Money can't buy you love, but a donation in politics might get you some recognition

Sydney Morning Herald

Thursday February 4, 2010

MICHAEL EVANS

Three cheers for Macquarie Group's chutzpah - explaining this week why it donated nearly $200,000 across the political divide."We're just supporting the political process," said a spokeswoman, Lisa Jamieson.To think that we had assumed Macquarie and the other donor banks, including Westpac ($120,000), ANZ ($100,000) and the Commonwealth Bank ($25,000), were depositing a down payment on a big "thank you" for borrowing the government's triple-A rating and the deposit guarantee when times were tough.This week's political funding disclosures have once again highlighted the squeaky wheel of political donations.A billionaire Queensland mining magnate, Clive Palmer, tips $840,000 into conservative party coffers. State governments hit the jackpot with gaming companies. Construction companies fill a front-end loader with the green stuff.These are not magnanimous offerings from the big end of town. They reveal the well-heeled sport of greasing the wheels, ingratiating oneself for influence and making one's voice heard in government.Macquarie is a frequent bidder on government infrastructure and advisory contracts.Palmer wouldn't mind if foreign investors got a look at his pile of dirt in the Pilbara.The likes of Tabcorp operate purely on the whim of government licences, and Leighton partakes in more than the occasional public-private partnership.As everyone involved benefits, little criticism has typically been levelled at the inherent problems of this cosy little system.One senior fund manager yawned when asked what he thought about companies tipping his shareholder cash into political parties."Don't tell me the Treasurer doesn't look down the donations list when he decides who to spend an hour with," the number cruncher mused. In other words, to institutional investors it is just another cost of doing business.And politicians? They have noted a need to lower the disclosable donations level but know parties need the cash to outspend one another at elections.Big business knows it buys cache, influence, the ear of those in power and even a flash of recognition across the table when bidding on a contract - all in the name of supporting the political process.The real issue about political donations is who gets what in return. For starters, there are government jobs and contracts from the deep well of taxpayer money.Property developers have long had the finger pointed at them for well-timed donations. Last year the former NSW premier Nathan Rees tried to reform donations and look what happened to him. Does anybody with a future in the game have any real interest in reform?It doesn't help that donations swing - apparently by coincidence - when one side of government loses power.Then there is disclosure: a regime that is full of holes. The Australian Electoral Commission publishes poorly collated data. Information from donors regularly clashes with the commission's figures and donors routinely fail to disclose information on time, effectively removing themselves from scrutiny.Only if the party recipient correctly discloses its receipts is an individual's or company's contribution to be found at all.So what does the rest of the world think about political donations?In Canada, new laws in 2006 reformed the financing of political parties and candidates, changing the rules for political contributions to prevent influence being bought.The reforms to political financing included new limits on individual donations to parties and candidates and a ban on contributions from corporations, unions and organisations to parties and candidates.You must be a Canadian citizen to make a political contribution to a registered political entity. Get the picture?All of which brings us back to the boardroom. Commenting on this week's disclosures for 2008-09, the National Australia Bank said its board had resolved not to make a donation that time round - coincidentally a non-election year.But as a Monash University associate professor, Ken Coghill, told BusinessDay this week: "When you think about what the corporations law says about company directors' responsibilities, companies only spend this money when they expect to get some sort of return, some sort of advantage from doing so, which immediately raises the issue of what motive they act with in making donations to political parties."No doubt something that the members of the Australian Institute of Company Directors discuss at every opportunity.

© 2010 Sydney Morning Herald

Back to News Index | Back to Home