THE PRICE IN POLITICS
THE PRICE IN POLITICS: THE NEW SOUTH WALES EXPERIENCE
Hon. Trevor Khan MLC is the Deputy
President and Chair of Committees of the New South Wales Legislative Council in Australia. Trevor, now in his second term, was elected to the Parliament in 2007, having practiced as a solicitor prior to entering Parliament.
Introduction While governments throughout the world find themselves facing issues relating to political donations, the New South Wales experience may provide insights into how this problem should be approached. The challenges faced by all are fundamentally the same; the ultimate goal is to have a regulatory system in place that is just, fair and equitable and maintains the confidence of the voters. Politicians for sale? It is not often that the Treasurer of a nation is the plaintiff in proceedings before a court. Indeed, it is unsettling for the Minister and the electorate when the matter concerns a headline suggesting that a senior political figure can be ‘bought’. The case of Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd was before Justice White of the Federal Court of Australia in early 2015. On 5 May 2014, The Sydney Morning Herald and associated Fairfax Media news outlets published an article that led to Australia’s Treasurer, Joe Hockey, making a claim for damages. The headline ‘Treasurer for sale’ became
168 | The Parliamentarian | 2015: Issue Three
the subject of a year-long argument, played out in court and the national press, ultimately resulting in a judgement in Mr Hockey’s favour. His Honour found that the Treasurer had been defamed. The specifics of the 122 page judgement are not of particular concern, however, the dispute is raised for its symbolism. Political donations have become a polarising topic in Australia, one that has found itself front and centre of the public discourse on politicians and our democratic institutions generally. The influence of donations on political parties and governments in Australia, and particularly in New South Wales, is one that is capable of undermining the trust of the electorate, not just in individual politicians, but in the democratic institutions as a whole. Payments or donations are seen as a sign of shadiness. Money in politics is seen as a clear sign of corruption. No longer are donations perceived as legitimate acts of support for a candidate of political party, rather, all too often they are seen as an attempt to buy favour and influence.
The problem is one of balance. To limit or impede an individual’s or an organisation’s right to political expression is perhaps the most egregious contravention of liberty, however, there are no justifiable grounds on which anyone can allow the political system to be corrupted by money. It is essential that individual electors feel they have equal access to their politicians as large corporations. If that faith is lost, if the cynicism of individual electors is allowed to fester then the risk arises that voters will lose faith in their democratic institutions. A legislative response In New South Wales, there has, without doubt, been a climate where representative democracy was and is under stress. Several surveys in the last five years from leading public policy institutes have consistently found that the trust Australians and the New South Welsh have in their elected officials is poor at best. The NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has featured prominently in our 24/7 news cycle. It is unarguable that while its