Nick McKim’s refusal to apologise for saying the Labor government has been “captured by Zionist interests” has opened a much larger argument about political influence, lobbying and the boundaries of legitimate debate in Australia.
Pro-Israel organisations always argue that language about “political capture” brings up those antisemitic conspiracy tropes about Jewish control but McKim’s position is that political Zionism and the organisations advocating for Israel must be open to the same scrutiny that applies to mining companies, defence contractors, pharmaceutical companies, unions and every other organised interest seeking access to government.
Australian politicians, journalists and other opinion-makers have travelled to Israel through organised programs which provides these participants with direct exposure to Israeli political, security and social perspectives – “re-education” programs. And this political access and sponsored travel then influences the policy positions of the people who partake in these programs.
This issue has become more urgent as Australia’s relationship with Israel has come under pressure over the issue Gaza, the occupied Palestinian territories, the killing of Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom, and policing cooperation, military relationships and the broader connections between Australia and Israel.
Governments cannot credibly insist that these relationships have no political consequences while simultaneously treating scrutiny of the organisations advocating for them as somehow beyond acceptable debate.
But there’s another problem that lies behind the scene: money, and lots of it.
Australia’s political donation system has allowed substantial amounts of political funding – $138 million – to remain outside immediate the view of the public and with a high disclosure threshold and reporting delays, the public cannot easily see who is financing political parties, what interests those donors represent, or whether these donations relate to certain policy outcomes.
McKim’s intervention might ultimately become significant, not because everyone will agree with his language, but because he has brought an argument that’s usually conducted quietly behind closed doors, and into the mainstream political debate.
If lobbying is seen to be a legitimate course of action, scrutiny of lobbying must be legitimate as well. And if Australian politicians want the public to trust that policy is being made independently, the strongest response is to have more scrutiny and not less transparency.
