Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Australia 23/54 for political funding transparency (Read 1902 times)
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male
Australia 23/54 for political funding transparency
Jul 28th, 2015 at 11:00pm
 
Australia ranks behind Russia in campaign financing transparancy: study

Quote:
Australia lags behind Russia and Thailand but scrapes in ahead of neighbouring Indonesia when it comes to political campaign financing transparency, a global survey has found.

At a time when political donations and the use of parliamentary entitlements have put a spotlight on the use of public money, the research has found Australia ranks 23 out of 54 countries with a score of just 49%.

The study was conducted by an international organisation of 110 political financing experts, the Money, Politics and Transparency project. The report was released this month.

The report ranks countries according to 50 indicators, including whether or not there are caps on public spending and private donations, whether public assets are banned during political campaigns, and how strong reporting requirements are.

The study noted there are few restrictions on political donations in Australia beyond the requirement to declare donations of more than $13,000.

Donations below the cut-off figure do not need to be declared and can therefore be anonymous. Donors could logically give less than that to each state, territory and federal branch of a political party at a total value of nearly $117,000, before needing to declare themselves.

Money, Politics and Transparency also found there was “no concrete prohibition against the use of state resources in electoral campaigns” and that incumbent MPs and senators often use staff members, cars, offices and travel allowances during election campaigns. Using public resources puts the incumbent at a greater advantage than their competitors, it found.

The report praised the Australian Electoral Commission as “well-respected” and “independent” but said it lacked the “legal authority to impose sanctions, and has not initiated prosecutions of violators in more than seven years”.

Australia scores highly in the public disclosure indicators, however, with the study finding citizens and media outlets had good access to disclosed materials and strong reporting requirements.

On Monday the Coalition ruled out reforming the political donation system, just days after Labor released changes it said would increase transparency and accountability.

Georgia is the highest ranked nation in the report, scoring 79 out of 100, while Malawi is the lowest ranked, scoring just five out of 100.

Australia is ranked at 49%, wedged between Thailand on 50%, Bosnia and Herzegovina on 48%, while Indonesia sits at 47%.

Back to top
 

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.
 
IP Logged
 
ImSpartacus2
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6913
Re: Australia 23/54 for political funding transparency
Reply #1 - Jul 28th, 2015 at 11:14pm
 
There was a time when we used to come close to toping these sorts of things. The thing really started to slide with Howard (and his henchman Max Moore-Wilton) and now the Abbott government who have embraced corrupt practices with a gusto.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Australia 23/54 for political funding transparency
Reply #2 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:12am
 
A little thinking should sort this out. Thailand and Russia are both effectively dictatorships. why are they even on the list?
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male
Re: Australia 23/54 for political funding transparency
Reply #3 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:50am
 
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:12am:
A little thinking should sort this out. Thailand and Russia are both effectively dictatorships. why are they even on the list?

You should take your own advice.
Back to top
 

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Australia 23/54 for political funding transparency
Reply #4 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:59am
 
Bam wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:50am:
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:12am:
A little thinking should sort this out. Thailand and Russia are both effectively dictatorships. why are they even on the list?

You should take your own advice.


as someone who complains constantly about citations, where did this article come from?  it seems curious to talk about election campaign donation transparency is virtual dictatorships.  Even worse is to consider that the sole defender of democracy is donation transparency.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
cods
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 88048
Re: Australia 23/54 for political funding transparency
Reply #5 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 10:11am
 
Bam wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:50am:
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:12am:
A little thinking should sort this out. Thailand and Russia are both effectively dictatorships. why are they even on the list?

You should take your own advice.



wheres the LINK??...

funny I have never seen a figure on Russian funding.. has anyone got the figures???>. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

when does Putin go over them to see if they are the ones he gives the media?> Grin Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male
Re: Australia 23/54 for political funding transparency
Reply #6 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 10:14am
 
Some of the problems with our political campaign fundraising are as follows:
  • A threshold of $13,000 before donations must be declared.
  • It is easy to get around this threshold by making separate donations to state and territory branches of a political party, in addition to the federal branch of that party. If the donor makes donations to multiple political parties, it's higher again. Despite the $13,000 threshold, it is possible for someone to donate about $200,000 to Coalition parties without needing to declare any of the donations. Just donate $12,500 to the Liberal party federally, in NSW, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT; donate to the National Party federally, in NSW, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT; donate to the LNP in Queensland; donate to the CLP in NT. 16 separate donations of $12,500 is $200,000.
  • We must wait 18 months before finding out about any political donations at all.
  • Any tighter rules for donations - such as the ban on property developers donating in NSW - are easy to circumvent by redirecting the donations to another branch of the party.
  • Donations to "associated entities" that are little more than front companies for political parties.
  • Between the time the writs are issued for an election and the "official" campaign launch, the taxpayers are paying for the cost of the election campaign. This is why the "official" campaign launches are often in the last 10 days of an election campaign. In many countries, the parties pay for the campaign throughout.
  • The secrecy with donations has allowed some pretty unsavoury characters to donate to political parties without proper scrutiny, such as the Calabrian Mafia donating to Liberal and Labor.
This is why we need reforms to political donations in this country. Some reforms to consider:
  • Reduce the threshold for disclosing donations.
  • The disclosure threshold is per person, not per donation.
  • Reduce the 18-month disclosure time to 6 months or less.
  • Uniform donation rules around the country.
  • Political parties pay for their election campaign from the day the writs are issued.

Back to top
 

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.
 
IP Logged
 
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male
Re: Australia 23/54 for political funding transparency
Reply #7 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 10:17am
 
cods wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 10:11am:
Bam wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:50am:
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:12am:
A little thinking should sort this out. Thailand and Russia are both effectively dictatorships. why are they even on the list?

You should take your own advice.

wheres the LINK??...

funny I have never seen a figure on Russian funding.. has anyone got the figures???>. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

when does Putin go over them to see if they are the ones he gives the media?> Grin Grin

Instead of getting sidetracked about Russia, you should be taking a closer look at Australia. Australia, after all, scored lower than Russia.

The rules and the lack of transparency with political donations are pretty crap. They have allowed corruption. The rules have allowed the Calabrian Mafia to make political donations in exchange for favours for YEARS.
Back to top
 

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.
 
IP Logged
 
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male
Re: Australia 23/54 for political funding transparency
Reply #8 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 10:28am
 
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:59am:
Bam wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:50am:
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:12am:
A little thinking should sort this out. Thailand and Russia are both effectively dictatorships. why are they even on the list?

You should take your own advice.


as someone who complains constantly about citations, where did this article come from?  it seems curious to talk about election campaign donation transparency is virtual dictatorships.  Even worse is to consider that the sole defender of democracy is donation transparency.

The article is linked in the OP, idiot. And the article itself has the source linked. Did you even bother clicking on the links that were provided? No. Don't be so frigging lazy.  Cool
Back to top
 

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Australia 23/54 for political funding transparency
Reply #9 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 11:50am
 
Bam wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 10:28am:
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:59am:
Bam wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:50am:
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:12am:
A little thinking should sort this out. Thailand and Russia are both effectively dictatorships. why are they even on the list?

You should take your own advice.


as someone who complains constantly about citations, where did this article come from?  it seems curious to talk about election campaign donation transparency is virtual dictatorships.  Even worse is to consider that the sole defender of democracy is donation transparency.

The article is linked in the OP, idiot. And the article itself has the source linked. Did you even bother clicking on the links that were provided? No. Don't be so frigging lazy.  Cool


hypertext links are not always easy to spot. unless you hover over it you just think it is a heading. It is best to post actual URLs
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Australia 23/54 for political funding transparency
Reply #10 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 11:52am
 
Bam wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 10:17am:
cods wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 10:11am:
Bam wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:50am:
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:12am:
A little thinking should sort this out. Thailand and Russia are both effectively dictatorships. why are they even on the list?

You should take your own advice.

wheres the LINK??...

funny I have never seen a figure on Russian funding.. has anyone got the figures???>. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

when does Putin go over them to see if they are the ones he gives the media?> Grin Grin

Instead of getting sidetracked about Russia, you should be taking a closer look at Australia. Australia, after all, scored lower than Russia.

The rules and the lack of transparency with political donations are pretty crap. They have allowed corruption. The rules have allowed the Calabrian Mafia to make political donations in exchange for favours for YEARS.


Russia is a virtual dictatorship.  They have no place being on a table of relative donation transparency.  Same with Thailand.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Australia 23/54 for political funding transparency
Reply #11 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 11:59am
 
Given that Australia's democracy is more robust that probably anybody on the planet except perhaps UK, Canada, USA and NZ, I take this report not very seriously.  These complaints always come from labor supporters because they dont get as many donations and yet, the union movement is allowed to STEAL money from its members to support a labor party many dont even vote for. Let's see that being addressed first.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male
Re: Australia 23/54 for political funding transparency
Reply #12 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 1:14pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 11:59am:
Given that Australia's democracy is more robust that probably anybody on the planet except perhaps UK, Canada, USA and NZ, I take this report not very seriously.  These complaints always come from labor supporters because they dont get as many donations and yet, the union movement is allowed to STEAL money from its members to support a labor party many dont even vote for. Let's see that being addressed first.

The LIBERALS have taken donations from the MAFIA when they were in government. It's not a problem with the Liberals, however; it's a problem with the system that allows direct donations to parties or individual politicians without sufficient accountability. Keeping all political donations a state secret for 18 months is not in any way an open and transparent system.

Having political parties taking donations AND allowing them to keep sponging off the taxpayer for weeks during election campaigns is NOT a system worth defending. It's no different to Bronwyn Bishop's inappropriate use of a helicopter to attend a Liberal party fundraiser. Party political fundraising should NOT be paid for by the taxpayers. Either we ban all donations to political parties, or we ban the taxpayer subsidies.

Having a high threshold for declarations, inconsistent rules that can be be easily circumvented and all the numerous loopholes that can be easily subverted is NOT a system that is open and transparent.

And you still think our system is robust? We need to clean up the political rorts. All of them. Bronwyn Bishop's helicopter ride is just the tip of an iceberg of rorts.
Back to top
 

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Australia 23/54 for political funding transparency
Reply #13 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 1:30pm
 
Bam wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 1:14pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 11:59am:
Given that Australia's democracy is more robust that probably anybody on the planet except perhaps UK, Canada, USA and NZ, I take this report not very seriously.  These complaints always come from labor supporters because they dont get as many donations and yet, the union movement is allowed to STEAL money from its members to support a labor party many dont even vote for. Let's see that being addressed first.

The LIBERALS have taken donations from the MAFIA when they were in government. It's not a problem with the Liberals, however; it's a problem with the system that allows direct donations to parties or individual politicians without sufficient accountability. Keeping all political donations a state secret for 18 months is not in any way an open and transparent system.

Having political parties taking donations AND allowing them to keep sponging off the taxpayer for weeks during election campaigns is NOT a system worth defending. It's no different to Bronwyn Bishop's inappropriate use of a helicopter to attend a Liberal party fundraiser. Party political fundraising should NOT be paid for by the taxpayers. Either we ban all donations to political parties, or we ban the taxpayer subsidies.

Having a high threshold for declarations, inconsistent rules that can be be easily circumvented and all the numerous loopholes that can be easily subverted is NOT a system that is open and transparent.

And you still think our system is robust? We need to clean up the political rorts. All of them. Bronwyn Bishop's helicopter ride is just the tip of an iceberg of rorts.



All hysteria aside, I dont have a problem with transparent donations. I do however have a problem with asserting that we have a corrupt democracy as a result.  In the corruption index I beleive we rank #4 in the world. IN the democracy stability rankings we are also top four. Sure, there is always room for improvement but our democracy is not under threat nor corrupt. Bishops stupid stunt was a rort but was also noted and corrected. Robust, non-corrupt democracies are not free from crime or corruption. INstead they expose and correct them.

I dont beleive we have a transparency problem with donations. And I am serious when I say that it is always Labor complaining about it and not from principle.

And as an aside, what do you think of the practice of unions taking MANDATORY deductions from employees pay to supper the ALP, especially in industries where unionism is effectively mandatory? I guess you are happy because it is transparent, but it is hardly ethical or fair.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male
Re: Australia 23/54 for political funding transparency
Reply #14 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 3:04pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 1:30pm:
Bam wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 1:14pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 11:59am:
Given that Australia's democracy is more robust that probably anybody on the planet except perhaps UK, Canada, USA and NZ, I take this report not very seriously.  These complaints always come from labor supporters because they dont get as many donations and yet, the union movement is allowed to STEAL money from its members to support a labor party many dont even vote for. Let's see that being addressed first.

The LIBERALS have taken donations from the MAFIA when they were in government. It's not a problem with the Liberals, however; it's a problem with the system that allows direct donations to parties or individual politicians without sufficient accountability. Keeping all political donations a state secret for 18 months is not in any way an open and transparent system.

Having political parties taking donations AND allowing them to keep sponging off the taxpayer for weeks during election campaigns is NOT a system worth defending. It's no different to Bronwyn Bishop's inappropriate use of a helicopter to attend a Liberal party fundraiser. Party political fundraising should NOT be paid for by the taxpayers. Either we ban all donations to political parties, or we ban the taxpayer subsidies.

Having a high threshold for declarations, inconsistent rules that can be be easily circumvented and all the numerous loopholes that can be easily subverted is NOT a system that is open and transparent.

And you still think our system is robust? We need to clean up the political rorts. All of them. Bronwyn Bishop's helicopter ride is just the tip of an iceberg of rorts.

All hysteria aside, I dont have a problem with transparent donations. I do however have a problem with asserting that we have a corrupt democracy as a result.  In the corruption index I beleive we rank #4 in the world. IN the democracy stability rankings we are also top four. Sure, there is always room for improvement but our democracy is not under threat nor corrupt. Bishops stupid stunt was a rort but was also noted and corrected. Robust, non-corrupt democracies are not free from crime or corruption. INstead they expose and correct them.

Corrupt? Yes, there's corruption.

Case in point - the Liberals took donations from the Calabrian Mafia in exchange for favours about 10 years ago. Don't deny it. It happened. The Mafia don't EVER give out money unless they are sure they can get value for it. The favour they got was Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone cancelling a deportation order against a senior Mafioso with a long criminal record that was issued by her predecessor, Philip Ruddock. The Mafia fought this deportation order for about four years until they could lobby a new Minister. Lobbying bought with Mafia cash donations.

I'm not asserting that Vanstone acted improperly on purpose, but she was definitely exploited.

Quote:
I dont beleive we have a transparency problem with donations. And I am serious when I say that it is always Labor complaining about it and not from principle.

I'm not sure why you've got a beef with Labor complaining about the problems with the system when it's the Liberals that introduced the problems such as higher threshold for donations, and it's the Liberals that fight efforts to remove these problems every step of the way. The Liberals also take donations through front companies. This is highly questionable.

Quote:
And as an aside, what do you think of the practice of unions taking MANDATORY deductions from employees pay to supper the ALP, especially in industries where unionism is effectively mandatory? I guess you are happy because it is transparent, but it is hardly ethical or fair.

No worse than any business actively seeking to reduce pay to staff so they can have more money to donate to the Liberals, or perhaps donating to the Liberals in the hope that the Liberals would introduce laws that allow pay cuts (eg: abolishing penalty rates).

The whole culture of donations in exchange for favours needs to be examined, not just the narrow focus on trade unions.
Back to top
 

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print