Digging into latest political donations data through a health lens

Introduction by Croakey: How much will the fossil fuels, gambling and alcohol industries invest in the major political parties ahead of the upcoming federal election?

We won’t know until many months after the event – but if recent history is any guide, we can expect that these industries’ political donations will be significant.

Charles Maskell-Knight, who was a senior public servant in the Commonwealth Department of Health for over 25 years before retiring in 2021, digs into the latest political donations data.

Charles Maskell-Knight writes:

On 3 February the Australian Electoral Commission released its data on donations to political parties for the 2023-24 financial year.

In total there were 1,461 separate declared donations totalling just over $23 million, making up about 14 percent of political parties’ total receipts for the financial year.

There has been much debate over the years about the impact on political parties and hence government afforded to donors by donations.

Many years ago, the head of a major industry group said the only reason to donate was to make sure a politician would return a call – and if your group was significant enough, your call would be returned in any event.

However, at a bureaucratic level I never saw a company’s donor status make any difference to its chances of winning a competitive tender process, being given regulatory approval, or being subject to regulatory sanction.

This is not to say that donors do not have discussions with politicians and their advisers that shape policy directions, or the commitments parties take into election campaigns.

Donations to actual or potential governments may well be part of the corporate playbook aimed at securing a favourable policy environment,

With all that in mind, what does the latest data show about who is donating to whom?

Health sector

There were 15 identifiable health sector donors, making 114 separate donations totalling a little over $1.3 million, just under six percent of total donations.

Of this largesse, $788,000 or just under 60 percent of the total flowed to the ALP; $391,000 (almost 30 percent) went to the Liberals; and $148,000 went to the Nationals.

A summary of donations by health sector donor is set out in the table at the end of the article.

There are a number of interesting points about the pattern of donations.

The first is what isn’t there.

There are no medical or health professional groups on the list of donors, nor could I see any private hospital groups or aged care groups. (Some individuals or family companies may own or operate hospitals or aged services, but short of an exhaustive search it is impossible to tell. Certainly, none of the major players are on the donor list.)

And on the recipient list, only the major parties make the cut. The Greens, the independents, and the eponymous vanity project parties all miss out.

The second point is the preponderance of pharmaceutical interests.

In addition to nine individual pharma firms contributing $522,000, Medicines Australia donated $179,000, and the Pharmacy Guild a whopping $403,000. All up interests associated with the PBS donated over $1.1 million, or well over 80 percent of the total.

To put this into context, the Government spent $17.7 billion on the supply of medicines under the PBS in 2023-2024, while patients spent another $1.6 billion.

The Pharmacy Guild is clearly very influential in Government decision-making on the PBS.

While the Government introduced 60-day scripts over the lachrymose protests of the Guild president, it subsequently largely compensated the sector for the income loss through an accelerated renegotiation of the Community Pharmacy Agreement.

Is that influence due to donations? Or is it due to the fact that pharmacists receive a great deal of public trust, and the Guild can mobilise 6,000 pharmacies behind a public campaign?

Perhaps it is a combination of both factors.

Of the remaining donations, two medical technology companies provided $139,000, while the health insurance sector (nib and the Members Health Fund Alliance) contributed $85,000.

Given this spending imbalance, a cynic would say it is little wonder reform to reduce the amount insurers pay for prostheses is so slow.

The third point is the relative even-handedness of many donors.

All donors, except for three, contributed to both the ALP and the Coalition (although the Nationals were sometimes overlooked by companies donating to the Liberals).

Only three donors (Eli Lilly, Merck, and nib) donated only to one side of politics – in each instance the ALP.

Other sectors with health impacts

Outside the health sector, gambling and alcohol interests were significant donors.

The Lottery Corporation, Tabcorp Holdings, and Sportsbet contributed $471,000, split almost 50/50 between the two major parties.

The Brewers Association of Australia, the Australian Hotels Association, and Lion donated $646,000, about two-thirds going to the ALP. (The Australian Hotels Association broke ranks and donated $5,000 to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.)

Clubs NSW and Clubs Australia (combining gambling and alcohol interests) donated a combined $184,000, while the Endeavour Group donated $166,000, again split almost evenly between the two major parties.

Philip Morris was the only tobacco company to appear on the list, donating $100,000 to the Nationals, the only party other than the Liberal Democratic Party to have accepted tobacco money in the last decade.

During the debate on anti-vaping legislation last year, Nationals leader David Littleproud was chastised by then AMA President Professor Steve Robson for the party’s proposal to  impose an excise on vapes. Robson called on the Nationals “to cut the cord with Big Tobacco donors”.

In total the “sin sector” donated $1.5 million, rather more than the health sector.

Companies and other groups clearly involved with fossil fuel productions donated about $1.8 million, $1.3 million to the Coalition and the rest to the ALP.

Following revelations about malfeasance by consultancy firm PWC, no party accepted donations from the firm in 2023-24.

However, the other big three (EY, KMPG, and Deloitte) donated a total of $250,000 – 60 percent of this went to the ALP.

Timing matters

As the Grattan Institute has suggested, the most significant point about the AEC’s publication is its timing: seven months after the end of the financial year, and hence 19 months after the first donations were made on 1 July 2023.

The current timing regime means that there will be no public knowledge of who donated how much to which party during the forthcoming election until at least eight months after the new parliament sits.

While Labor’s plans to reform political donations include “near real time disclosure”, there is no certainty that the legislation will be passed before the next election.

We should also bear in mind that the US Federal Election Commission requires monthly filings of donations in election years.

However, knowing in real time that Elon Musk was buying an election for Trump didn’t stop Americans from selling it to him.

Author details

Charles Maskell-Knight PSM was a senior public servant in the Commonwealth Department of Health for over 25 years before retiring in 2021.  He worked as a senior adviser to the Aged Care Royal Commission in 2019-20. He is a member of Croakey Health Media. Follow on X/Twitter at @CharlesAndrewMK, and on Bluesky at: @charlesmk.bsky.social.

Other commentary

After the latest data release, the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE) and Alliance for Gambling Reform (AGR) jointly called for alcohol and gambling companies to be excluded from making political donations.

Caterina Giorgi, CEO of FARE, said that alcohol companies and their lobby groups had a track record of delaying and stopping policies and programs that could improve the health and wellbeing of families and communities.

“We need to see common sense reforms that put the community first and strengthen our democracy,” she said. “This must include a ban on political donations from alcohol companies and their lobby groups.”

Martin Thomas, CEO of AGR, said gambling lobby groups had stalled progress on legislating a gambling ad ban despite it being backed by communities.

“The evidence shows these donations spike at times when reforms are being considered. It is a blatant attempt to undermine reform and in doing so it is an attack on our democratic process,” he said.

“With political willpower it is absolutely possible for gambling and alcohol companies to be excluded from donating – we saw it with tobacco, now let’s see it for these other industries that are causing significant health and social harms in our communities.”

Previously at Croakey

• How to stop dirty money ruining our health and democracy, by Jennifer Doggett (2022)
• On political transparency and integrity, here’s an opportunity for health advocacy, by Dr Jennifer Lacy-Nichols (2022)
• Political donations: a health sector perspective on the AEC donations data, by Jennifer Doggett (2021)
• Public awareness and attitudes towards political donations from the alcohol industry, by Jeremy Lasek (2021)
• Senate committee votes down curbs for “dirty” industry political donations, by Marie McInerney (2021)
• Breaking down the latest political donations data, and the implications for health, by Amy Coopes (2019)
• The bloody business of political donations (2015)

See Croakey’s archive of articles on the commercial determinants of health