Australian Politicians Face Scrutiny Over Political Donations and Transparency

When Peter Malinauskas moved to ban political donations in South Australia ahead of the last state election, he centred the case around the distorting effect money has on politics.

The South Australian premier argued that the fundraising arms race was taking up too much time for politicians, as access to party leaders and frontbenchers was increasingly being sold to cashed-up supporters at every point of the electoral cycle.

“We don’t want politicians to become professional fundraisers,” said Malinauskas, who is perhaps the best political communicator in the country. “We want them to be developing thoughtful public policy and engaging with their constituents.”

Even if South Australia’s rules are less than perfect, Anthony Albanese, Angus Taylor and Pauline Hanson all might have reflected on Malinauskas’s insight this week – just as the outsized power of political donors was on full show.

Hanson updated her register of interests to show that, as expected, her billionaire benefactor Gina Rinehart had helped fund her European summer tour. The pair attended a Dolce & Gabbana fashion show and stayed at a luxury hotel in the Sicilian hilltop resort of Taormina. The getaway was on the side of Hanson’s visit to meet conservative figures in Britain, including the far-right thug Tommy Robinson.

Hanson said she paid for her own accommodation, meals and daily expenses, and did not disclose exactly how much Rinehart had shelled out, or what was expected in return.

Albanese dodged questions about his own fundraising activities after Labor’s national conference wrapped up in Adelaide. The prime minister was evasive on ABC TV’s Insiders when asked about a dinner at the Sydney mansion of 25-year-old Felix Lee. Lee’s father, Phillip Dong Fang Lee, is under scrutiny for allegedly deceiving the Tax Office about the source of large sums of money coming into Australia from China.

Lee has apparently promised $1m to the Labor party.

“I attend lots of dinners in lots of places, and I don’t talk about private dinners,” Albanese said, while pointing out that Phillip Lee was not present on the night in question. He said all of Labor’s donations will be disclosed publicly, in line with rules administered by the Australian Electoral Commission.

For Taylor, still unable to shift the Coalition’s appalling position in the polls, even more difficult were revelations from the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Icac’s Operation Rosny began public hearings this week, focused on allegations of corrupt conduct by people involved in the NSW Liberal party. Set to run for two months, the hearings took precisely two days to become politically problematic for Taylor, who is not accused of wrongdoing.

The opposition leader was mentioned as a potential donor to a ginger group within the Liberal party known as the Reformers, who were allegedly plotting to take control from rivals and sought donations from conservative figures, including possibly Taylor. One text message in evidence suggested Taylor had agreed to provide a $15,000 one-off funding “injection” to the group, plus an ongoing $3,000 a month contribution. Asked about a series of messages showing his name, Taylor hemmed and hawed like Albanese.

“I’m not going to give a running commentary on all of this,” Taylor told journalists. “I’m not a party to the proceedings, but no payment was made.”

On Thursday, Taylor insisted he had actually answered the questions a day earlier. Guardian Australia put a written follow-up question to Taylor about whether he had ever made donations to Catholic Schools NSW, but a spokesperson referred us back to what Taylor had already said in a media conference.

It goes without saying that answering clearly questions about whether you were approached or gave money to individuals caught up in a corruption probe would not represent a “running commentary”.

Taylor would do better to clearly explain any involvement, not least because his non-answers clearly aren’t cutting it. Asked again on Friday, he repeated the running commentary line, before being challenged over his non-answers. This time he said he was prepared to answer any question from the media, only to again fall back on not providing a running commentary. You might laugh if it weren’t so serious.

The Icac probe has plenty of targets, and based on the evidence so far Taylor’s involvement appears peripheral, but ongoing speculation won’t help the Liberal leader establish himself with voters, let alone deal with the Liberals’ existential threat from One Nation ahead of the next election.

On the question of transparency, the good news is that new federal fundraising rules, due to come into force from next year, will require all donations of more than $5,000 be publicly disclosed, down from the current threshold of more than $17,000.

The information will also be made public more quickly, and will move to real time disclosure standards in election periods.

Political parties will be subject to spending caps of $90m nationally during a federal election, and at the electorate level, spending will be limited to $800,000. Teals and transparency advocates have serious problems with the new donations and spending regime, but, coming off a very low base, it is something of an improvement.

But the new rules won’t solve any of this week’s problems.

Hanson will still be able to accept funding for overseas trips from Rinehart with only limited disclosure, Albanese will still be able to dine with cashed up donors without explanation and, while not yet established, Taylor could still support factional manoeuvres inside the Liberal party with voters being none the wiser.

The first politician or political party to get serious about improving standards around money in politics will be rewarded by voters. The major parties seem to prefer a murky world of unanswered questions and limited facts.

Really, is it any wonder voters hold the country’s elected officials in such low regard?