It is a natural part of life for politicians and political parties to accept donations from various groups in order to fund their campaigns and other activities. These donations come from a wide range of businesses, organizations and individuals – and recent statistics show that pokies are responsible for a significant portion of these contributions. From 2011 to 2012, all political parties received $12.7 million in donations.
Pub groups donated more than $500 000, as groups like Clubs NSW and the Australian Hotels Association made very generous contributions. Crown Casinos also made a generous donation in the amount of $122 000. Few other groups donated as much money as pubs and gaming organizations. For example, tobacco companies like Philip Morris ($3080) and British American Tobacco ($4700) made relatively small donations in 2012.
Mining groups donated quite generously with Clive Palmer giving more than $200 000 to the Liberal Nationals. MP Andrew Wilkie believes that the generous donations from the pokie industry are cause for concern. He claims that the generous donations from pubs and clubs were highly influential in Julia Gillard’s decision to delay poker machine reform several times.
“I think it helps to explain why the prime minister reneged on her deal with me for meaningful poker machine reform," says Wilkie."It helps to explain why the coalition party resisted so strongly even the government's watered down reforms." To help prevent this type of corruption from taking place in the future, Wilkie wants to see the federal government introduce donation reforms.
Senator Nick Xenophon supports the cause, requesting that donation disclosure within days of contributions taking place. Under current laws, the general public does not know about donations until 19 months after they are made, which does not allow for transparency or fairness. Reform would ensure that political parties are not heavily influenced by their most generous donors.
Laws could be passed and declined based solely on their merit rather than how much money the decision could cost certain politicians.