It is becoming harder and harder to tolerate the arrant folly on display when Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his ministers trot forth their justifications for unlawful behaviour, bad policy, foreign relations gaffes or garden variety political fibs.
This assertion quoted in The Guardian on 18 August 2014 has to be the most brazen example so far of their blame Labor mantra:
This assertion quoted in The Guardian on 18 August 2014 has to be the most brazen example so far of their blame Labor mantra:
In the wake of the resignation of two NSW Liberal MPs over corruption allegations, the prime minister has said the “problem” was the former Labor NSW government banning property developer donations in the first place…..
“Who exactly is a developer? That can sometimes be a difficult question. [They] also introduced legislation to limit the total amount of donations and political parties need to raise money,” he told 2GB on Monday morning…..
As with many of Abbott's utterances, this was a distortion of fact which a look at Hansard records quickly dispelled.
The NSW Legislative Assembly Hansard
of 1 December 2009 gives a clear definition of property developer:
Meaning
of "property developer"
The
Bill defines a property developer to be:
(a)
a corporation engaged in a business that regularly involves the making of
relevant planning applications by all on behalf of
the corporation in connection with the residential or commercial development of
land, with the ultimate purpose of the
sale or lease of the land for profit, or
(b)
close associates of such a corporation.
Any
activity engaged in by a Corporation for the dominant purpose of providing
commercial premises at which the corporation or
a related body corporate will carry on business is to be disregarded for the
purpose of determining whether the corporation is a property
developer.
A
close associate of a corporation includes:
(a)
directors and officers of the corporation and their spouses, and
(b)
a related body corporate of the corporation (within the meaning of the
Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth),
and
(c)
persons whose voting power in the corporation or a related body corporate is
greater than 20% and their spouses.
That same day Hansard records the bill being passed in the Lower House and the current
Coalition Premier of New South Wales (then Shadow Treasurer), along with the
rest of the Opposition, supporting this election funding reform:
Mr
MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [6.31 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Election
Funding and Disclosures
Amendment (Property Development Prohibition Bill) 2009 as we strongly support
the need for comprehensive
campaign finance reform. From day one the Leader of the Opposition said that
transparency, honesty
and accountability should be returned to government in this State…..
However,
I acknowledge that both sides of politics have received donations from areas
and industries that
have caused concern within the community and potentially removes objective
assessment of legislation or reforms.
The community has the perception that when particular groups or individuals
fund a party it is difficult
for
politicians to make objective assessments. That perception problem must be
addressed. The problem is across
both sides of the political divide. I accept that there are many in this place
who do not have a potential conflict;
nevertheless, the perception remains and it is difficult to determine whether
people are being influenced
by
donations. In my inaugural speech 2½ years ago I noted that donations were at a
corrosive level in this State and
that significant donation limits, combined with stronger public funding, can
ensure that electors are properly informed
and have confidence in the integrity of the electoral process.....
That
property developers appearing before ICAC are well aware of the fact that they
are property developers within the meaning of relevant legislation is
nowhere better illustrated than by former Newcastle mayor Jeff McCloy’s High
Court writ which reportedly
states:
‘‘Each of the
first plaintiff (Cr McCloy) and third plaintiff (North Lakes Pty Ltd) is
therefore a property developer within the meaning of section 96GB(1) of the
Elections Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act.’’
By March 2014 NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption investigations
Credo and Spicer were exposing the the degree to which politicians, political
parties, lobby groups and individuals were flouting state election funding and
donation disclosure laws.
On 27 May 2014 NSW Premier Baird
announced the formation of an expert committee which would investigate and recommend to government further reforms to NSW election
funding laws.
A
background paper produced by this committee gives an Overview
of Australian Election Funding and Disclosure Regimes.
Excerpt:
New South
Wales
In 2008,
in-kind campaign contributions (including the provision of offices, computer
equipment and vehicles
to candidates for little or no payment) were capped at $1,000. In 2009,
political donations
from property developers were banned in response to public concerns about
corruption and undue
influence in the NSW planning system. This ban was later extended to prohibit donations
from the tobacco, liquor and gambling industries.
In 2010, the
Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 (NSW) (the NSW Act) was further
amended to impose caps on the value of political donations to parties, groups,
candidates, elected
members and third-party campaigners. As a result of these reforms, the largest
donation a single donor
can make in a financial year is $5,000 to a political party or group, and
$2,000 to a candidate,
elected member or third-party campaigner (adjusted for increases in the CPI).
The applicable
NSW donations caps for the 2014-15 financial year are $5,700 for donations to
parties and groups
and $2,400 for donations to candidates, elected members and third-party campaigners.
The shift in
New South Wales toward caps and bans on donations culminated in the O’Farrell Government’s
2012 amendments banning political donations from corporations and other
entities. This ban was
recently declared invalid by the High Court on the grounds that it
impermissibly burdened the
implied freedom of political communication under the Commonwealth Constitution. The result of
the High Court’s decision is that section 96D of the NSW Act applies as it did
before the 2012
amendments.
On the basis of this outline it would appear that the majority of witnesses giving evidence at Operation Spicer hearings are either in breach of state electoral funding and donation laws or have knowledge of these breaches and, fraud and corruption are systemic within the NSW political system.
A system which has been advantageous to Prime Minister Abbott through donations received from the Warringah Club and Warringah Forum.
It would appear that Abbott's statement of 18 August this year is merely a reworking of an excuse he found successful in the past, when his political
fund-raising arm was found to have breached electoral laws and one of his
principal donors (a property developer) failed to make required disclosures.
Unfortunately for Tony Abbott the Australian electorate now has a better understanding of how political donations are solicited and his tired old 'ignorance of the law' excuse will no longer be tolerated by a great many voters.
.jpg)
