Duncan Kerr SC MP believes it’s high time Tasmania banned political parties from taking money from developers and tobacco interests — and, in exchange, brought in much tougher disclosure rules and public funding for state elections. Here’s why:
HAVE you ever wondered how Tasmanian politicians afford election campaigns? Wondered who pays for those leaflets that are slotted through your letterbox, the advertisements that interrupt your television, the posters in front gardens?
The money has to come from somewhere but it is not easy to find out who is paying or how much they have given. It’s a murky picture.
Candidates and parties get some donations from members and supporters. But because campaigns are becoming increasingly expensive party officials and candidates have to raise extra money from businesses and corporations. And, let’s not be naïve, while most give for honourable reasons, there will always be some donors who will want to give with strings attached.
Tasmanian laws require the disclosure of election donations. But those laws are not tough enough. We only find out who gave and how much more than a year after any state election. Nor do we have public funding, one way that has been tried in other states to reduce the political system’s dependence on donors and to keep politics within reach.
Only South Australia and the Northern Territory of the other states and territories don’t fund local campaigns.
You might say, “Good. I don’t want my taxes spent advertising political parties and candidates I don’t like anyway.” But have you considered the alternative? Do we want to go the way of the US, where only the super-rich and insiders who can raise millions of dollars in donations can think about public office?
It is time we banned political parties taking money from developers and the tobacco industry.
Allowing developers to hand cash over to candidates for local or state government office creates too great a risk of corruption. The evidence is in front of our noses. Decisions about development proposals can make a person rich or end their hopes of being allowed to subdivide or develop land. The chance of corruptly influencing these decisions creates a honey pot for those who are weak enough to be tempted.
Anyone with an ounce of awareness about current events knows that mixing political parties that need money with developers who need favours often leads to ethical meltdown.
I have been assured that Walker Corporation and Gunns did not donate to the Tasmanian ALP before the last state election
In West Australia the Premier has had to sack a minister for lying after he was caught up in a scandal that involved former Premier Brian Burke and lobbying for a development within a sensitive coastal environment. That state is reliving the awful days of ‘WA Inc’.
In NSW the perception that state planning has become corrupted has become so strong that developers with a reputation to protect like Multiplex Meriton, Macquarie Bank and Hardie Holding are now backing former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating’s demand that donations from developers to political parties in local, state and federal elections should be outlawed. The spivs that crawl around the edges of politics give us all a bad name.
Here in Tasmania I have been assured that Walker Corporation and Gunns did not donate to the Tasmanian ALP before the last state election. Yet everyone in public life knows we face a growing perception that politics is grubby and politicians can be bought. That perception, which I despair about and which damages all of us, won’t go away until we put in place much tougher and timely disclosure rules — as part of a package of measures of the kind I am proposing.
Now that Tasmania’s real estate market rivals the mainland there is no reason to think our politicians, Liberal, Labor, Green or independent, will escape the attention of the white shoe crowd who want to make a fast, insider, killing.
The tobacco industry also spends money on political influence. In 2004, with the courageous support of WA Liberal MP Dr Mal Washer, I introduced a Private Members’ Bill that would have made eligibility for public funding under the Electoral Act conditional on parties rejecting donations from the smoking lobby. When the Howard Government did not support this, the ALP went ahead anyway and we now have a national policy of not taking money from tobacco companies. But some other parties still accept those funds.
Banning donations from developers and the tobacco industry won’t be easy because everywhere in Australia parties are struggling to raise funds. It won’t happen here unless there is something like public funding as part of a package.
In my opinion Tasmania should give the lead to Australia by passing laws that stop donations from both developers and the tobacco industry. We can lead too by establishing a fair system of public funding for elections —coupled with toughened up disclosure rules —so the public doesn’t get ripped off.
Donations to political parties and candidates should be disclosed as they are received — before, not after, elections.
I still see politics as a decent, honourable calling. I don’t want the spivs to win. Two years ago the state president of the Liberals was quoted as saying that his party would consider supporting public funding if Labor was keen to pursue it. The Greens also gave the idea in principle support. To renew our faith in our state’s political system we need cross party willingness to work for a long term solution.
It’s time.
