An article in today’s Guardian has me gobsmacked. And politically speaking, that’s not an easy thing to do. It seems former Prime Minister John Howard thinks that it’s fine for politicians and political parties to accept donations from foreign entities. Really?
Howard told Sky news, “I am not against foreign donations, I don’t believe in banning corporate donations, I don’t believe in banning trade union donations, so therefore I’m the odd man out in this whole debate.”
He has one recommendation though…
“The one big change that’s needed is more timely disclosure of donations. Transparency is the key.”
After we have just survived a week where the entire conservative side of politics has been baying for the blood of Sam Dastyari for foolishly accepting a personal gift of $1600 from a foreign entity, here we have their former leader telling them and everyone else, the donations are not the problem. It is the time they take to be disclosed.
But then he says, “It seems as if we are, as a collective political class, saying federal politics is so potentially corrupt that we’ve got to insulate ourselves against undue financial influence. In all the years I was in federal politics I did not see any significant evidence of corruption.”
Have I misread this or is he really saying that federal politics is NOT potentially corrupt enough to be insulated? Is he mad? Yes John, for your information, politics is corrupted enough! It is corrupted enough the moment a party candidate is elected. From that moment, he/she abandons all personal conviction in favour of the party’s wishes. That’s corruption. They no longer serve their electorate. They serve the party.
What politician could honestly say they have never voted against their own beliefs in favour of whatever position the party decided?
There are a few occasions where members have crossed the floor, but to suggest they have always believed in whatever the party machine has decided and voted accordingly, is stretching one’s imagination too far.
Politicians already admit they are capable of being bribed. They are calling for change. That’s what this debate is all about.
Any politician is capable of being bribed. The size of a donation is mere detail. That is why we have procedures, rules, guidelines. That is why we have laws. Yet laws are always broken, so we have punishments to suit the magnitude of the offence. Dhrr! Where have you been these last nine years, John?
Suggesting that the disclosure or the timing of the disclosure will fix it, is simplistic and naive. It clearly doesn’t and it won’t. You fix things by making it as near as impossible to do it or get away with it. But we know from hard experience not even that works.
Just look at what the NSW Liberal party did to overcome the ban on donations from developers. They set up elaborate “independent entities” where money could be laundered before it could be safely funnelled into party funds.
The best, but by no means the surest, way to stop potential bribery-prone donations is to publicly fund all political parties and candidates and outlaw any other means of funding.
But even that is not enough. You then need to have each party submit their advertising programs to a central authority for processing and payment.
That central authority would then administer the production and distribution of those programs. They could also oversee the accuracy and honesty of all political statements, claims and promises, BEFORE they approve them.
And before the neo-liberal army gets on its high horse claiming the nation could not afford it, they should be reminded that the public purse is already paying political parties based on electoral performance.
They just don’t have any control over what it is spent on and from where else politicians get it. Let them ALSO be reminded that a sovereign currency issuing nation can afford anything that is for sale in its own currency.
Yes, we can afford it. And we should do it.
