Federal Politics

ANALYSIS

Hiding Malcolm Turnbull's donation was a political gift to his critics

Now that we know how much Malcolm Turnbull personally tipped in to rescue his sputtering re-election campaign, a 'reasoned' debate can ensue over the colossal scale of the pledge, what it says about the Prime Minister in particular, elections in general, and the extent of hidden financial influence.

Don't hold your breath.

Up Next

What is Alibaba?

null
Video duration
00:59

More National News Videos

Turnbull troops rally

After the PM's revelation he donated $1.75 million to the 2016 election campaign, fellow MPs have jumped to his defence as Labor goes on the attack. Courtesy ABC.

Already, this argument is toxic, with Labor's Jim Chalmers suggesting Turnbull would not be Liberal leader, and therefore PM, if he had not paid his way forward.

Treasurer Scott Morrison called that a grubby attack from a grubby political hack.

Amazingly, this is an advance on the unproductive speculation over the quantum which exploded on Turnbull on Wednesday when the Australian Electoral Commission disclosures for financial year 2015-16 finally lobbed (a lazy seven months after the poll) to reveal precisely nothing.

The explanation was that Turnbull's extreme generosity had come after the June 30 disclosure cut-off date – which was itself beyond curious, given the election was on July 2.

Advertisement

The vacuum simply sharpened questions around why someone who favours transparency and timeliness in campaign donations disclosure, insisted on keeping his own donations secret – and planned to do so until February 1, 2018 – purely because the rules allowed it.

At an eye-watering $1.75 million, the Prime Minister's revelation came on Wednesday night during a 7.30 interview.

That this disclosure was reluctant and inconvenient, was painfully obvious. The news instantly swamped coverage of Turnbull's agenda-setting speech at the National Press Club given earlier that day.

The affair raises many talking points – some more reasonable than others.

Clearly, Labor's judgment is that such largesse will confirm Turnbull's elite "otherness", further removing him from the work-a-day concerns of voters.

Liberals insist the PM's wealth is no negative and that he did not use it to influence the election result.

Yet Turnbull himself has justified the donation on precisely these grounds: "I put my money into ensuring that we didn't have a Labor government," he told Stan Grant. Of course he is right – that is what all campaign finances are directed at, including the millions flowing from unions into the ALP.

Ultimately, Turnbull's biggest gift might be to Labor – not for donating so much personally, but for seeking to keep it from voters for so long.

Turnbull has complied fully with all legal requirements.

Ordinarily, truth would provide all the protection necessary. But this is politics where "black letter" defences rarely work and where perceptions, suspicion, and imputed motives, tend to carry more weight.

Follow us on Facebook

52 comments

Comment are now closed