MPs must listen to ordinary people not just the rich
In Australia, it seems politics is run by those with the fattest wallets, not the best ideas.
By Alice Drury, Lawyer
at the Human Rights Law Centre
In Australia, it seems politics is run by those with the fattest wallets, not the best ideas.
Take the federal election this year, when billionaire Clive Palmer was able to use his personal wealth to spend double that of the Labor Party and Liberal Party combined. Or just last week, when it emerged that the Morrison Government overlooked the top-ranked projects to develop regional Queensland, and instead gave grants to the projects of Liberal National Party donors.
The whole point of a democracy is that the government serves the people. Yet there is a cohort of politicians who seem to spend more time with their mates in the corporate box than with voters.
Last week, the Palaszczuk Government proposed a new law that will limit the amount that big donors can give to politicians and rein in massive election spends.
If donations are capped and in their place politicians are given more public funding, politicians will listen less to the super wealthy and more to ordinary people.
This equation just makes sense. Reforms such as this are vital to creating a fairer Queensland. But a look under the hood reveals a major flaw in the proposed laws.
Strict donation caps will hurt small grassroots advocacy and charities the most. Community groups and charities that spend $1000 or more on advocating on an election issue – be it domestic violence, homelessness or protecting koalas from suburban development – will be banned from receiving donations of more than $20 on average a week for that purpose. Already under-resourced community groups and charities will face a compliance nightmare if they accept donations of just $5 a week for advocacy.
Want to take out a newspaper ad to pressure politicians to protect a local park? You’d better have a good lawyer. In the meantime, forget about limiting the spending power of the major players – because companies don’t receive donations, their income won’t be touched by the donation caps. The big banks, tobacco companies and the gambling industry will still be able to spend big – up to $1 million per company – to campaign for a politician who will protect their profits.
The Queensland Government should revisit the spending limits for companies and ensure donation limits do not capture advocacy by small community groups and charities. If it can get these laws right, Queensland has an opportunity to set the standard for the rest of the country to follow. At federal and state levels, politicians rely on big donors to fund expensive election campaigns.
If politicians then don’t comply with the wishes of their benefactors, they risk being defunded, or even worse, having donors turn against them in a multimillion-dollar ad campaigns.
This system is set up so that, to paraphrase a ruling from the High Court of Australia, politicians treat donors like they are clients.
But if the Palaszczuk Government doesn’t look closely at the details of what they’re doing, they could inadvertently make the power imbalance between ordinary Queenslanders and big corporations worse.
Good reforms would seek to level the playing field and protect the work of groups that amplify the voices of the community.