Prime Minister accused of buying the election

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull personally donated $1.75 million to the Liberal Party.

Prime Minister accused of buying the election

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday revealed that he personally donated $1.75 million to the Liberal Party during the last electoral campaign.

The 2015–16 party donation figures from the Australian Electoral Commission were released yesterday, but Mr Turnbull’s donation did not appear as it was made after 30 June 2016.

Revealing the information on the ABC’s 7.30 program, Mr Turnbull believed it was his duty to give back and that it was an investment in his party to ensure that we didn’t have a Labor government.  

"I am not beholden to the CFMEU like Bill Shorten is. I am not beholden to left-wing unions, who own Bill Shorten." said Mr Turnbull.

With the donation amount becoming public overnight, it didn’t take long for the Federal Opposition to have its say on the matter. Shadow Finance Minister Jim Chalmers accused Mr Turnbull of buying the leadership of the Liberal Party and buying the election.

"If he didn't have $1.75 million to splash about he wouldn't be the leader of the Liberal Party and he wouldn't be the Prime Minister," said Mr Chalmers.

South Australian senator Nick Xenophon has called for a review of the political donation system, while Former Liberal Federal Treasurer Michael Yabsley has called for a cap on political donations at $500.

"The real issue has to be the lack of transparency, the opaqueness of our current donation disclosure laws where we don't really know who's pulling the strings when it comes to making those big donations," said Mr Xenophon.

Neither of the two major parties are calling for a cap on political donations, but Mr Turnbull has said that he is open to ideas.

What do you think? Did Mr Turnbull buy the election? Is the $1.75 million donation simply a sign of a man invested in the job or something more? Should there be a limit on political donations?

Read more at dailytelegraph.com.au
Read more at abc.net.au
Read more at skynews.com.au

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Huntsman
    2nd Feb 2017
    10:11am
    There should be no political donations. Each party should be given the same set amount from the public purse and pursue their campaign with just that amount.
    Rae
    2nd Feb 2017
    10:28am
    Yes and that would allow Independents a fair run too if they can get the numbers up to run.
    Wstaton
    2nd Feb 2017
    10:29am
    Huntsman, Political parties already get money from the coffers after the election calculated on the number of first preference votes they receive. Currently set at $2.62 per first preference vote. You work out the maths. But as a example I think LNP got about 5m first preference votes. That means they got about $13million.

    This could remain but Some amount could be given as soon as an election is called. If a political party wants to fritter the money given after the election rather than saving a portion for then next election then that's their problem.

    The only thing here that has to be worked out is how do independents who are not part of a party get funded.
    Anonymous
    2nd Feb 2017
    12:00pm
    A nice little tax write-off. The rich have all sorts of benefits.
    Anonymous
    2nd Feb 2017
    12:34pm
    I agree Huntsman but how would it work? Say I was a rich ex-banker with a lazy $1.75M and was only allowed to donate $500 to a political party. Would that mean that I couldn't spend the rest on advertising to tell people what my personal thoughts are? There already are so many loopholes in the system that policing it is almost impossible.
    Wstaton
    2nd Feb 2017
    1:00pm
    Jacki I think you will find that a max of $1500 is allowed as a tax write off to political parties. Although you can bet that ways will be found to get around this by big political donors.

    Old man I think you will also find that any adverts spruiking a political party has to be authorized by that political party and if anyone pays for it it will be seen as a donation.
    Anonymous
    2nd Feb 2017
    1:41pm
    Not so Wstaton, the Nurses Union is a perfect example of promoting what they perceive is wrong with hospitals and working conditions and only speak on that subject without mentioning a political party. Then, by mere coincidence, Labor has an ad closely following with what they will do to improve health and working conditions.
    Wstaton
    2nd Feb 2017
    1:53pm
    Old Man,

    We are talking about ads here not what individuals are saying to newspapers. The same thing happens when a spokesman for a business winges to newspapers with something like. "the company tax rate should be reduced"
    Anonymous
    2nd Feb 2017
    1:59pm
    Exactly Wstaton, isn't that what Turnbull's $1.75M was supposed to be used for? Ads in print, radio and TV in support of the Liberal Party. Don't unions get to whinge to the media? Sorry, it goes both ways and my post was not trying to suggest that only one side used the system to their advantage, they all do.
    Rae
    2nd Feb 2017
    2:00pm
    And then there is the Australian Business Council coming out over and over with plans to cut wages and benefits to workers but that's different because they call themselves a Council not a Union.
    Adrianus
    2nd Feb 2017
    9:27pm
    Huntsman, that 's an interesting thought. But how would it work? How would you stop people from paying union fees?
    Wstaton
    2nd Feb 2017
    10:14am
    Well I guess its his money to do what he wants with it. But why did he have to hide it in such a way that it wouldn't be officially disclosed for another 18months.

    I am amazed that these so called intelligent people think we are stupid that we do not see this as a sneaky way to avoid it coming up during an election campaign. If it had it may as well changed the result of the election. But isn't this what all politicians do. This once again makes us think even more that most politicians are in it for themselves whether it be for monetary rewards or for grandiose power.
    marto
    2nd Feb 2017
    10:20am
    suprise suprise us voters are meant to be like a mushroom kept in the dark and feed a lot of bullsh*t
    Not a Bludger
    2nd Feb 2017
    10:20am
    I have no brief for Malcolm Turnbull but who cares - at least he has put his money where his mouth is - unlike the Labour party which takes the money from union thugs for influence.
    Aquarian
    2nd Feb 2017
    10:30am
    Well said
    Wstaton
    2nd Feb 2017
    10:32am
    Ahem,

    Doesn't the LNP get blood money from Businesses?
    Batara
    2nd Feb 2017
    11:47am
    Without unions rich people like Trumbull trample all over the rights of little people like us. I wish people would wake up to the rich blusher propaganda and stop dog whistling unions.
    Call another election Mal if you want to waste more money.
    KSS
    2nd Feb 2017
    2:20pm
    Because Mr Shorten did such a good job of 'standing up for the little people like you" when he was National Secretary of the AWU selling out the cleaners right Batara?
    Eddy
    3rd Feb 2017
    1:23am
    Okay Not a Bludger so do you think big business doesn't donate to the Government parties to gain influence. At least the unions do it openly, a lot of business donations are hidden behind foundations. Some businesses back both horses by donating to both parties, just in case.
    By the way why refer to union officials as 'thugs'. Every union official is elected by union members in secret ballots supervised by Fair Work Australia and, until quite recently, conducted by Australian Electoral Commission.
    As for the PM donating $1,75M of his own money to the Liberal Party, so what. It's probably less than 4 years salary for a PM, and he obviously doesn't need the money. I can't see how it would make any difference to the election outcome.
    Paddles
    3rd Feb 2017
    4:43pm
    Not a Bludger

    My sentiments entirely but I wonder if you, like me, are appalled at the number of small-minded, mean-spirited persons in this forum and in the media at large.
    I hold no particular brief for Malcolm Turnbull but he has the runs on the board in the commercial world and has made a great deal of money which, after all, is his to do with as he may. In fact, it has been said that his generosity extends over many spheres and enterprises but the harpies don't want to know about that!
    Patriot
    3rd Feb 2017
    4:50pm
    Paddles
    His DONATION (???) of 1 3/4 m$ would not be so bad IF he - the same as every ordinary Australian taxpayer - had his money/investments in Australia AND paid - as he demands from ALL of US - the appropriate level of TAX!!!!

    As the prime Minister of Australia, Hiding your wealth in the CayMan Islands is HYPOCRITICAL when HE (His Govt) is attempting to implement DRACONIAN rules on the "Common Man" like Pensioners and the "Less Well To-Do"!!!
    SHAME - SHAME - SHAME
    Hervey Bay Escapee
    2nd Feb 2017
    10:31am
    And Shorten didn't with $20 million of union member funds diverted into the election. No wonder they are loosing members and paling into insignificance!
    KSS
    2nd Feb 2017
    12:50pm
    Just to be sure of accuracy and fairness, the Unions contributed $20m to Labor last year, $5m of which was 'donated' for the election.
    Eddy
    3rd Feb 2017
    1:43am
    I would suggest VICMT that unions at losing members because they have been too successful, working people today get it so easy compared to what is was like in, what my grandchildren refer to as, the olden days. When I started work as a 14 year old it was a 44 hour week (we worked Saturday mornings), 1 week a year paid holiday, most workers could not afford a car and very few people had telephones in their home. It is so much better nowadays because unions fought for better working conditions and a bigger share of the national wealth. The result of being so successful is that working people don't see the need to join a union, they get it all for nothing.
    Just in case you think I am a left wing unionite, I spent most of my working life in the military and one of the rights we had to give up was joining a trade union.
    grounded
    2nd Feb 2017
    10:32am
    Anyone, should have the fundamental right to donate as much as they wish to any Political Party...providing it is declared. No different than if I wish to donate to the Dog Shelter, the Cancer Fund or the Bush Fire Brigade....what ever turns one on.

    Unions donate $M's to Labor...as the big end of town donates $M's to the Liberals. That is life in a democratic society. Greens even pick up the stray $M donation.

    Are we to become such a commo driven, nanny state as to determine who we can give money to....or is it that the Comrades want to fund Politician's electioneering from the public purse also.

    Far better to stay on top of 'donations' like the Communist Chinese gave to Sammy Dastardly. That is straight out under the cuff corruption. Better question to have asked...should have Labor's Sammy Dastardly been goaled for outright Corruption.
    Kaz
    2nd Feb 2017
    11:41am
    Grounded, there are many like that. Do you think they haven't donated to the LNP? What do you think Murdoch et al do? The best thing to do us to declare large donations at the time of the election - and where it is originally linked
    Eddy
    3rd Feb 2017
    2:06am
    Agree Kaz, in this day and age political donations should be able to be in the public domain within minutes of being processed, if the political parties would agree to that.
    I am not concerned by donations by the PM or any minister, it is the donations from influence peddlers and overseas sources that concern me.

    2nd Feb 2017
    10:59am
    Malcolm had to buy his way into his job - because there's no way he would have got the job if he had to attend a job interview, and supply job qualifications, a CV, and impress a potential employer, just as the rest of us peasants have to do.

    Besides, what's the fuss about a $1.75m kitty contribution from a banker? It's merely pocket loose change to a bloke who usually pulls in a monthly salary that's equal to anyones elses annual salary.
    Drew
    2nd Feb 2017
    11:07am
    He will get a great return on investment as well with his pension benefits for being PM!
    FEDUP
    2nd Feb 2017
    11:09am
    So what if he did!
    The Trades Union was supplementing the Labor Party, to the tune of far more than the PM.
    It should be up to the individual members to donate, as they were never asked, if they wanted to do so.
    The PM is a member of the Liberal Party, but I will bet anything that not all members of the Trade Union are members of the Labor party.
    Ban all donations, let the Politicians pay their own way into a seat of Parliament.
    Kaz
    2nd Feb 2017
    11:36am
    Then we will end up with a trump- no thanks. Don't forget that business also donates to the LNP. Don't fall for the spin.
    cdbstock
    2nd Feb 2017
    1:53pm
    Fedup Real time disclosure (with severe penalties for non-disclosure - even expulsion of the party's elected Members) is the solution so voters can know who is supporting which candidate/party
    Chuck
    2nd Feb 2017
    11:19am
    I'd like to see a list showing donations of $1000 or more given to all political parties and I'd like to see it now not in 12 months time.
    Kaz
    2nd Feb 2017
    11:34am
    Is it tax deductible? But he and Lucy are 'lucky and like to support where they can' ????
    Wstaton
    2nd Feb 2017
    11:44am
    Only tax deductible up to $1500. He probably won't bother.
    Batara
    2nd Feb 2017
    11:49am
    He puts his money in the Cayman's. Tax? What's that?
    dougie
    2nd Feb 2017
    11:35am
    As I said in yesterday's post. "what the man does with his money is his responsibility" . No one should or could tell him how to spend or allocate that which is his. I am sure that Malcolm and Lucy Turnbull will not call upon the public purse to pay for their "Departure Tax".
    So many people are critical of this donation probably because their party did not receive it.
    Are they also critical of the no doubt large sums that those same two people would provide without acknowledgement or fanfare to the many charities they would assist or to individuals who have needed a hand up.
    Come on get off his back you may not like his politics but at least do not criticise what you know little or nothing about. These people have a right to spend their money as they see fit, just the same as you or I, the only difference being that they can spread it more deeply than most.
    Kaz
    2nd Feb 2017
    11:47am
    It's about perceptions. If the PM thought there was nothing wrong, why didn't he declare it when asked? That's all labour is asking. Was he embarrassed? I'm ok with him having what he has, but the LNP are finding it hard to understand what the have-nots (majority) are experiencing and truly don't know what to do about it. We have dumbed down both in intelligence and compassion. They talk trickle down rubbish and coal mines cos that's all they know
    Wstaton
    2nd Feb 2017
    11:47am
    Yes people quite right to be able to put their money where they want. I don't think this is what this is mainly about. It's about perceptions and the sneaky way it was hidden during the election campaign.

    I also understand that the LNP were a bit short during this period.
    dougie
    2nd Feb 2017
    1:23pm
    Kaz and Wstaton,

    What is the perception ? Did he do something wrong ? What laws did he break ? Was it an illegal gift ?

    I, in fact heard this figure quoted in the media at the time of the election, but anyway whose business is it?

    Do you ask Bill Shorten what he gave to the Labor cause ? Do you ask the unions to specify what they give to Labor before it is legally required that they do?

    As one of their own once said " Fair suck of the sauce bottle".
    Wstaton
    2nd Feb 2017
    1:47pm
    Perception is what other people see. My perception is that it was a sneaky thing to hide something. Other perceptions that some people see is that he was buying something.

    My other perception was that it was hiding something that may affect his hopes for winning the election.

    I have already said that what he does with his money is his business. But hide the fact that it done in an election environment is another thing.

    What some people refuse to realize is that he must have known at the time that that it may effect his election hopes.

    Many people give high value money to charities and do not want to disclose the fact and they certainly have the right to privacy in this case. Anyone has if it does not affect anything else. But! The prime minister is part of a public organisation that he contributed to and tried to keep it secret fudging by hiding the time it was donated. This was a deliberate act. This is not a privacy concern. It is mandated that it has to be disclosed.

    He eventually disclosed it 7 months after the event. Why because as a politician I suspect it was going to do him a lot of harm to wait until a full 18 months when it was going to be revealed anyway. Better to do it now rather than make people think he was hiding something over this time.
    dougie
    2nd Feb 2017
    4:18pm
    Wstaton

    I think the sauce bottle is what you require. The disclosure was in the legal time frame and met all of the legal obligations. As I said I had heard at the time of the election that such a donation to funds had been made and I believe that when fronted over the matter Mr Turnbull agreed that he had made a donation of considerable size which would be advised as required. Who can ask for more, everyone who voted for Labor it would seem.
    Wstaton
    2nd Feb 2017
    4:53pm
    One may notice that I have not disparage peoples comments with inane sentences. Apart from this Dougie, what you appear to be saying saying that all the people (mainly businesses) who rort the system when they do their tax returns say they are doing this legally. Same goes for some of our politicians who reckon their travel claims are in the rules.

    But as been bounced around often, morally they do not pass the test. Personally I do not see Mr Turnbull passing this test in this instant.

    I will say this against any politician who doesn't pass this sort of morality test whatever creed.

    Please just in case you do as many of the commenters seem to do, do not label me as a lefty labor stooge, liberal whatnot, or anything. I am straight down the centre fairness for all.
    dougie
    3rd Feb 2017
    8:17am
    Wstaton,

    You have missed the point that I made that when questioned at the time of the election about this donation Turnbull admitted that "he had made a substantial donation the value of which would be disclosed in the fullness of time".

    If that is hiding a donation I feel astounded and amazed. I do not label you a political person of any kind but should you wish for every business - politician or individual who does not meet the moral test to be branded and named and shamed then there will not be many of the above unnamed and shamed

    Believe me all I wish for this column to have reasonable comments from thinking people, without branding the contributors under any names or ridicule.

    2nd Feb 2017
    11:51am
    Of course he bought himself into the job. Most of the politicians are brain dead except when it comes to money (GREED!) so they agree to let Bozo go for the job. He squeezes in (whilst hiding in his darkened house, AFRAID of the outcome - great leader material!) and gets the job he PAID FOR! Since then all that he has uttered is hot air, NO PLANS, NO POLICIES, only a CODE OF SILENCE - yes, like the Mafia. This clown has dropped the ball with the NBN, the buck is supposed to stop with the "leader" so the stuff-up with the Centrelink billing and the ATO software is ultimately Bozo's responsibility. Then we have the never-ending pilfering by politicians of taxpayers' money for family holiday flights, polo and football trips and admissions, house and apartment hunting excursions, New Year's Eve party flyaways, all of which have been going on FOR YEARS! We these thieving political scum be punished in ANY way for their gross and blatant stealing? No, probably not, because Turnbull is too weak a person to do ANYTHING about it, or anything ELSE for that matter. He has rubbed the poor and disabled Pensioners and is thinking about even yet more capital gains tax legislation to try to balance the ever-increasing national debt which is greatly a part of his own making. This clown thinks we are all stupid with his "$750 more in your pocket" scam, big business execs (Turnbull's slimy mates) being the only winners! We are being filched, fooled, and flattened financially by this weak, spineless egotist who has NO interest in this country NOR it's people, does not seem to have a clue what is going on within his own party as shown by his passive permissiveness of thief, and "governs" (HA!) by the HOUR with absolutely NO plans for the future! He is a total ZERO.
    TMac
    2nd Feb 2017
    12:11pm
    geez Eddie, your pulse must run at 200+, I think you need to go to the pharmacy and get some chill pills.
    Anonymous
    2nd Feb 2017
    12:31pm
    No, TMac, cool as a cucumber, 62 bpm as usual, and am only stating facts. I think the only things I got wrong in my comment were the typos "we" instead of "will" and "rubbed" instead of "robbed" - the typing, like a few other things, ain't what it used to be. IF I have gotten any of the FACTS wrong I would be pleased to hear from ANYONE about the discrepancies.
    Happily retired early
    2nd Feb 2017
    12:05pm
    Poor Tony if only he had $1.75 million ...... that's the worst of being poor, however it does show how shallow today's Liberal party is and what they stand for.
    Get ready for P.M. Gina Rheinhart in a destitute country near you soon.
    Not Senile Yet!
    2nd Feb 2017
    12:07pm
    Didn't buy election...Didn't buy PM...either!
    That donation was a security deposit so he did what the Corpates want....they own the LNP....Therefore they own him!
    Do as we say....he said he would....they said we want you to put your money where ur mouth is.....donate ur own money as a surety!
    Price.... $1.75Million for Leadership....with one Condition.....You do sa we say!
    wazza
    2nd Feb 2017
    12:13pm
    Are you guys for real? He's a millionaire who donated money to his own party. Duh. How much did the trade unions (who started the Labor Party) give to their own political party, including the union funded TV commercials. Donations from developers are already banned so let's have a level playing field and ban donations from unions too. In fact having a cap sounds like a good idea. Even better ban all TV election commercials, they full of BS (big stress) anyway.
    KSS
    2nd Feb 2017
    1:12pm
    $20 million last year with $5 million for the election!
    Wstaton
    2nd Feb 2017
    1:17pm
    That wouldn't be very democratic wassa. If you banned unions giving donations then you have to ban businesses as well.

    Please remember unions are comprised of people who work and are members of the union. If they did not want to have the union to give donations then they could vote to stop it.

    Also remember unions were started by people becuase of employers screwing them (Still happens today 7 eleven, bakers delight and more) There are many employers who do play fair and these are being let down by unscrupulous ones. True some unions should be sorted out as well but should be by their members but all unions should not be targeted by the same brush much as many employers shouldn't.

    It still disgusts me that people in unions found being naughty are criminalized get fines or jail time yet companies like 7 eleven from breaking workplace laws get a slap on the wrist and told to pay what they should. They are not given any other penalty like a substantial fine for being naughty and breaking a law and to show others that this will not be tolerated.
    KSS
    2nd Feb 2017
    1:58pm
    And the retail union is doing sooo much to help the 7 eleven, Baker's Delite (and more) employees right???


    And you might also like to consider there are many many union members who are not actually members of the Labor party, and in some cases even know they are part of the union. Mr Shorten made sure of that as a union official and his dirty deals to benefit the union over the employees he was meant to be representing.
    Wstaton
    2nd Feb 2017
    4:58pm
    You are dead right KSS, I also think that there are a lot of people who are not Liberal party members whose business they have shares in contribute to the Liberal coffers .
    phantom
    2nd Feb 2017
    12:16pm
    Damned if you do and damned if you don't. He didn't want to kiss and tell and as soon as he did you are ramming it down his throat. If he didn't donate anything you all would call him a stingy prick, now he's bought his way in. If "Jesus" was running I'll bet he would be vilified for walking on water and not paying for a boat. Feeding the masses and doing a fish monger out of a sale. Crikey we're good.

    2nd Feb 2017
    12:30pm
    Another unbalanced comment on this site. How can it be shown that Turnbull "paid for his leadership"? Can we also assume that if that is true then the unions have paid for Shorten's leadership? If we are looking at donations and whether they affect a party's opinion can we balance this a bit by disclosing that what Labor got from some unions; Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association $1.5M, CFMEU $1m+ and United Voice with a mere $$1.7M.

    I note that the politics of envy from Shorten and his name calling, "Mr Harbourside Mansion", did not extend to calling out Rudd for being a millionaire nor Garratt for being a millionaire. I also note that it took 8 years and a Royal Commission to disclose a donation of $40,000 to Shorten's election funding.

    Lat time I looked, Australia is a free country where its citizens have the freedom of voting for whomever they choose and the right to donate to whichever charity or other needy organisation they choose. Xenophon and others can whinge all they wish about donations but until the laws are changed everything that Turnbull has done is legal. And just to remind some people, Turnbull is only allowed to claim back $1,500 of his donation as a tax deduction, not the full amount.
    Wstaton
    2nd Feb 2017
    1:22pm
    I like this, organizations that represent people should be vilified for donating yet those who represent businesses and share holders shouldn't.
    cdbstock
    2nd Feb 2017
    2:20pm
    OM What 'unbalanced comment'?
    All most of us want is 'real time' disclosure with severe penalties for non-disclosure by parties, donors or election candidates - all parties/individuals. Just because unions donate to ALP with disclosure18 mths after the election doesn't excuse other people/entities donating to the LNP with only a very late disclosure.
    Why do you object to 'real time' disclosure?
    Anonymous
    2nd Feb 2017
    2:48pm
    cdbstock, I have no objection whatsoever to full real time disclosure. I felt that this article on Turnbull had a lean to one side and it would have been nice to also point out where other people have done similar things to give a sense of balance.
    cdbstock
    2nd Feb 2017
    2:55pm
    OM tks - I see your point
    nena
    2nd Feb 2017
    12:46pm
    I don't know really, but does he get a tax deduction for that donation? He is a business man, like Trump they are good in tax avoidances. Making donations for their own convenience is one of the choices,.
    Anonymous
    2nd Feb 2017
    12:48pm
    Turnbull is only allowed to claim back $1,500 of his donation as a tax deduction, not the full amount.
    Fredklaus
    2nd Feb 2017
    12:49pm
    Like CLIVE PALMER and TRUMP.They get it back for the rest of their lives,just another investment at TAX payers expense.
    Nads
    2nd Feb 2017
    12:50pm
    Running an election campaign costs money. He won't owe any favours to anyone which is great, he worked hard, he walked the streets. His money and he put it out there. That creates jobs. And he and his wife are philanthropists. Focus on the positives. Solutions.
    Rae
    2nd Feb 2017
    2:30pm
    Yes and someone had to save the government from Credlin. Abbott couldn't see the damage she was doing to Australia. It was during Abbott's time that the pension changes were drafted into legislation. I wonder if those changes would have been that austere if MPs could have got through to Abbott.
    Patriot
    2nd Feb 2017
    1:06pm
    Let's not forget that Big Mal is a Businessman (Bankster) after all.
    NO Business Investment - if you are looking after your business - must EVER be made without a "Projected Adequate Return" on your Investment and the investment MUST only have a minimal risk of FAILURE if you're a prudent individual.

    The only problem is that the Return in Big Mal's in vestment WILL BE PAID FOR by (us fools) the AUSTRALIAN TaxPayer - either directly or indirectly!!!

    It's a "Sad State of Affairs" when one has to BUY a job rather than be able to show (& be Judged on) the Credentials to be CAPABLE!

    SLAVERY IS NIGH!
    KSS
    2nd Feb 2017
    1:10pm
    Why is there not a similar article about the $5 million the Trade Unions 'donated' to Labor to 'buy' the election they lost! That $5m; note it is almost three times the amount of Mr Turnbull's donation, (plus the other $15 million in Trade Union donations to Labor over the year) was on behalf of Trade Union members. I wonder how many of those members would not even be party members or know where their union fees were being spent.

    Mr Turnbull used his own money as he is perfectly entitled to do. As for it being tax deductible that is untrue as it is for businesses making donations. The ATO web site is currently down but I did find this:

    Political contributions
    Political parties are not DGRs. However, in some circumstances, gifts and contributions made by individuals to political parties and independent candidates and members can be claimed as income tax deduction.
    To claim a deduction, contributions must be more than $2. The most you can claim is

    $1,500 for contributions and gifts to political parties and
    $1,500 for contributions and gifts to independent candidates and members.
    Businesses can’t claim deductions for political contributions.

    *DRG: deductible gift recipient
    cdbstock
    2nd Feb 2017
    2:53pm
    KSS Two wrongs dont make a 'right'
    Yes unions 'donate' and every 'donation' by any individual/entity should be disclosed in 'real time' - so voters know how to vote at elections.
    Tarzan
    2nd Feb 2017
    5:52pm
    KSS
    I like your work
    Eddy
    3rd Feb 2017
    1:58am
    KSS, by law, any union funds donated to political parties have to be approved by union members. Unions do run voluntary levies, which are not part of union funds, for political donations.
    I do not believe shareholders of companies are required to approve business donations to political parties, but having no shares I would not really know.
    HarrysOpinion
    2nd Feb 2017
    1:15pm
    Any blind Freddy will tell you that he bought the leadership of the party and the prime ministership.
    4b2
    2nd Feb 2017
    1:34pm
    I cant see a problem with political donations as long as they are transparent and reported within 30 days of the receipt. I hope these donations are not tax deductable, the taxpayer already funds elections.
    Why did Mal condemn the CFMEU and not mention his mob be beholden to their rich backers in mining, farming, Banking et. After all the propose tax reductions will benefit them, as did the reversal of the carbon tax.
    No mention of the secret slush funds set up to hide who donated and when.. Good one Mal.
    lets make the whole party donations an open process.
    Gee Whiz
    2nd Feb 2017
    1:35pm
    Stop calling them "political donations". They are straight out bribes. Turnbull would have used his $1.75 million bribe to pay other LNP politicians to support his stabbing Tony Abbot in the back and for not turning against him because of his appalling administration.

    There is no other explanation why any LNP politician would support a Prime Minister whose approval rating is plummeting into oblivion at light speed.

    Politicians only understand one thing; money.

    Turnbull has bribed his way into the top job for one reason and one reason only.

    He wants all of the spectacular retirement benefits that goes with a Prime Ministers retirement package.

    There can be no other reason considering he has been classified as the worst Prime Minister in the last thirty years.
    KSS
    2nd Feb 2017
    1:50pm
    I thought that title belonged to Mr Abbott, before him Mr Rudd, before him Ms Gillard, before her Mr Rudd (again) and before him Mr Howard.

    Seems to me that this is an accolade bestowed on the incumbent regardless of the accuracy, veracity or appropriacy.
    KSS
    2nd Feb 2017
    1:54pm
    "He wants all of the spectacular retirement benefits that goes with a Prime Ministers retirement package."

    Seriously Gee Whiz?!!
    Anonymous
    3rd Feb 2017
    5:41pm
    I don't think he'll even notice the retirement benefits, Gee Whiz. He's got so much wealth that a few million more each year is meaningless. But he paid for power, and that's something that nobody who respects democratic process could endorse.
    Jacqui
    2nd Feb 2017
    3:26pm
    Australians must be informed…Our government gave over 88 million to the Clinton Foundation. Why and for what favour's? Clinton wanted opened boarders and to swamp the
    West with the 3rd world…we could have had serious problems here if Clinton had won.
    We all now know how corrupt the Clintons are THE FOUNDATION HAS NOW BEEN CLOSED.
    Wstaton
    2nd Feb 2017
    4:09pm
    When did this happen. First time I have heard of that.
    Anonymous
    2nd Feb 2017
    6:14pm
    wstation not surprised with your question, hope you are still contributing to those crooks.
    Wstaton
    2nd Feb 2017
    8:36pm
    You took my comment the wrong way, what I hadn't heard of was that we gave them $88million.
    Anonymous
    4th Feb 2017
    5:55pm
    For those who have not heard of these donations have a read.
    Both Labor and Liberals did it

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/taxpayers-75m-to-clinton-foundation/news-story/0d42d915182072cd3f208d7906f4bc02
    Gee Whiz
    2nd Feb 2017
    3:38pm
    Oh yes Kiss i'am deadly serious.

    Why do you think there has been so much shuffling for the prime Ministers job over the years. Fraser and Howard , Costello and Howard, Hawk and Keating, Rudd and Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull.

    Do you honestly believe they are doing this just for the exercise. That they are not interested in the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

    Look beyond the smoke and mirrors for the truth.

    2nd Feb 2017
    4:57pm
    He'd be better off and better to this country putting it into a real business and employing a few people...

    All donations should be banned since they give the election to the fattest party.
    Tarzan
    2nd Feb 2017
    5:50pm
    The article isn't relevant to an over 60's web site, this is what the ABC live on, please get your mind on things " over 60 " and get out of irrelevant opinion pieces.
    Rae
    2nd Feb 2017
    6:17pm
    There are only two comments on end of life planning so you could add to that.

    Or the one about the potato famine.
    Anonymous
    2nd Feb 2017
    6:20pm
    great comment however you have to realise this is a ylc site, an abc offshoot?
    Rosret
    2nd Feb 2017
    7:46pm
    This is not news. Malcolm Turnball has never hidden the fact he has donated a significant amount to the Liberal Party.
    Its not illegal however it would be nice if we don't become like America where only the wealthy control the nation.
    If we want equality in representation then the rules need to be changed in regard to donations.
    Rosret
    2nd Feb 2017
    7:46pm
    This is not news. Malcolm Turnball has never hidden the fact he has donated a significant amount to the Liberal Party.
    Its not illegal however it would be nice if we don't become like America where only the wealthy control the nation.
    If we want equality in representation then the rules need to be changed in regard to donations.
    Patriot
    2nd Feb 2017
    7:49pm
    Rosret,
    As elections do not seem to matter and the promises to US - the mere Mortals - are (generally) not in any way complied with, we are already controlled by the elitists.
    The same "PACK OF CRIMS" that has controlled the USofA now for many years.
    Rae
    3rd Feb 2017
    8:17am
    Maybe some rules about keeping promises for at least as long as the time between elections. Right now it is impossible to believe a word they say at election time. They may as well save the money wasted on pamphlets, advertising of lies because hardly anyone believes them any more.
    Anonymous
    4th Feb 2017
    5:57pm
    People have to vote parties in. If they didnt want the libs Malcolm would not have got the job no matter how much he donated.
    Adrianus
    2nd Feb 2017
    9:29pm
    I don't know if the last 3 ALP leaders have donated to their party but if not we should be asking why? I guess they are takers not givers?
    floss
    3rd Feb 2017
    8:17am
    He bought his job as simple as that.
    floss
    3rd Feb 2017
    11:42am
    Great post Eddy ,keep taking the pills Not A Bludger and one day you may catch up.

    3rd Feb 2017
    5:39pm
    What offends me far more than his political donation is his fraudulent claim to be a ''self-made man'' and to have experienced ''disadvantage'''. A disgusting insult to ordinary Australians who understand what '''self-made'' and ''disadvantage'' mean! He was born filthy rich and inherited millions. Why is he so ashamed that he has to lie about that?
    Gigi
    7th Feb 2017
    3:32pm
    We live in a Democracy, individuals are allowed to speak their mind & spending their money. All we can do is insist on transparency, IF we believe in freedom of choice.
    How Mr Turnbull spends his money is his business but if he donates to a Political Party then it must be published. What Organisation/s (Union) do with its money is the responsibility of elected officials & members. Sadly NO Union has ever asked its members formally or informally about what donation or size of donation to make to Labor or any other Political Party. When members have questioned their officials about donations & clearly inaccurate advertisements one is told to 'bugger off". That's not democratic, that's theft


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles