Lobby group Election Funding Reform say that Tasmania is being left behind as other states have moved to tighten laws around electoral funding.

They have released a ‘blueprint for reform’ that includes an 8 point plan (see box). Spokesperson for the group (also known as Tasmanian 2018 Election Inquiry) Roland Browne said they were still posing questions and wanting answers about the between $3 to $5 million dollars of funding that went to the Liberal Party in the course of that election.

“After the election the Premier proposed that there would be electoral reform in Tasmania; that was two years ago and nothing has happened,” he said. “We’ve had a discussion paper that sought community input. That closed in late 2019. Here we are in July and nothing has happened.”

According to a UTAS submission made to the review of the Tasmanian Electoral Act, Tasmania now has the weakest campaign finance laws of any Australian state and Territory. “Between 2009 and 2015 the source of only 16.4% of the $21.5 million donated to Tasmanian political parties was disclosed,” it noted.

Tasmania does not in fact have disclosure laws of its own, but simply applies provisions of the federal Electoral Act.

Browne pointed out that in recent years new laws providing more transparency and limiting donations had been introduced in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.

“It’s now time for Tasmania to come into line to introduce some effective and practical reforms.” he said.

Browned commended the Premier for his stewardship of the state during the coronavirus crisis.

“He has had a great responsibility for the health of Tasmania.

We want to draw his attention to the need to look after the health of the democracy of the state. And that can only be achieved by effective donation funding reform.”

Roland Browne.

Browne said it’s time to get the big money out of elections. “We saw what that did in 2018 with the state awash with money from the gambling industry. That has to stop and it can never be repeated.”

He is particularly concerned about the Major Projects Bill and its potential to worsen corruption.

“If you have a Planning Minister with complete discretion about what projects can be given a fast-track status, major donations to a political party will inevitably influence that decision. It leads not only to a perception of corruption but also the possibility.”

His group is seeking a meeting with the Premier to present their 8-point plan.

Clark MHR Andrew Wilkie backed both the plan and concerns about the Major Projects legislation. He said that despite the Premier’s political stocks currently being high, he was letting the state down by failing to deliver on his reform promise.

“How can we have any confidence in the Major Projects Bill being applied honestly, effectively and sensibly, if at the same time we don’t know what politicians and political parties are receiving,” Wilkie said. “No donor hands over a large amount of cash to a political party or candidate without expecting a return on that investment. They don’t do that as a gesture of goodwill. They do that to curry favour with the government and hopefully progress their agenda.”

“When governments anywhere dither on this sort of reform, it raises the question what have they got to hide?” he asked. “What does this state government have to hide?”

Clark independent Andrew Wilkie.

He said that even if nothing untoward is going on, the lack of transparency around donations ‘corrodes confidence in the system’ and provides the opportunity for corruption.

Wilkie believed the community wanted the reforms that are being proposed.

“There is no good reason for delaying this any further,” he said. “If Peter Gutwein does allow the Major Projects Bill to go through the Parliament before effective donation reform, he will blow a lot of the political capital he has acquired. This is the time to do what the community expects.”

According to Wilkie, not just direct donations need to be subject to scrutiny but also “Any expenditure of money that in any way electorally benefits a politcal party or candidate.”

He provided the example of the the ‘Love Your Local’ campaign at the last Tasmanian state election.

“That should have been disclosed at the time. When people went in to vote at the last state election they didn’t have a clue about who had donated what to who.”

Wilkie said that Tasmania had a problem with ‘corruption of good governance’.

Browne felt that the Premier would have to consider reform due to poker machine licensing coming before Parliament.

“After the last election, he cannot possibly and properly deal with that in the Parliament without electoral reform, because he leaves himself open to people saying he is doing it just for Federal Hotels.”

He said that as the government had had no problems advancing the Major Projects Bill even during the COVID-19 crisis, it should also have no trouble advancing necessary electoral reform.