A report from the Australia Institute has claimed the millions of dollars in donations may have influenced government approval for several mining projects.

The Institute wants mining industry donations to be banned and a public inquiry to fully investigate the sector's influence on government.

The report examined political donations from mining companies and government decisions favouring their projects.

While the report found the former LNP government was the biggest beneficiary of the donations, it also raised questions about some controversial decisions made by the current state Labor Government.

At the last Queensland state election, then opposition leader Annastacia Palaszczuk promised to make political donations in the state more transparent amid concerns about the influence of the mining industry.

The report said the former LNP government had received almost $1.2 million in donations between 2011 and 2015, while the Queensland ALP received more than $91,000.
Linc Energy project 'should never have been approved'

One of the companies donating large sums of money was Linc Energy, which Mr Ogge said had contributed more than $300,000.

"What actually happened was there was a massive contamination case, subsequent to that the practice of underground coal gas cases had been banned in Queensland and there's charges pending against the company," he said.

    "That project should never have been approved and when you look at what actually happened, they gave a really large amount of money to the various political parties."

The report also linked coal mining group Adani's $50,000 donations to the former LNP government and its decision to use millions of taxpayer dollars to build supporting rail and port infrastructure.

Revel Pointon from Queensland's Environmental Defenders Office said it was also concerned about the council's lobbying and influence over Mining Minister Anthony Lynham.

"We don't understand why they would want a tribunal because it would effectively make no change in terms of concerns they keep raising about the length of time that the court process takes," she said.

"Also we've seen the comments the Mining Minister has made, and comments just generally in the media around the Land Court process and how long it takes has led to much more expedited processes for the hearings we're involved with."

The report said Dr Lynham had 87 meetings with the mining sector, 50 per cent more than his LNP predecessor.

Mining donations should be banned: Australia Institute

Resources Council head Michael Roche slammed the report as biased and narrow and admitted to actively lobbying the Mining Minister to scrap the Land Court.

"It is open slather, so what we have said … to Government [is] these processes are rolling on with seemingly endless timetables.

"So if it's going to be open slather in terms of who can object, then we need some tightening of time frames."

He argued Queensland's Land Court should be replaced with a tribunal.

The institute has called for mining industry donations to be banned, and along with Peter Wellington, an Independent MP, has called for a public inquiry to fully investigate the sector's influence on the Government.

Mr Wellington said for the election promise of greater transparency in political donations to be effective, it needed to be enforced on a national level.

"There are serious allegations that money is donated by development vested interests to a federal branch of a political party, and that money is filtered back to [the] state branch of political party to camouflage or hide the source of funding," he said.

The ABC approached the Minister for comment but was directed to the Attorney-General, who provided a statement.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-29/mining-industry-denies-donations-gave-it-influence/7671328

ALL political donations to political parties should be banned. Only after we have decoupled political parties from the influence of donors can those parties be trusted to make decisions in the public interest and not for vested interests.

* Ban political donations to parties
* Increase public funding of candidates at elections
* Introduce a spending cap on election campaigns

Quote:

A report from the Australia Institute

.......stop there  :D ;D

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/ANTI20BS.jpg

Swagman wrote on Jul 29^th, 2016 at 2:22pm:

Quote: A report from the Australia Institute .......stop there  :D ;D http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/ANTI20BS.jpg

I see your brain has malfunctioned again. You may want to do something about that.

What is wrong with the idea of banning political donations?

Swagman wrote on Jul 29^th, 2016 at 2:22pm:

.......stop there  Cheesy Grin

why? you worried someone is not spreading Murdoch's message?

The liberal party would cease to exist without business donations

Its time wrote on Jul 29^th, 2016 at 6:07pm:

The liberal party would cease to exist without business donations

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

It'S TIME TO BAN POLITICAL DONATIONS!

Well, I can't agree with that statement!

We are already WELL PAST TIME, WHEN ALL POLITICAL DONATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN BANNED!!!

Naturally such a ban would include payments to the ALP by unions?

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2016 at 8:29am:

Naturally such a ban would include payments to the ALP by unions?

Did anyone say otherwise?  "political donations" is an all-encompassing headline...

I've long said that the problem for Labour in this country is not the addiction of Labor (sic) to the Unions, but the addiction of the Unions to Labor as it is currently constituted - as little more than a cafe' socialist forum and a pathway for specified groups and University politicians into a fat and safe life alongside their Liberal mates.

As for - "How will the parties survive?" - the answer is - "On their merits!"

Nobody mentioned it though. It was all about business donations, am I right?

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2016 at 8:44am:

Nobody mentioned it though. It was all about business donations, am I right?

Payment for service?  Of course it should be totally banned and made a criminal offence.  You don't buy and sell politicians and policy to suit yourself.

Funding of the Labor Party by the Unions is very much trickier for the simple reason that Labor was established by the Unions - however - Labor politicians have made it clear they are not bound by the Unions unless they wish to be, so that umbilical cord has been severed in my view - and that means Unions cannot buy and sell politicians and policy, but only offer a public and open view, same as business.

I'm afraid that Unions and Labour lost their way thirty plus years ago and are as wandering in the wilderness as the Liberals are.  That much was made clear at the last election - the only reason either of these sidewalk cafe' self-entitlement exercises continues in politics is.... nobody can see a viable alternative....

Which is precisely why we NEED a viable alternative.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2016 at 8:44am:

Nobody mentioned it though. It was all about business donations, am I right?

Somehow the post I made that mentioned banning "ALL political donations" has escaped your attention. I didn't specifically mention donations from unions, but I also didn't specifically mention donations from businesses. It should be obvious - ALL means ALL.

Don't forget to add in buying time to a sit-down with the Minister or whatever.... won't stop the long lunches etc, but get some real investigative media on-board and the photos will fly thick and fast....

Treasurer Mike "Little" Ripper caught doing lunch with business head!!

Lateral Party said to be in turmoil over minister buying scandal!  Midnight meeting called by PM!

http://www.ft.lk/ftadmin/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/DFT-1-3.jpg

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2016 at 8:44am:

Nobody mentioned it though. It was all about business donations, am I right?

the story is about donations from mining companies ... the title of the OP doesn't differentiate between union or business, it just says that it's time to ban political donation ... ALL OF THEM

It'S TIME TO BAN POLITICAL DONATIONS

No it is well past that time.

[quote author=The_Grappler link=1469762464/13#13 date=1469837232]Don't forget to add in buying time to a sit-down with the Minister or whatever.... won't stop the long lunches etc, but get some real investigative media on-board and the photos will fly thick and fast....

Treasurer Mike "Little" Ripper caught doing lunch with business head!!

Lateral Party said to be in turmoil over minister buying scandal!  Midnight meeting called by PM!


Change of picture:-

---

John Smith wrote on Jul 30^th, 2016 at 10:14am:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 30th, 2016 at 8:44am: Nobody mentioned it though. It was all about business donations, am I right? So OK you're happy to ensure the likes of the CFMEU doesn't fleece its members or blackmail businesses and then channel the money to Labor, you're happy to ENSURE that, how do you suggest political campaigns be funded. Because they have to be funded. More taxpayers' money I suppose. the story is about donations from mining companies ... the title of the OP doesn't differentiate between union or business, it just says that it's time to ban political donation ... ALL OF THEM

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2016 at 1:30pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:14am: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 30th, 2016 at 8:44am: Nobody mentioned it though. It was all about business donations, am I right? So OK you're happy to ensure the likes of the CFMEU doesn't fleece its members or blackmail businesses and then channel the money to Labor, you're happy to ENSURE that, how do you suggest political campaigns be funded. Because they have to be funded. More taxpayers' money I suppose. the story is about donations from mining companies ... the title of the OP doesn't differentiate between union or business, it just says that it's time to ban political donation ... ALL OF THEM

Evidence of the CFMEU fleecing its members and blackmailing businesses.... the Royal Commission found no such thing.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2016 at 1:30pm:

So OK you're happy to ensure the likes of the CFMEU doesn't fleece its members or blackmail businesses and then channel the money to Labor, you're happy to ENSURE that, how do you suggest political campaigns be funded. Because they have to be funded. More taxpayers' money I suppose.

Firstly, learn to quote ... you've been on here long enough.

Secondly, I don't care what the CFMEU does, as long as they stop ALL donations to political parties. You guys cry that labor does the unions bidding, but then when someone suggests a way to stop that, you cry even more.

As to how to fund it

Provide a govt. funded central pot that gives each candidate an equal amount to spend on political campaigning only. If they blow it all in a week, that's their tough luck. If they have any left over, it gets refunded to the pot.  They can't use it for any purpose other than what it is intended for .. ie election campaigns.  Any money must be accompanied by a receipt. If the altruistic want to donate towards democracy, that money goes into the central pot, which then gets distributed amongst all candidates. No one person becomes beholden to any corporation or union. No corporation can attach conditions to their donation because by the time it gets distributed equally, its not enough to affect each candidates vote to change.

Who votes the size of the pot?

Oh pollies.

Do we get to see how much of our individual income tax is going into that pot?

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2016 at 2:09pm:

Who votes the size of the pot? Oh pollies. Do we get to see how much of our individual income tax is going into that pot?

I would think that there is no limit to the size of the pot, only to the size of the govt's contribution to it. 

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2016 at 2:09pm:

Do we get to see how much of our individual income tax is going into that pot?

it would form part of the govt.s budget, as do all the other expenses

some interesting points ....


To take just one issue, Australia is not one of the 114 out of 180 countries that ban donations to political parties from foreign interests. Transparency can be impossible to achieve when donations come from other countries.

.................

Canada has extensive regulation, banning corporate and union donations, imposing caps on individual donations and limits on candidate, party and third-party expenditure – that is, expenditure by groups other than candidates or political parties during an election campaign.

New Zealand also limits expenditure by parties and third parties. Its electoral commission is responsible for party broadcasting allocation (free time and money for paid advertising).

The United Kingdom has limits on expenditure by political parties and third parties. Paid advertising in electronic media isn’t allowed at all.

In 2008, the House of Lords upheld the prohibition. It argued the ban was necessary to maintain a level playing field and prevent “well-endowed interests" from using “the power of the purse to give enhanced prominence to their views”.

In Australia, the cost of television advertising and associated market research has driven political parties to chase ever-greater donations. Both political donations and the negative advertising these buy increase distrust in politicians and political parties.

..................

To safeguard integrity, we need transparency and other measures so that those with vested interests in government contracts or regulation cannot buy access and influence.

The second reason for regulating political donations is to promote political equality, a defining feature of democratic citizenship.

Parties without wealthy backers should not have their message drowned out by those that do. And corporate donors should not be able to buy political access far in excess of what other citizens enjoy.

A third reason for regulating donations is to ensure those elected to be political representatives don’t instead spend their time chasing donations.



http://theconversation.com/australia-trails-way-behind-other-nations-in-regulating-political-donations-59597