tip off

Political donations: how Labor got crushed by the Liberal money machine

New political donation data shows how generous donors were to the Liberal Party as it closed in on victory. But we have to wait for the donations that came once Kevin Rudd returned (briefly) to power.

The annual data dump of political donations has landed, providing an extraordinarily belated glimpse of who is propping up political parties. But theĀ Australian Electoral Commission still isn’t telling us who backed the campaigns on the eve of the federal election — the data stops on June 30; anything after that won’t be released for another 12 months.

The disclosures — released as a searchable form by the AEC — shows that the Liberal Party easily out-raised Labor, garnering over $56 million at the federal and state level during the year, plus nearly $17 million from the Liberal National Party in Queensland, and another $1.8 million from the Country Liberals in the Northern Territory. In contrast, the ALP nationally raised $54.7 million — up from the $49 million recorded in 2011-12 but still dwarfed by the Coalition and well below the $80 million-plus the ALP raised in 2010-11, a year with federal, New South Wales and Victorian elections. The Nationals raised over $8 million across the country as well, just slightly more than the Greens.

As usual, federal Labor has submitted all donations and other receipts (e.g. proceeds from fundraising events not captured as donations under federal laws) over $1000, in line with its commitment to lowering the reporting threshold for donations. Its big corporate donors were ANZ ($80,000 donation), logistics giant Asciano ($66,000 via “other receipts”), the ASX ($110,000 in “other receipts”), Inghams ($250,000 donation), Clubs NSW ($66,000 in “other receipts”), Rex Airlines (of which former National MP John Sharp is deputy chairman) via a $250,000 donation; Jefferson Investments ($55,000 donation), resources company Energy Exploration ($55,000 in “other receipts”), Westfield ($150,000 donation) and Woodside ($110,000 in “other receipts”).

Labor had to work for its funds — the overwhelming bulk of its funding at the federal and state levels came not from donations but from fundraisers such as dinners with cabinet, to which Labor substantially dropped the price of tickets as former prime minister Julia Gillard’s defeat became ever more certain.

In contrast, the Liberals (which don’t report below the then-current threshold of $12,100) reaped huge amounts from straight donations. Australian Hotels Association Victoria gave $100,000, Balmoral Pastoral $200,000, Clubs NSW $100,000, Tory peer Lord Robert Edmiston (who didn’t file a return to the Electoral Commission as required by law) $76,000, waste disposal company JJ Richards ($150,000), Ros Packer a whopping $580,000, $45,000 from Philip Morris (Prime Minister Tony Abbott has since banned tobacco donations), Richard Pratt $250,000, Village Roadshow $120,000, Trepang Services $120,000 and Washington Soul Pattinson $250,000. That’s just a taste of a lengthy list of outright donations to the Liberals, in addition to the money generated by their fundraising (which included $110,000 from businessman Harold Mitchell).

So, while Labor struggled to sell seats at dinners with Gillard, the Liberals were awash with donations from Australia’s corporate elite anticipating an Abbott victory. NSW Labor, however, once again benefited from the largesse of Chinese donors. Sydney-based Malaysian Chinese businessman William Chiu gave $50,000. Chinese property developer Huang Changran gave $150,000 and his company Yuhu $100,000 (they gave smaller amounts to the NSW Liberals); the hitherto-unknown Luo Chuangxiong gave $150,000, and food importer Wei Wah International Trading gave NSW Labor $200,000.

As always, Labor also drew strongly on union donations and receipts — over $900,000 from branches of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association, nearly $400,000 from branches of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, $350,000 from the Australian Services Union, around $290,000 from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, and $370,000-odd from United Voice.

The Victorian ALP also secured nearly $3.3 million in other receipts from a Melbourne company “Zhongfu Investments”, understood to be the result of the sale of that branch’s head office.

Clive Palmer, for once, has a short return — and an interesting one, which shows him donating $42,000 to the LNP in June last year, well after his falling out with the party and in the middle of his efforts to establish his own political party.

The Greens, as usual, relied heavily on public funding; their only major individual donation was $100,000 from IT businessman Norman Pater. Interestingly, the Victorian branch of the Greens, which managed to re-elected Adam Bandt and add another senator to the party’s ranks in September, was an underperformer at least until the end of the financial year, raising less than $700,000 compared to nearly twice that from NSW and Western Australia. Even the Queensland branch raised more than the Victorian Greens.

We won’t learn how the return of Kevin Rudd affected funding for both the ALP and the Coalition after June 30 until this time next year, when we’ll see the rest of donations for the period up until the September election. That’s the effect of our antiquated political donation laws. In an era when online disclosure of donations would take a matter of minutes for parties, we’re still waiting well over a year to find out who’s trying to influence democracy in Australia.

But no matter what, it’s clear that as Abbott closed in on victory last year, his party had the upper hand when it came to big-dollar donations from some of Australia’s richest people and companies.

14
  • 1
    John64
    Posted Monday, 3 February 2014 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    It’d be interesting to see if money always follows (or in this case, leads) the eventual winner and whether that can be used to predict the election outcome (in much the same way people talk about the betting market and polling).

  • 2
    Jimmyhaz
    Posted Monday, 3 February 2014 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    I imagine there would be some correlation, but it would be a weak link at best. The pre-election fundraising massively favour Romney in 2012, but he was still put to the sword come election day.

  • 3
    AR
    Posted Monday, 3 February 2014 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    Not.A.WORD can I say of this iniquity.

  • 4
    Scott
    Posted Monday, 3 February 2014 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    Jimmyhaz…not true.

    If you look at the nytimes 2012 election page, you actually have more money being raised by the democrats ($1072 million) than by the Republicans ($992 million).
    Being the standing President gives you a fair bit of clout in the fund raising game.

    Generally the winner has more money.

  • 5
    Scott
    Posted Monday, 3 February 2014 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    The Greens, as usual, relied heavily on public funding; their only major individual donation was $100,000 from IT businessman Norman Pater”

    What you forget to mention of course is where he gets his money from…WA Mining companies, being the founder of Scope Systems. The Greens getting money from mining? Who would have thought it.

  • 6
    Sharkie
    Posted Monday, 3 February 2014 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    937 words on political donations and “bribe” wasn’t used once.

  • 7
    Electric Lardyland
    Posted Monday, 3 February 2014 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    Just a bit surprised that there’s not more mining industry money on the Coal-ition side. Maybe more will show up in the July to September period, when these figures are released next year. Then again, Gina did do her bit by buying a large chunk of Channel 10 and having Andrew (so not Usain) Bolt installed on his comfortable little propaganda perch. And I do remember the odd critical of the then government ad, being paid for by the mining industry. And not forgetting the funding of those right wing think tanks and astroturf organisations. Then there’s the Australian tours of various climate change deniers.
    Actually, better stop there, before this becomes a very long post.

  • 8
    Jimmyhaz
    Posted Monday, 3 February 2014 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    Huh, thanks for that Scott. Hard to believe that given the controversy over the Citizens United SC decision. Do you happen to have a link to those numbers, and a breakdown of there origin? The numbers I’m pulling are slightly different, although still favouring the Democrats.

  • 9
    Jimmyhaz
    Posted Monday, 3 February 2014 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    Never mind, I found it. Clearly I was thinking of the National Committee’s and PAC’s as the sole source of fundraising for the candidates.

  • 10
    Kevin Herbert
    Posted Monday, 3 February 2014 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    Scott: you’re talking as though there’s really 2 major political parties in DC, when in fact there’s only one..which comes in 2 colours & is controlled by the 5 lobby groups who dominate the Congress.
    As for the Presidency, it’s now considered by most informed pundits, as only a middle power in the original C Wright Mills power pyramid.

    Also: I wonder how many $12099 donations the Libs received from various special interest groups. I hear they received more 1500 such donations mainly from the one group.

    Finally, I wonder why PM Abbott’s first call after the election victory was to the odious Bibi Netanyahu….bit strange wasn’t it.

  • 11
    klewso
    Posted Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 1:36 am | Permalink

    There are those that whisper into the electorate’s collective ear, telling it how perspicacious, clever and astute it is - while paying for “her” time, persuading it how to vote?

  • 12
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    I guess after Sarah Hanson Young’s performance in Senates Committee last week, with the fictional TV show about boats, theur donations will drop further. Probably the funniest example she has provided in recent years.

  • 13
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    Being a “poor” party, (in the manner of Francis’ preferred church?) never stopped the Green vote growing in the past, why should it stop them in the future?
    Or is all politics only dependent upon “Caesar” and his gold?
    Greens and “Good will” does seem to be something of a match,
    while as far as the major parties are concerned, “Democracy4Sale”?

  • 14
    John Taylor
    Posted Wednesday, 5 February 2014 at 4:13 am | Permalink

    OMG!!! A politician made a mistake Suzanne Blake. I just bumped my head on a bit of sky.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...