clear pathway to sensible future reform.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105805/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Chapple does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In the aftermath of a controversy surrounding New Zealand’s opposition party, discussions now focus on reform of party donations to avoid the potential of political influence.Simon Chapple, Director, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of WellingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1018222018-08-27T04:18:05Z2018-08-27T04:18:05ZAustralians think our politicians are corrupt, but where is the evidence?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232792/original/file-20180821-30593-idbm42.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former NSW minister Ian Macdonald (left) and union boss John Maitland are just two of the prominent figures who have been swept up in anti-corruption investigations at the state level.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Joel Carrett/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A recent <a href="https://app.secure.griffith.edu.au/news/2018/08/20/griffith-research-shows-trust-in-government-slides/">survey</a> by Griffith University has found Australians’ trust in government is sliding. Trust and confidence in government fell in the last year to 46% at the federal and state levels.</p>
<p>There are also serious concerns about officials and politicians using their positions to benefit themselves or their families (62%), or favouring businesses and individuals in return for political donations or support (56%).</p>
<p>Worse still, there has been a 9% increase since 2016 in perceptions that federal members of parliament are corrupt (85% saying “some” are corrupt, 18% responding that “most/all” are corrupt).</p>
<h2>What has caused the loss of public trust?</h2>
<p>There is a public perception that a small elite is reaping large benefits in Australian society in terms of political influence and its flow-on dividends.</p>
<p>In Australia, the <a href="https://gameofmates.com/">“game of mates”</a> is flourishing. There’s now a revolving door in politics with many politicians, advisers and senior government officials leaving the public sector to become well-paid lobbyists. </p>
<p>Add to that the <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2018/07/16/partisan-appointments-show-a-government-bent-on-destroying-independent-advice/">appointments</a> of political “mates” to commissions, tribunals and cushy ambassadorships and the blatant misuse of parliamentary entitlements such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/choppergate-no-more-what-the-review-of-politicians-entitlements-will-mean-56196">helicopter trips</a> on taxpayer funds. </p>
<p>Political parties are also accepting millions of dollars in <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-does-our-political-donations-system-work-and-is-it-any-good-60159">donations</a> from lobbyists and others interested in influencing policy outcomes.</p>
<p>All of this adds to the perception that the system is rigged - and not in favour of the person on the street. </p>
<h2>So, there is evidence of corruption in Australia?</h2>
<p>The question is whether the perception of corruption is matched by reality. </p>
<p>Australia has <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-22/australia-slips-in-global-corruption-rank/9472114">fallen steadily</a> in Transparency International’s global corruption index, from 8th place in 2012 to 13th this year. But even so, Australia is the 13th-least corrupt country in the world, which is still a respectable ranking. </p>
<p>More alarming is the fact that one in 20 Australian public servants said in a <a href="https://stateoftheservice.apsc.gov.au/2018/01/aps-values-code-conduct-2/">survey</a> last year that they had seen a colleague acting in a corrupt manner. This figure has doubled in the past three years.</p>
<p>In the 1980s, there were incidences of large-scale corruption that rocked the country, culminating in the <a href="http://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/about-the-ccc/the-fitzgerald-inquiry">Fitzgerald Inquiry</a> in Queensland and the <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/20635717?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">WA Inc Royal Commission</a> in Western Australia. These scandals led to the <a href="https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/players-in-a-vast-drama/news-story/9271190b1c687ec7a76571395f6421b0?sv=7d60de3363144b968d3a60ad3dfff7ca">resignations</a> and imprisonments of various former ministers and officials.</p>
<p>Although we have not sunk to such depths since then, state anti-corruption commissions, such as the <a href="https://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/">NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption</a>, have uncovered various instances of corruption in recent years. The NSW ICAC’s inquiries have led to the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-02/political-scalps-of-nsw-icac/5427260">resignations</a> of several politicians, as well as the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-15/eddie-obeid-sentenced-five-years-jail-misconduct-public-office/8122720">conviction</a> of former MP <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-15/eddie-obeid-sentenced-five-years-jail-misconduct-public-office/8122720">Eric Obeid</a>. </p>
<p>Another classic case of corruption exposed by the ICAC led to the downfall of former Newcastle lord mayor, <a href="https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/4628678/jeffs-unfinished-business-after-icac/">Jeff McCloy</a>. McCloy famously bragged that politicians treated him like a <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/national/nsw/jeff-mccloy-apologises-over-paper-bag-birthday-cake-20141013-1159ko.html">“walking ATM”</a> and admitted to <a href="https://www.theherald.com.au/story/2467611/icac-jeff-mccloy-handed-over-10k-in-paper-bag-to-andrew-cornwell-poll/">giving</a> two MPs envelopes of cash amounting to AU$10,000.</p>
<p>There is also a question about what we don’t know. Many more politicians may be getting away with corrupt activities because Australia doesn’t have a federal anti-corruption body. </p>
<h2>Do we need a federal anti-corruption commission?</h2>
<p>In one word: yes. </p>
<p>All states have anti-corruption bodies that have brought to light many indiscretions by politicians that would have otherwise remained hidden. The federal government is lagging behind in this crucial area. </p>
<p>At the federal level, there is no transparency in backroom dealings by those in power, coupled with lax rules that can be abused. In these circumstances, corruption can take root without us knowing about it. An anti-corruption agency would be a powerful deterrent against improper behaviour.</p>
<p>There is strong <a href="https://app.secure.griffith.edu.au/news/2018/08/20/griffith-research-shows-trust-in-government-slides/">public support</a> for a federal anti-corruption body in the Griffith University survey, with two-thirds (67%) of Australians in favour of this. </p>
<p>The Labor Party has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/30/labor-promises-federal-integrity-commission-if-it-wins-the-next-election">pledged</a> to introduce a federal integrity commission if it wins the next election.</p>
<p>There are also other activities that do not amount to corruption, but nevertheless shows an undue influence on government. Ideally, a federal anti-corruption commission should sit alongside a broader package of reforms that impose stronger rules on lobbying and political donations, as well as a code of conduct for MPs, policed by an independent commissioner. </p>
<p>This would form an interlocking political integrity system that would keep the politicians honest.</p>
<p>Our faith in government has been eroded by a lack of transparency and the perception that those in power are enjoying unfair benefits. Creating robust institutions, rules and processes that can act as checks and balances on governmental power is key to a vibrant democracy - and will be the first step towards rebuilding public trust.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101822/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Public trust in government is sliding and there’s a perception that a small elite is reaping the benefits of political influence. This points to the need for a federal anti-corruption body.Yee-Fui Ng, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.