The Power Index: Yabsley says ‘ban political donations’
- Share
Former Liberal Party treasurer Michael Yabsley, who has raised millions of dollars to fund Liberal election campaigns, has called for a complete ban on political donations by big business, trade unions and property developers.
Yabsley told The Power Index in a video interview, “Political donations from entities across the board — companies, business associations, trade unions, etc — should be abolished, end of story”.
“The only donations that should be allowed should be from real people, Australian citizens. And those donations should be capped by legislation at a modest amount … maybe $500.”
Yabsley has urged the NSW Liberal premier, Barry O’Farrell, to “lead by example” in enacting such a ban. In an email sent to Peta Seaton, the premier’s cabinet chief, Yabsley cautioned that political scandals may otherwise force the change.
“It is an accident waiting to happen,” he warned.
“I am not contending here that there is wholesale political corruption based on the payment of money, or even that political donations provide some cheap and easy way to get a result from government,” Yabsley’s email continued. “Suffice to say there are perceptions, and occasional realities that … call into question the integrity of public policy and decision making.”
“I think it fails the smell test,” he told The Power Index more bluntly.
Yabsley, who stepped down as party treasurer after last year’s election, is arguably the most successful political fund-raiser in Australian history. In 1999, he set up the Millenium Forum, which raises millions of dollars by selling access to Liberal leaders. In 2007 he used the same model to establish the Wentworth Forum, which has raised millions of dollars for Malcolm Turnbull’s campaigns.
One of the Millenium Forum’s most successful events is its monthly boardroom lunches hosted by the big accounting firm, Deloitte, (which has contributed $909,000 to the Liberal Party since 1999). These are reserved exclusively for “sponsors” and “feature key members of the federal and state Liberal teams” such as Joe Hockey, Andrew Robb and NSW Treasurer Mike Baird.
One of the biggest sponsors of the Millenium Forum is Clubs NSW, which received special treatment in the NSW government’s recent crackdown on alcohol-related violence.
The cost of Millenium Forum sponsorship packages is not published, but the Wentworth Forum offers different levels of access to Malcolm Turnbull, depending on whether you’re a member ($5000), sponsor ($11,000), patron ($16,500), benefactor ($25,500) or governor ($55,000).
Donors to the Wentworth Forum have included Westfield billionaire Frank Lowy and property developer Harry Triguboff.
So how does Yabsley explain his sudden distaste for such donations?
“I’ve always felt somewhat queasy about the whole process,” he told The Power Index, “As I have gone through more than three decades of political funding I have always worried about the perception [of it]”.
If big donations are banned, taxpayers will have to fund the parties’ election campaigns. But Yabsley is adamant that spending should be cut back. “I actually believe that the money and the messaging involved is pretty unseemly. I think it’s out of control. We’re not selling soap powder, we’re not selling pet food. This actually goes to a fundamental question of the integrity of government.
“Whether it was the Bank NSW giving £250,000 to the Liberal Party in 1961, or a business person giving $20,000 to the Liberal Party or the National Party or the Labor Party or the Greens … let’s not pretend this is confined to one party, this is across the board.”
What crap. Taxpyers should refuse to touch this idea. We’d end up with an hermetically sealed bureacracy of self-interested plastic pollies, living off taxpayers in a world divorced from community.
Pollies need to attract members and supporters. To raise their own money. To be connected.
Does anybody have at their fingertips the current membership numbers of the main parties? I have in mind something like figures, decade by decade from 1950 to 2010, for Libs, Country/Nats, Labor, Greens.
I’m pretty sure that there has been a huge winding back of membership across the board, with the possible exception of the Greens, as parties have come to rely on handouts from government based on election results, rather than broadening and deepening their own membership bases.
Guess what? We now have parties without membership but which still claim to represent Australians. Go figure.
By all means, get the parties off the handouts from business and the unions, but at the same time, stop them from dipping into public coffers and selling access via Board Room Luncheons or similar devices.
Wake me up when the job is done, because until that day arrives, political discussion in this country will stay just as stultified, predictable and remote from reality as it is at present.
Labor historian and ex-NSW Minister for Education, Rodney Cavalier was dead right in the message in his recent book Power Crisis, especially his observation that parties and factions have evolved into executive placement agencies for mates and hangers-on, or words to that effect. The sooner, the better, in my opinion.
funny how politicians only grow a brain when they retire from politics…. except for richo
Just stating the obvious but surely a donation is not made in a vacuum and favourable treatment at the expense of others has to be the objective of any donation. Clubs NSW is just one shining example of the corruption of the democratic process.
interesting idea. don’t think similar rules have worked in the US, though i’m not aware of the specifics over there.
one question if a reform like this ever got up (and we’re in pretty hypothetical territory right there) is — how would you counter private advertising campaigns as per the anti-mining/carbon tax, which would be bound to increase if groups lost their power to throw money directly at politicians.
I like the idea, it is plain that business’s will not part with large lumps of cash unless they think there will be some return on it. Even if it is tax deductible and subject to risk.
I still cannot see business interests giving up the right to purchase influence, this may not be through direct donations but by way of funding a common cause. For example, paying for an “independent” advertising campaign which just happens to mirror the view of the party. Or, say a large donation to an “independent” think tank which supplies reports and studies which again just happen to align with a certain party position. I am sure there are many other ways of channeling money into a cause. The result being the same, easy access to ministers with a sympathetic ear.
@Jocelyn Tan
I’m an Australian living in Norway.
The system that Yabsley advocates; that is political funding primarily from the public purse and the imposition of strict limits on corporate/union funding is the system they have here and I see no evidence for a “hermetically sealed bureacracy of self-interested plastic pollies, living off taxpayers in a world divorced from community.”
Quite the opposite in fact.
This is not new. Every couple of years someone raises it.
It seems when the money rolls in, the motivation for political change rolls out the door.
I agree with Mr Yabsley, Mr O’Farrell can make a name for himself but it won’t be his decision. The big end of town effectively own the Liberal Party and the Union movement effectively owns Labor.
None of these organisations will happily part with this power and influence until a ground swell of demanding constituents forces it upon them. We get the system we deserve.
Meanwhile political decisions are made to appease party sponsors, the wealthiest exert the most influence because they can more easily afford it.
The book Power Crisis informed readers the numbers in NSW were perhaps 15000 Labor party members on the books and around a 1000 active members. Whatever the other political parties may claim, it is clear we are being misgoverned by a very small minority of the Australian population who are self interested enough to get stuck in and share the governance of the rest of us. The responsibility for the years of very ordinary work product from our elected representatives belongs to the rank and file members of the two parties not much preferred whose apathy keeps the dead wood like Craig Thomson on the party tickets. Edward James
This is a great idea, and long overdue.
Lobbyists and big donors corrupt the political process, because even the most objective person’s judgement is impacted by developing familiar relationships with other people.
In a democracy, political leaders have a responsibility to represent the best interests of all citizens without fear or favour.
Bullwinkle that trick never works. Bloody good idea spouted by many since the dawn of time but will be quashed by vested interests who a) don’t want to NOT to be able to buy influence and b) survive off this never ending funding teat.
Those who are in a position to influence don’t want the more “real” “democracy” that this will bring ; where the people’s vote can’t be circumvented by tghe buying of a seat at a table where a party heavyweight will be dining.
And lobbyists of all shades will lobby against it because their industry will evaporate as soon as it was made law.