Politics / Big snouts filling the trough

THE major parties in the ACT Assembly want to have their cake and eat it too. Recent amendments proposed for the ACT Electoral Act are specifically designed to strengthen their parties at the expense of independents and minor parties.

There is a pincer movement being attempted on political donations. On the one hand, there is an attempt to remove the current limit of $10,000 as the maximum for any entity making a donation and, on the other, to quadruple the level of community contribution per vote from $2 to $8.

The idea of an increase in community contribution has merit. The cost to ACT ratepayers will move from just $400,000 a year to less than $2 million. The concept is to make parties less reliant on donors who then have an actual or implied “hold” over the party or candidates.

A similar concept applies to the limit on donations. In the recent proposals put to the Assembly it seems the major parties are happy to accept a “hold” of over $10,000. How else could removal of the $10,000 donation cap be interpreted?

There are arguments put by the Attorney-General, Simon Corbell. Apparently, the best they can come up with is to remove “an incentive for donors to circumvent the electoral funding laws”. These are spurious arguments. When a small number of people circumvent laws we normally investigate and prosecute.

The ACT Electoral Commission report, as recently as September, did not address the issue of the increase in publicly funded voter payment because it had not been raised. Its recommendations on the cap were to strengthen the laws around the cap rather than move to remove it.

The commission’s report suggested: “Where one or more gifts are received by a political entity from a single source in a financial year totalling more than $10,000, the amount above $10,000 must be deposited in a separately identified account and must not ever be used for an ACT election purpose (including payment of a loan used to incur ACT election expenditure)”.

The lone voice of objection in the ACT Assembly is Greens minister, Shane Rattenbury, who says: “It’s unconscionable to ask ACT taxpayers to cough up for million-dollar election campaigns whilst the old parties tighten their grip around Canberra’s democracy”.

He then goes on to use terms such as “snouts in the trough” and “gobbling public funds”.

The Greens opposed an increase in public funding and proposed limiting overall spending by any political entity to just half a million dollars. The major parties will attempt to ignore or to dismiss this as “grandstanding” but it is good public policy.

Big donors to political parties undermine democracy. As John Thorpe, of the Australian Hotels Association, once observed: “Democracy is not cheap… Everybody’s involved with assisting political parties… We need to keep these people in place to have the democracy we have today… Yes, it costs money.”

Shane Rattenbury described the problem appropriately: “The decision to increase public funding without reigning in party expenditure or restricting donations is ludicrous.

“It amounts to a net gain for the big political parties, and cannot be described as anything other than an unprecedented and unjustifiable act of self-interest”.

There were many positive recommendations in the report of the Assembly Select Committee entitled “Voting Matters”. This was enhanced by the response of the Electoral Commission. However, the government has tabled something quite different. Maybe the party machine aficionados saw an opportunity to strengthen their chances against minor parties or independents?

The outcome is not in the best interests of the community, our freedoms or a fair and equitable electoral system.

Michael Moore was an independent member of the ACT Legislative Assembly (1989 to 2001) and was minister for health.

 

The post Politics / Big snouts filling the trough appeared first on Canberra CityNews.