Written by David Pollard. David is a member of Voices of Belconnen and Gungahlin and has previously contested ACT Elections.
This morning, former Canberra Liberals Opposition Leader Ms Elizabeth Lee MLA singled out the "Voices of" movement during discussion of political donations. Ms Lee questioned whether organisations - specifically and only mentioning "Voices of" groups - should be subject to the same rules as political parties if they endorse candidates. Ms Lee’s comments were made specifically in the context of donations and support from the gambling industry.
From the perspective of this "Voices of" group, the answer is a resounding yes.
Voices of Belconnen and Gungahlin exists to amplify community voices and, potentially, support a community-endorsed candidate. It would make little sense to spend months listening to the community and then ignore what it tells us when it comes to our own conduct. Through surveys, pop-up stalls and online conversations, we have consistently heard concerns about gambling harm and the influence of money in politics. Accepting donations or hospitality from the gambling industry would therefore be inconsistent with both our values and our purpose.
Our activities are funded transparently, and we do not engage with the gambling industry. We hold meetings in private homes or hire community venues. For example, our recent community workshop, attended by around 40 people, was held in a church hall paid for by volunteers. Participants helped shape the group's priorities as we move towards a candidate selection process.
Independent for Kurrajong Mr Thomas Emerson MLA has introduced a private member's Bill that would add people and entities associated with the gambling industry to the list of those prohibited from making donations to political entities. An Assembly committee, chaired by Ms Lee, has been examining the Bill.
During the committee's consideration of the proposal, MLAs from both ACT Labor and the Canberra Liberals debated whether it was reasonable to expect political parties and candidates to pay for venues and facilities that have traditionally been provided as gifts-in-kind. They questioned why such support should be considered a risk to democratic integrity. Current Canberra Liberals leader Mr Mark Parton MLA asked whether he should have paid for a room at the Hyatt rather than accepting the free use of a venue provided by the gambling industry, before remarking, "just as well you are here to save democracy, Mr Emerson."
However, the Bill raises a broader question than simply who pays for a meeting room. It asks whether financial relationships between political actors and industries with a direct stake in government decisions can undermine public confidence in our democracy. That is a legitimate question, and one that deserves serious consideration.
Alongside concerns about gambling harm, community members have repeatedly raised the need for greater integrity and transparency in politics. It is healthy that these issues can be openly debated in our democratic institutions. Equally, the responses from the major parties suggest that these questions remain unresolved and continue to matter to many Canberrans. Mr Emerson's proposal demonstrates the important role Independents can play in asking difficult questions and advancing discussions that might otherwise be overlooked.
What do you think about political donations?
Currently, property developers and foreign entities are prohibited from making political donations. Should any other industries or groups be added to that list? Or do you believe the current rules strike the right balance?
We'd love to hear your views. Share your thoughts with us at [email protected].
A further comment from Leigh Cox, Co-Convenor of Voices of Belconnen and Gungahlin
The irony of representatives from the major parties singling out grassroots community groups while defending longstanding gifts and hospitality from the gambling industry was not lost on me, nor other observers I have spoken to today.
Community groups should absolutely be transparent and accountable. That same principle should apply to any political party, including those that have benefited for years from support provided by organisations seeking to influence public policy outcomes. Whether you're a community independent, a former party leader, or even a shadow minister sending texts about being bored during a committee hearing on sensitive First Nations issues, accountability matters.