Our prime minister was quite right when he recently pointed out that diminishing public trust in our politicians and political system is a matter of pressing public importance. We all know this to be true: there is a sense that politicians are inaccessible and remote from our everyday problems, whether it is cost of living or housing. The perception is that the politicians are not listening to us.
So I’m wondering, did Anthony Albanese raise these issues when dining at the multimillion-dollar home of a billionaire’s son? Or at either of the recent dinners, held in mansions in Adelaide and Perth, where a select group reportedly paid $10,000 each to dine alongside him?
I guess not.
Not that we will ever know – because these were private dinners and what was said, what was discussed, is also private, only to be known by those who could afford to be invited. Albanese made that clear – “I don’t talk about private dinners,” he said.
Read more:Amanda Vandervort departs as USL Super League president
There are so many problems with this.
No one pays money unless there is some value to be gained from paying it. Any motive cannot be waved away by suggesting that these were people interested in supporting democracy – if they were, they could have made a direct donation. No, these dinners are all about getting access to the decision-makers.
Some of the attendees were reportedly from public companies and may owe a fiduciary duty to shareholders to get value for money. Presumably national matters of planning and policy were under discussion – potentially valuable information to the public. Perhaps there was a chance to persuade the prime minister toward a certain point of view. Whatever happened, this is all very wrong: there should be no occasions when information of general public importance is shared by our politicians with a select audience – if that group can know, then we are all entitled to know.
Read more:UEFA boss Aleksander Čeferin rules out FIFA presidency bid
It is also problematic that the price of participating is apparently so high. Only the powerful are welcome; only the rich are permitted to play.
It is also unfair to smaller parties and to independents. Only the major parties can hold these sorts of fundraising events; only those who can make the big decisions can attract the big money. The funding system is already skewed to favour the major parties – so why not tip the scales further with a serving of caviar?
The current system is flawed. The disclosure rules surrounding political donations are inadequate. When asked to provide the details of one of the dinners – eg how much money changed hands – the response from government frontbenchers was “that is a matter for the party”. What does that even mean? How is that an excuse for not immediately revealing the details on a matter of public interest? Any money being paid to dine with the PM should be a matter of public record – why is it a secret?
Read more:Former detective says Tupac murder suspect was gang ‘shot caller’ who had final say in shooting
It seems our system, which has always bent toward the rich and the powerful, is now being bent to breaking point. Unrestrained spending backed by unrestricted donations is not working. Elections, ideally, are a contest of ideas; they are increasingly becoming a contest of bank accounts. Right now in Australia billionaires seem to be vying to own their own political parties.
I agree with Albanese – we need urgently to restore faith in the system. Maybe we could start by cutting out the dinners with billionaires. It might be difficult to get both sides to agree to that, but one might think that the ALP – as the party claiming to represent ordinary Australians – could make such a concession.
It is time to break the donation/spending cycle. A package of federal reforms has passed, but they are hopelessly biased in favour of the major parties – a rare instance of bipartisan policymaking. The most slanted components of the package have been challenged in the high court for infringing of the implied freedom of political communication and it is unclear as to whether, if the challenge succeeds, the balance of the reforms will proceed. We need to do something and I fear, given their inherent conflict of interest, that politicians cannot be trusted to do it properly.
Albanese helpfully explains away his recent dinners with an airy “elections cost money” claim. Well that is true – but what is the true cost? Should the involvement of money in our election system come at the cost of the integrity of the whole system?
