Donations, bribery and corruption

In contrast to comparable democracies around the world, Canada has removed large political donations from the equation, allowing donations of up to $1,100 from individual Canadian citizens only. They have combined this with a pro rata public funding model and sensible expenditure limits, both indexed for inflation.

Their new regulations have survived allegations of suppression of free speech. They have been field tested for the third time at the general election on October 14, 2008, at which even the democracy purist Greens expressed a degree of satisfaction.

Interestingly, when Chretien introduced the regulations, he had been under sustained pressure from the long-running “Sponsorship” funding fraud scandal, whereby about $100 million over several parliamentary terms had circuitously reached his Liberal Party coffers. According to Canada’s Democracy Watch, Chretien’s motivation for introducing the changes was an intra-party power struggle to embarrass his successor Paul Martin, so ironically grubby politics may have been a driving force.

If Mr Rees chooses to not see past the politics for the greater good, anything less than a corporate and union donations ban would consign New South Wales tro suffer recurring scandals like Wollongong into the future. In recent weeks we have seen the ludicrous situation of ALP candidates in municipal elections distancing themselves from their own party policy by electioneering on a platform of rejecting donations from developers. We have also seen independent candidates claiming to not accept money from developers while actually receiving it via circuitous pathways.

Human nature is not about to change. It’s far easier to sensibly regulate our electoral funding system. NSW Labor, desperately needing something - anything - to go well for them right now, could take a significant step in the right direction at minimal expense, by adopting the successful Canadian measures to clean up NSW democracy.