The big accounting – pardon, consulting – firms are climbing up the ranks of political donors. Refreshingly it is not a domain for lawyers, those apolitical advocates.
Or, is it?
The latest donor disclosures published by the Australian Electoral Commission reveals which law firms contribute to political parties, whether in cash, kind, or by attending those fancy functions of alternate meals and confected smalltalk. Chief among them was proud national firm Holding Redlich, lobbing $92,700 worth in 2015-16 mainly in the direction of state and federal Labor branches. That included an "intimate lunch with [NSW minister] Chris Minns and [senator] Sam Dastyari", which chewed $660 from the credit card, plus donations to shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus and Melbourne candidate Sophie Ismail.
The Libs shouldn't feel left out: along with sponsorship amounts, there was a (more expensive, mind you – $2500) dinner with all-round "fixer" Christopher Pyne. The firm does not comment on its donations, so we are left to dine on the report alone.
Fellow home-grown dynamos Arnold Bloch Leibler similarly placed bets both ways, although for it the bulk went to the ruling federal Liberal party ($61,000) over the Labor federal ($15,000) and Victorian ($1000) branches. Like Holding Redlich, their donations go back a number of years, criss-crossing the political divide. In 2014-15 most went to the Victorian Liberal branch ($65,000), sitting in opposition. The previous year, when Liberals ruled that southerly state, most of their donations went to the opposing Labor team ($26,000).
Pin-up ABL partner Leon Zwier is responsible for notching up a chunk of those donations in the form of freebies: giving pro bono advice to federal opposition leader Bill "I don't suck up to billionaires" Shorten in the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, and to former Prime Minister Tony Abbott in a defamation action brought against him by Victorian union official John Setka.
Working class warriors Maurice Blackburn aren't shy about their preference: all $49,000 went to the Labor party, as their donations have for decades. A spokesman said the firm had a "proud history of advocating for the rights of working people, in line with the values of our founder Maurice Blackburn, which is why we always have and will continue to support Labor representatives and causes".
Corrs Chambers Westgarth almost escaped attention, crawling over the $13,000 reporting threshold by benefiting the Victorian ALP branch to the tune of $13,883. It is likely the accumulation of partners attending ticketed functions, which makes Hearsay wonder how other firms escaped attention.
Batting solo for the globals, Norton Rose Fulbright made it on to the register for its Liberal-weighted donations of a little over $25,000 (Labor managed to snaffle $2900 of that).
Constitutional sinkhole for Turnbull?
More than just the banks might pay from independent Bob Katter's bill to set up a royal commission into the banking industry: it threatens to open a sinkhole before Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's government, if it ever gets up.
The inquiry would need funds. There's an academic argument that this could imply it is a money bill. Pass a money bill without the government's support, and you've arguably got a government that has lost financial control and must resign. Just one of those minor, constitutional nuisances. The government could counter it with a motion of confidence to prove that it was still in control.
Thankfully, the bill appears to have been drafted to try to avoid this itchy money issue.
It separates the commencement date of the introductory sections of the bill (set for royal assent) from that of the remainder, set for "the day the Consolidated Revenue Fund is appropriated" to fund the inquiry. Neat.
Or, in fact, rather messy.
Constitutional expert from the University of Sydney, Professor Anne Twomey, says it leads to "odd consequences". The bill dictates the appointment of commissioners within six weeks of royal assent and a report within six months of the same date.
"If the appropriation was made five months after assent to the bill, there would be issues about the obligation concerning appointment and timing of the report. All very messy. I imagine that extensive amendments would have to be made to the bill before it was passed."
Of course, the bill may never come to pass, or it may undergo that extensive makeover, which would make all of this a moot point.
But who doesn't enjoy a good discussion grounded in our strongest legal document to undermine political posturing.
katie.walsh@fairfaxmedia.com.au
