Opinion & Commentary
Government is playing petty politics on foreign donations
This hasn’t been a good year for political donors with Chinese connections. Former defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon’s relationship with ALP donor Helen Liu contributed to his political demise. It was revealed that the ALP returned donations from Macao casino operator Stanley Ho and his wife Angela Leong. Chinese-Australian Chau Chak Wing’s political generosity led to investigative reporting by a major newspaper. And this month concerns were raised about links between Labor MPs and the Chinese-Australian political donor Deborah Lei.
Suspicion of Chinese political donations may be one reason why there is legislation before the federal parliament to curtail foreign financial involvement in Australian politics. Foreign-sourced donations to political parties would be banned. Overseas gifts to non-government organisations would also be prohibited, if intended to support expressing views on parties, candidates or election issues.
A parliamentary committee which reviewed the legislation concluded that the ‘time has come’ to end foreign donations, so that the ‘domestic political environment is not influenced by overseas persons or corporations’.
Though this may play well with anti-Chinese opinion, it represents a parochial view of Australia’s place in the world. We live in an era of global issues and movements. Most major social, environmental and economic reforms in Australia over the last few decades are domestic versions of changes also occurring in other Western countries.
The environment is the clearest example of a global issue, with politics to match. International environmental organisations like Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund operate in Australia on issues like climate change. Arguably, foreigners have as big a stake in the Australian politics of carbon as Australians themselves. Yet under the government’s legislation, Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund officials could go to jail for spending foreign-sourced donations on climate change issues.
Even for less global issues than climate change, why assume that foreigners seeking to start or support political activity in Australia will detract from Australian democracy rather than adding interesting or useful ideas to local debate?
‘Made in Australia’ is no more a guarantee of quality in politics than in any other field.
Since there are no plans to stop the foreign information and ideas flowing into Australia every day via the internet, TV, and print media; or to deny visas to foreign political campaigners like Al Gore; it seems odd to impose a harsh penalty on a less direct form of foreign influence, money.
This is not the only anomaly in the legislation. Despite rhetoric against ‘overseas persons and corporations’, foreigners would be allowed to donate if they draw on funds within Australia, so most foreign residents and companies operating in Australia would be unaffected. The legislation does not cover commercial transactions, so overseas persons and corporations could simply pay media outlets to run their political advertising or lobbyists to take their case to Canberra. It’s hard to see how Australia can invite foreign investment, but deny foreign investors political rights.
While overseas corporations could operate largely as before, the legislation would have serious implications for Australians living overseas. Since the law targets the money’s source rather than the donor’s citizenship, expatriates without Australian bank accounts would be caught. They may retain voting rights in Australian elections, but lose the right to financially support Australian political parties or non-government organisations engaged in political activity.
Vulnerable foreign groups in Australia could also be affected. For example, Indian students have recently protested against bashings and other mistreatment. If their campaign included comment on political parties or candidates, or if their issues became election issues, it would fall within activities that could not be supported from foreign-sourced donations. Their families and friends in India could not send money to support the students’ campaign.
Though other countries prohibit foreign donations, there is no evidence that our existing disclosure system for major political donors, overseas or Australian, is inadequate. Foreign donors have been scrutinised, with occasional repercussions for those accepting their gifts. This is much preferable to a blanket ban against all foreign-sourced donations, which would strip Australian expatriates and others with legitimate interests in Australia of an important political right.
Australia depends on foreign people, money, goods and ideas. Our whole political system is a local variant on imported international models. The petty political protectionism behind banning foreign political donations has no place in a globally-open society.
Andrew Norton’s paper Diminishing Democracy: The Threat Posed by Political Expenditure Laws is published by The Centre for Independent Studies.
