Katina Curtis: Millions gifted to political parties during election campaign can’t be traced back to donors

Nearly 37 weeks ago Australians went to the polling booths to choose who they wanted to represent them in Canberra. Voters have only just found out who was funding those politicians.

It’s been so long that you probably don’t remember all those ads on television, social media and newspapers (except maybe that “hole in your bucket” earworm), the billboards, the pamphlets that stuffed your letterbox, the corflutes plastered along the sides of roads and electricity poles.

But these things all cost money and political parties need to find that cash from somewhere.

Some go the crowdfunding route, seeking small donations from lots of people. Some head directly to those with deep pockets. Most do a mixture of both.

And of course, people and companies have all kinds of reasons of their own for donating to political parties.

But at the moment there is a distinct lack of transparency about where the money is coming from, let alone timely disclosure.

We did get a first glimpse of the kind of money that swirled around during the campaign in November, when the election period paperwork was released. However, this mainly covered the high-profile independent candidates, including Member for Curtin Kate Chaney.

The way most political parties and their fundraising vehicles are structured means they didn’t have to report until the Australian Electoral Commission released annual disclosures on Wednesday.

Thirty-seven weeks. That’s the same amount of time it took me to grow an entire human when my son was born.

Of course, this was quicker than the infamous donation Malcolm Turnbull made to his own party in the dying days of the 2016 election, the timing of which meant the Liberals didn’t have to publicly disclose it until February 2018.

In the age of digital records, fast-moving social media campaigns and internet banking it shouldn’t take so long to get a basic understanding of money and influence in our democracy.

That’s before you get to the so-called dark money: donations we know the parties received but we don’t know where from.

Only donors who gave more than $14,500 had to be disclosed in 2021-22, the year we’ve just got records for.

But if you have a spare $14,500 lying around and give it to a political party today, your name wouldn’t show up in public records because that disclosure cap increases each July and it’s now at $15,200.

The Centre for Public Integrity says the amount of money sloshing around in the political system has reached record highs, with the latest data showing campaign spending reached $439.4 million last year.

However, the high disclosure threshold means much of the source of this money is unknown.

Probably the most transparent was Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party, which disclosed the source of all but $12,955 of its $116.9 million war chest — because it all came from Palmer’s company Mineralogy

In the latest disclosures, Labor details who its donors were for $90.5 million out of a total of $124.3 million it received. That’s 73 per cent, significantly helped by its Queensland branch disclosing 86 per cent of its donations and detailing people who gave as little as $990 to the party.

The Liberal Party branches, however, provided donor details for less than half the money they received, covering $47.8 million out of a total $105.7 million.

The Nationals disclosed the source of 63 per cent of donations and the Greens reported on 54 per cent.

The WA branches of the major parties offer significantly less transparency than the national average, with the Liberals detailing 22 per cent of donations received and Labor offering up names for 26 per cent.

Probably the most transparent was Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party, which disclosed the source of all but $12,955 of its $116.9 million war chest — because it all came from Palmer’s company Mineralogy.

Labor has promised greater transparency of political fundraising. The Government-dominated parliamentary committee that examines the conduct of every election is currently looking at suggestions to create real-time disclosures and drastically lower the threshold.

Increasing transparency was a significant campaign point for independent MPs and they can be expected to keep the Government on track over this — especially Chaney, who is on the electoral committee and helping shape its recommendations along with the Greens’ Senate leader Larissa Waters.

And if they don’t manage it, voters should keep the whole Parliament accountable. Because Australians deserve to know who is backing the people they choose to represent them and their interests.