Reform
Surcharge to Support the Political Process
By Bruce Barbour - Updated November 2021
One of the big issues for all democracies, including Australia,
is the corrupting effect of political donations from corporations
and other organisations.
When companies make political donations they are not doing it out
of generosity, to support democracy in Australia. They want a
return. A decision to go their way. A regulation or law rescinded
or not implemented. It may not be anything specific. A party
which receives significant donations from an organisation over the
years will begin to factor that into their decision making when
considering new policy. The party will not want to upset their
corporate donor, to risk losing that donation which may impact on
their operational ability. Often corporations can get massive
returns on their "donation" - a 10, 20 or 30 or more thousand
dollar donation can result in the overturn of a decision or a
policy that would benefit Australia, but not the corporate donor,
not being adopted. A favourable decision could impact on the
company's bottom line by millions of dollars. But it could have a
much more detrimental impact on Australia as a whole. While the
company and the political party wins, Australia as a whole looses.
A person, including politicians, cannot serve two masters. They
either serve their constituents or they serve their corporate
donors. When most of the money necessary for their political
survival is coming from corporate donors then who they are more
likely to be serving? It is, at the very least, a risk that can be
eliminated.
If a politician or their party receives a donation from a
lobbyist or a company why is it not then incumbent upon that
politician when matters relating to that company or the issue a
lobbyist is supporting are being decided by the politician that
they declare a conflict of interest. Because there is no doubt
that it is a conflict of interest. The trouble is the whole party
would have to declare a conflict of interest and therefore no
decision could be made on the matter. This is one of the many
problems with large political donations from companies and
lobbyists.
At the moment (November 2021) we have the ICAC in NSW and the
IBAC in Victoria investigating various issues relating to the
actions of politicians. From what I can see the alleged actions
from the politicians being investigated are minuscule when
compared to the much more significant issues related to lobbyists
and companies getting favourable decisions due to their financial
contributions to the political parties. Orders of magnitude
greater and yet this is not being investigated by an ICAC/IBAC or
any other body. It beggars understanding.
Political donations from companies and organisations are a
corrosive force in our democracy. They must be either banned or
limited to such an extent they are not large enough to change a
political decision.
Another favourable aspect of this change would be that it would
free politicians and their party from having to fund raise from
large corporate donors. No more endless wining and dining and
meetings with actual and potential donors. The politician will be
able to do what they are paid to do - to consider policy
beneficial to the country and address their constituent's
concerns.
When you think about it, why is it legal for a politician to go
out to raise funding for his own and his parties benefit when he
or she is being paid for by the taxpayers to do the job of
representing the taxpayer. We've had recent (2021) instances of
where it has been alleged that taxpayer funded staff in a
politician's office have been doing work for the benefit of the
political party rather than the taxpayers - and that is classed as
possible corruption. Yet apparently it is OK for the taxpayer
funded politician to do the same.
However the political process is expensive. Running a political
party and political campaigns for elections is expensive - more
expensive than what can be garnered from membership fees. They
need money. If it is not from the donors then it has to be from
the taxpayers. It will be expensive but the cost of not doing it
is more costly.
I propose a tax surcharge on companies to pay for the running of
political parties. It may also apply to individual taxpayers - to
be decided. I don't know what size the surcharge would be, but
probably a fraction of a percent. For some companies this would
result in a significant saving as they would be banned from direct
and indirect political donation.
How the money would be distributed would have to be determined
but would be based on the number of votes the party - or political
candidate - receives, and whether they were elected. Parties
/candidates that are elected would receive a higher amount with
payments spread over the years between elections. An unelected
candidate might receive a smaller one off amount, once their vote
hits a certain threshold. Also the total amount spent by political
parties might be cut from the current amounts to a lesser sum.
This may mean less political advertising, which may be a good
thing, and probably fewer support staff due to no longer having to
wrangle donors and lobbyists.
Donations from private citizens to political parties would be
allowed with the annual amount strictly limited.
Organisations (let's call them Political Action Organisations -
PAOs) could be set up to campaign on a single issue only. That
single issue would have to be fully detailed on their website and
perhaps also in a central website. They would also have to answer
a set questionnaire to fully delve into what they want to achieve.
They would not be able to be set up by political parties or
candidates or a company or a group of companies. They could be an
already existing organisation - but not a company. The PAOs
would not be able to donate to political parties or individual
candidates. They would not be able to accept funding from
political parties, affiliates or candidates or from companies or
groups of companies - only from individuals up to a limited amount
per annum. Their sources of funding would be fully transparent in
real time - published on both their own website and a centralised
website. The PAOs will be funded by people or the non-company
organisations set up by people.
The PAO could run an advertising campaign in support of their
single issue. The PAO would not be able to attack or support a
candidate or party, only an issue. For example there could be a
climate change action PAO that would advocate for greater action
on climate change and for people to vote for candidates that
support climate change action - but they would not be able to name
the candidate nor the party that supports, or doesn't support,
their aims - though they could publish on their website surveys
that compare and rate the parties/candidates policies in relation
to the single issue. The way this was done would have to be
regulated. The PAO would need to be registered as a PAO before it
can operate and their issue of interest fully disclosed.
The Role of Companies and Lobbyists
A company does not have any democratic rights and should not be a
participant in the democratic process. A company is not a person.
That the law treats companies as persons in some instances should
not be confused with their political status. Companies operate under
the rules set by Government that is elected by the people. They
operate only because the people see that there is benefit to society
from having that company operate in their society - as one of the
means to provide the society with the works, goods and services that
it needs. It exists only at the pleasure of the people and under
what ever rules the people, through its government, see fit.
Companies should be banned from being able to lobby on issues and
government policy. A company itself can argue the merits of a
particular project that they want to initiate. However not on
government policy.
And as stated earlier companies and their lobbyists cannot
provide donations to the politician or their party.
For example it is not appropriate that a company can lobby or
argue about climate policy. It is strictly for the people to
decide how the country tackles climate change. Companies just have
to accept the decision of the government because that decision is
informed by the will of the people. If the government is mistaken
in its interpretation of the will of the people the people have
the right to let them know - immediately by contacting their
politician and later at the ballot box.
I would ban companies and their lobbyists (and everyone else)
from wining and dining or to offer any other gift to politicians
or candidates. It would be difficult to ban them meeting with
politicians - everyone has the right to meet with a politician but
seeing as they can only argue for a particular project they want
to implement and not on general policy there should be less need
for them to meet with politicians.
If a company (or their lobbyist) or a PAO representative or a
constituent do meet a politician there has to be transparency in
their meeting. To that end I would make it a requirement that the
politician's diary be published on line after the event -
published in the following week. (It couldn't be published before
the event as there could be security issues.) If the meeting was
with a constituent the published diary would not necessarily
publish the name of the constituent if the constituent didn't want
it published. For other people, including lobbyists, the name
would be disclosed, as well as the company or PAO if relevant and
a brief overview of what was to be discussed. All correspondence
would be subject to freedom of information access - some, such as
that from a PAO or lobbyist, may be required to be published on
the politician's website.
* * * * * * * *
The documentary "Big Deal" provided a good analysis of the
political donation issues in Australia. It use to be available on
ABC Iview but
no longer. It may be able to be found elsewhere on the internet.
Next Page - Waste Crime
Reform Home Page
Oversite Home Page.
|