Ex-Politicians and the Revolving Door Problem
By Denis Hay
Description:
Ex-politicians routinely join the fossil fuel industry after leaving office. Explore how this undermines Australia’s democracy and environment.
Introduction:
Australia’s political landscape has long been tainted by corporate influence, with both Labor and the Liberal-National Party (LNP) contributing to a practice known as the “revolving door.” This refers to politicians, after leaving office, routinely securing lucrative roles in industries they once regulated, particularly the fossil fuel sector. This bipartisan problem sees ex-politicians, whether from Labor or LNP, working for corporations that exploit Australia’s natural resources and contribute to environmental degradation.
These individuals – representatives of the people – often undermine the interests of Australian citizens, creating an ethical quagmire. Is it time to hold both parties accountable for allowing corporate interests to guide political decisions? In this article, we’ll explore how this practice undermines democracy and discuss solutions to combat this growing issue.
1. The Revolving Door Between Politics and Corporate Interests
The “revolving door” between politics and corporate roles is a well-documented and bipartisan problem in Australia. This practice is widespread across both the Labor Party and the Liberal-National Party (LNP), where politicians routinely transition into high-paying roles in industries they were once supposed to regulate. The fossil fuel industry is one of the biggest beneficiaries of this practice. Whether from Labor or LNP, many former politicians now work for corporations that profit from coal, gas, and mining, often at the expense of Australia’s environmental future.
Examples from Labor and LNP in the Fossil Fuel Industry
– Ian Macfarlane (LNP), a former Minister for Resources and Energy, is now the CEO of the Queensland Resources Council, a major fossil fuel lobbying group.
– Martin Ferguson (Labor), a former Minister for Resources and Energy, took up roles with oil and gas companies after leaving office, including a key advisory role with the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association.
– Julie Bishop (LNP), former Foreign Minister, joined the board of a large mining company soon after leaving politics.
– Greg Combet (Labor), former Climate Change Minister, transitioned into the private sector, advising companies in the energy industry, including mining and coal.
These transitions show a troubling pattern where politicians from both major parties seem more interested in securing future corporate roles than in protecting the public’s interest while in office.
2. Corporate Influence on Labor and LNP: A Historical Context
Both Labor and LNP have a long history of receiving substantial financial contributions from the fossil fuel industry. These contributions influence policy decisions, ensuring that corporate interests take precedence over public welfare. Political donations from mining, gas, and oil companies flow into both major parties, leading to policies that help the fossil fuel sector and perpetuate Australia’s reliance on non-renewable resources.
Political Donations and Favourable Policies
Fossil fuel companies are some of the largest donors to both Labor and LNP. These donations often lead to decisions that favour the industry, such as approving new coal mines or delaying environmental regulations. The bipartisan nature of this relationship means that, regardless of who is in power, corporate interests often prevail. Both parties have a track record of supporting projects that contribute to environmental harm, such as Labor’s approval of coal mines under the Adani project and the LNP’s ongoing support for gas exploration.
3. Ex-Politicians as Bludgers on the Public Purse
While ex-politicians from both Labor and LNP secure lucrative corporate roles, they also continue to receive generous pensions from the public purse. These pensions, funded by taxpayer money, are designed to support politicians in retirement, not while they work for corporations that may actively harm the public interest. This practice has caused widespread frustration among Australian citizens, who feel that their tax dollars are being used to fund the lavish lifestyles of politicians who have effectively sold out to corporate interests.
Public Pensions and Corporate Salaries
Ex-politicians often draw large pensions after leaving office, with many receiving six-figure sums annually. Despite this financial security, many secure high-paying corporate roles, particularly within the fossil fuel industry. This double-dipping from public and private resources raises serious ethical concerns. Should individuals who once claimed to serve the public continue to receive help from taxpayer-funded pensions while working for industries that damage the environment and public health?
4. The Fossil Fuel Industry and its Detriment to Australia
The fossil fuel industry has had a significant negative impact on Australia, contributing to climate change, environmental destruction, and damage to public health. Despite growing international pressure to move towards renewable energy, Australia is still heavily reliant on coal and natural gas, thanks in large part to the influence of fossil fuel companies on both Labor and LNP politicians. Ex-politicians from both parties working for these companies only reinforces Australia’s status as one of the world’s largest exporters of fossil fuels.
Environmental and Social Costs of the Fossil Fuel Industry
– Australia is the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels globally, contributing disproportionately to global carbon emissions.
– Fossil fuel extraction has led to the destruction of Indigenous lands, the contamination of groundwater, and increased air pollution in mining regions.
– Ex-politicians’ involvement in these industries perpetuates the damage, delaying the necessary transition to renewable energy.
5. Are These Ex-Politicians Traitors to Australia?
Politicians from both Labor and LNP often campaign on promises to serve the people, protect the environment, and create a sustainable future. However, their actions after leaving office suggest otherwise. By joining the fossil fuel industry or other corporate sectors, these individuals show a clear conflict of interest. Their willingness to prioritise personal gain over the future of Australia can be seen as a betrayal of the public trust. In some cases, this behaviour can be viewed as a form of treason, especially when these ex-politicians support industries that harm the environment and public health.
A Bipartisan Betrayal
The betrayal is bipartisan. Whether it’s a former Labor MP joining a mining company or an ex-LNP minister advising an oil giant, the pattern is still the same. Politicians from both sides of the aisle are abandoning their responsibility to the Australian people, choosing corporate interests over public welfare.
6. Policy Reforms to Stop the Revolving Door
To address the revolving door between politics and corporate industries, Australia must implement stronger regulations that apply to both Labor and LNP politicians. A mandatory cooling-off period that prevents ex-politicians from joining industries they once regulated would help curb conflicts of interest. Additionally, tighter lobbying restrictions could ensure that corporate influence is reduced.
Proposed Reforms
– Cooling-off periods: A mandatory five-year cooling-off period would prevent ex-politicians from working in industries they once regulated, whether from Labor or LNP.
– Lobbying restrictions: Stricter regulations on lobbying activities would limit the influence ex-politicians can have on government decisions after leaving office.
– Transparency measures: Mandating that politicians disclose their future career intentions and potential conflicts of interest before leaving office would increase transparency and reduce the risk of corruption.
7. Public Response and Citizen Disillusionment
The revolving door between politics and corporate interests has led to widespread public disillusionment in Australia. Voters from across the political spectrum are increasingly frustrated with the belief that their elected representatives are more interested in securing corporate roles than serving the public. This bipartisan issue has led to a decline in voter turnout and a growing sense of political apathy, as many Australians feel that their voices are no longer heard.
Loss of Trust in Labor and LNP
Both major parties are viewed as being complicit in this practice, with voters feeling that neither side is immune to the corrupting influence of corporate money. This loss of trust undermines democracy and leaves Australians wondering who, if anyone, is truly representing their interests.
8. Conclusion: Holding Labor and LNP Accountable
Ex-politicians from both Labor and LNP working for corporate interests, particularly in the fossil fuel industry, is a bipartisan problem that undermines Australia’s democracy and environmental future. Their actions erode public trust, contribute to environmental destruction, and ensure that corporate interests stay a priority over public welfare. It’s time for Australians to demand accountability from both major parties and push for stronger regulations that prevent the revolving door from continuing.
Summary
This article examined the troubling practice of ex-politicians from both Labor and LNP joining corporate sectors, particularly in the fossil fuel industry. The bipartisan nature of the revolving door undermines public trust, perpetuates environmental damage, and betrays the Australian people. Stricter regulations such as cooling-off periods and lobbying restrictions are necessary to stop this unethical practice.
Question for Readers:
Do you believe that stricter regulations should be imposed on both Labor and LNP politicians to prevent them from joining industries they once regulated?
Call to Action:
Join the conversation by leaving your thoughts below or signing up for our newsletter to stay informed on how we can hold both Labor and LNP accountable for their ties to corporate interests.
Social Sharing:
Share this article with your network to spread awareness of the bipartisan problem of ex-politicians prioritising corporate profits over public interests
This article was originally published on Social Justice Australia.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
12 comments
Login here Register here-
Phil Pryor
-
Harry Lime
-
Frank
-
John C
-
Andrew Smith
-
Max Gross
-
Heather
-
New Bruce
-
Rob
-
Canguro
-
Clakka
-
Lyndal
Return to home pageHere is a problem area, quite obvious and open, that has grown in my time, until the infectious site is bigger than its base; imagine a boil bigger than a bum…and we noticed that “country party” types did it with keen planning and alacrity. B Joyce has done a bit of drilling (not in shafts) and thus knows about the “game”. He could advise and get noticed, certainly the latter… Surely we see that getting a large reward from tax payers, plus new rewards from corporations, after RETIRING (hah) is a bit thick and sick. Politics.., then, perversions, predation, pocketing, parasitisms, promotions, pedicating pelfing, pillaging, all pukka and pornomaniacal. And what do we get? You can’t ask the Gracchi anymore, so, watch your back Denis.
Until both sides of the duopoly are given a resounding beating at the ballot box,nothing will change for the better.Greens and Teals 1st,Labor and LNP last.I fully expect greasy Albanese to pull all sorts of dirty tricks to limit the campaigns of the ‘others’, between now and the election.Fully endorsed by the thug.
Thieving greedy bastards,that dont give a shyte about Joe public,i always said it,anyone going into politics is doing it for the money and power,so just imagine next time they try telling you they are doing everything to help with the cost of living when in fact they are doing nothing.If i decide im going to retire and get a state pension,im only allowed to earn something like $13000 a year before they start to takeaway my pension,yet these slime balls can earn millions and still get a fat government pension,absolute joke.And like has been said it does not matter who you vote for there all the same and its been going on for years.There should be a royal commission with the power to prosecute these criminals at federal and also state level,there are quite a few missing from this list as well,this is only the tip of the iceberg,look where Scott Morison is working now,the architect of AUKUS truly feathered his next,then you have Dominic Perrottet nice cushy job with BHP it goes on and on,there all on the take
All modern day politicians are only in it for themselves. The days of them actually caring about their constituency and the citizens of this country is well past. This foul practice is probably the only thing that ever gets bipartisan agreement nowadays because it benefits both party’s members but leaves the rest of us tax payers paying their over inflated pensions that they never earned in the first place. Hard to know which is a more despised species; lawyers or polies…
To be fair to Combet, unlike the others he is technically educated in engineering so it’s not outside his lane vs. others with unclear skills except being ‘connected’?.
Other ‘job shops’ missed are the now longstanding US fossil fuel PR/lobbying think tanks in faux ‘free market’ Atlas Koch Network eg. IPA, CIS etc., plus acting as patrons and influencers for white nativist Tanton mob ie. SPA (popular with ALP types?).
It’s an exclusive club. The pollies are in it. We plebs are not.
How is that these people are not being nabbed for ‘Insider Trading’ given that they are very privy to commercially sensiitve information?
Our politicians supposedly take up office for the common good. Many of them see it as a way of not having to actually earn a living, and to open doors to a high standard of living. Bugger that.
The five year “Cooling Off” period would be a great start. That one is an essential and imperative.
Ex-politicians should not be allowed to find “employment” in any company with links to any portfolios or committees on which they have served.
The moment any ex-politician signs on to a role with a major corporation, their Parliamentary Pension is finished. They cannot have a new job and a publicly funded high income too.
New B, that’s a good start. Maybe throw in another condition of political employment that if promised targets are not met then a portion of a MPs salaries gets clawed back. For example: a politican claims they have a plan to build 1.2 million homes in 5 years and they end up building less than 120,000 homes. The ‘clawback’ would be 90% of base salary. That idea would need be in place for about 2 terms of Parliament and a lot of the BS promises would evaporate. It’s a virtuous negative feedback loop, something missing atm.
The irony of ex-politicians receiving a generous term of life pension after retiring from politics – at whatever age, contingent upon eight years of service and paid at a 50% rate of their allowance – whilst also being paid additional monies by virtue of entering into whatever post-parliamentary corporate or advisory positions they take, apparently without admonition, as compared to your average PAYE employee who scrimps and saves and breathes a sigh of relief upon turning 67 and signing up for the ~$650 p.w. aged pension, who is then hammered by Centrelink and the ATO should he dare to earn a few bob more, is not overlooked.
To continue to promulgate the fantasy that this so-called egalitarian and fair nation is just that is nothing more than a shameful hoax. Given that it is the political classes, of all stripes & colours, who make these self-serving rules for their benefit whilst also endorsing the other sets of rules that permit whip-cracking over the heads of the proletariat should they seek to somehow improve their circumstances – which in very few cases ever rise to the degree of privilege self-afforded by those of the political classes – one might reasonably assert that this is a system deliberately designed to oppress the masses for the benefit of the few.
Nothing less than oppression by fiat decision in fact. Remember that next time you’re asked to support this or that party or politician.
Lobbying, like protest, has always existed, and both could be seen as fundamental to the political process, as much as political parties and factions – it’s all about finding, sifting and sorting information to facilitate ‘effective’ parliamentary consideration and legislation. And let’s face it, politicians are selling ideas and rules all the way through to legislation (or not) – they offer themselves and the voters vote for them (or not). Issues arise when there is a lack of transparency in those matters and opacity in donations to politics and duchessing.
Currently there are a Register of Gifts and a Register of Pecuniary Interests for all MPs, albeit there have been imbroglios about the use of (Bilnd) Trusts. Recently there have been Bills proposed by independents Wilkie and Sharkie about political donations, Sharkie proposes lowering of reporting threshold to $1,000 and tidying definitions. Wilkie’s also includes banning donations from ‘dirty industries’, specifically; the fossil fuel industry, property developers, the tobacco industry, the banking industry, liquor and gambling businesses, pharmaceuticals companies; and representative organisations for these industries. Neither Bill has been passed.
In South Australia the Labor govt has introduced a Bill to ban political donations and cap political donations to newly registered parties. It has not yet passed. And has rightly raised alarm with independents that it strangles new aspirants’ ability to message, and grossly favors the incumbent duopolies of Labor and LNP.
The recent successful advent of the ‘Teals’ and gains by the ‘screeching’ Greens has seen a rising risk to the duopoly status quo, and a prospect of a hung parliament at the upcoming federal elections, and a minority govt beholden to the cross benches. This may not be such a bad thing in the ‘keep the bastards honest’ game. It may fill a gap left by the grossly politically biased, divisive and feckless mainstream media. And it appears that the voting public are onto it, and will see it driven that way.
Many countries have multi-partty systems, with most successfully negotiating beneficial legislation, albeit, in these days of social media driven individual self-interest and discombobulation, some are facing legislative strain. On the other hand, for others of two-party systems, there’s a tendency for some to become autocratic, and in some cases entrenched dictatorships disregarding alternate views and minorities. Not including Africa, South America and Asia, in Europe at present there are 10 different alliance groups slowly emerged via reconstruction following WWII. However, within those groupings there are 15 countries that contain in all over 40 political groups applying secessionist and devolutionary pressures.
So regardless of umpteen treaties, and numerous inter-country alliances, there is a substantial political push for devolution of the status quo driven by nativism and notions of human rights, further entangled by 10s of millions of refugees and displaced persons seeking a safe home. And suffice it to say, areas of the Middle East, South Asia, South East Asia, Africa and South America are experiencing virulent geo-political issues. It may be that in the face of globalization, the world has not ever faced such widespread political instability, and in that there is the entanglement of what could be considered as the application of reasonable human rights, and the ability to maintain a functional critical mass and sustainable economy and ecology.
So, needles to say, politics is a very tough and demanding game. A game where the increasing complex issues of the modern world have to be considered both domestically and for the effects internationally before decisions can be made, and legislation enacted, even then it’s likely that an MP will be damned of they do and damned if they don’t. A game where MPs will inevitably be away from their home and family for extended periods. And every three years (in Oz) each MP faces the potential of being ‘voted’ out of their job. It is quite likely these days for MP’s to endure for say 10 or so years would be a maximum.
This is the democracy of today. I suppose we could opt for totalitarianism, and all this might go away?
After their tenure, what are they going to do, and how can they continue to earn an income through any remaining viable years?
Would it be right to curtail their freedom of association, and freedom to earn an income?
Is it reasonable to expect that the ‘marketplace’ would bid to gain from their insights attained as an MP?
Would the ‘marketplace’ consider the MP’s political / industrial leanings before making an offer?
Is it reasonable that political parties, ‘think tanks’ and academic institutions retain their skills and services?
Is it possible that their skills and services will aid the process of the ‘marketplace’ getting its message to the government / parliament?
It seems to me that the ‘marketplace’ will make its offers to all people based upon reputation, skill, experience and fit.
It seems to me to be no more of a revolving door than exists within industries in the ‘marketplace’.
And no different to what the voting public expects of MPs in the argy-bargy across the aisles in the parliament.
Transparency, proper donation rules, and lobbying registers / diaries are what is needed.
It is still the MPs that make the decisions in parliament, not the retired MPs.
I understood that the reason for the generous post parliamentary pension was the idea that retiring or defeated MPs would not be able to earn an adequate income in their later lives. Since this is clearly incorrect, the automatic grant of a Parliamentary pension should end. After all, everyone else whose job ends for any reason must use their savings to live on until Centrelink considers them sufficiently poor enough to qualify for the relevant benefit.
Such an approach to the post parliamentary income of politicians might also encourage them to consider reforms to make our Social Security system more kind and helpful for everyone.