Australia’s major political parties had another lean, pandemic-affected year in political donations in 2020-21, but taxpayers came to the rescue with big returns from public funding in Queensland and Western Australia, where elections were held during the financial year.
The financial and donation returns for the political parties for 2020-21 — insert usual derision that we are forced to wait up to 18 months to find out about this stuff — released this morning by the Australian Electoral Commission show that total donations for all parties across Australia fell from $18.5 million in 2019-20 to $17.9 million, reflecting the ongoing impact of the pandemic on business conditions.
However, all parties reported $176 million in revenue during the year, compared with $168 million in 2019-20.
The Liberal National Party was the biggest earner, reporting $23.4 million in revenue and spending $17 million of that in its failed election campaign against Annastacia Palaszczuk.
Queensland Labor was next, with $18.6 million in revenue. It spent just over $15 million to inflict a mauling on the conservatives in 2020. Both sides received millions in public funding after the election, as did the Northern Territory and ACT major parties, which also fought elections.
In the west, WA Labor reported $12.7 million, far more than the hapless WA Liberals, who reported $7.6 million and ended up spending all of that and more in getting smashed by Mark McGowan.
In the absence of a federal election, and with the country preoccupied with COVID, the federal parties fared little better than in 2019-20: the federal Liberals managed just $10.3 million in revenue, down from more than $13 million the year before. Labor lifted from $9.4 million to $10.2 million, but both sides are carrying heavy debt in the lead-in to this year’s election — $2 million for the Liberals and nearly $3 million for Labor. The federal Nationals earned just $1.8 million, below both their NSW and Victorian state branches.
The Australian Greens lifted their revenue to $4.4 million federally; One Nation slumped to just $375,000, and claimed it received zero donations during the year.
As usual, dark money is a major problem.
The federal Liberals identify only the origin of about 80% of their revenue. Federal Labor identifies a somewhat better 90%. Queensland Labor manages 91% but the Liberal National Party identifies the source of less than two-thirds of its revenue. The Western Australian Liberal Party didn’t identify the source of 70% — 70% — of its revenue, while WA Labor didn’t identify the source of half.
As Michael Yabsley explained yesterday, under our disclosure laws, the February 1 data release is more about opacity than transparency. And you’re paying for it. Time to blow up the whole system.
True, Bernard – it should be blown up and replaced with a transparent system with all donations logged and visible..but the major parties won’t stomach it..too many cosy arrangements would have to go..
Important issue of funding but one also needs to keep in mind what the funding is for, while donors prefer anonymity?
An audit of Australian media, aka Koch’s ‘Freedom Works’ to develop a ‘media assembly line’ from research or non organic initiative through PR, lobbying and astroturfing for policy influence, would inevitably show what the issue is.
Our legacy media has become both hollowed out, clubby and predominantly right wing, promoting themes based upon imported white nativist libertarian principles or ‘Kochonomics’ (Rundle describing ‘public choice theory’) while not only disappearing Labor, greens, unions, climate science etc., they (are gamed to) platform the themes of supposedly independent NGOs or charities.
Best example is how Australian media have been nobbled, confused and conditioned on rebranded ’70s US ZPG themes of borders, refugees, fertility, NOM, immigrants and population control, presented as an environmental message, but deeply nativist, conservative and fossil fueled, to avoid regulatory constraints or wage award compliance…..
When Bob Carr introduced public funding of political parties based on electoral outcomes, he argued (genuinely?) it was necessary to diminish, even eradicate, the influence of private donors. Given the subsequent experience, can he hand the public monies back as a lesson learnt.
It was the Hawke government that introduced it, (thinking it would lessen dependence on donors).
Big thanks for your efforts in this area. We don’t have a democracy if we don’t know what we are voting for and until we know to whom parties are beholden this is our status. Blow it up big time!!