The federal government’s proposed changes to campaign finance laws, to take effect in 2026, passed through the House of Representatives on Wednesday with the support of the Coalition and the opposition of the cross-bench. It will shortly come before the Senate, where the Coalition plans to move amendments to increase proposed spending caps and disclosure thresholds. Katina Curtis of The West Australian reports Labor maintains suspicions that the Coalition “might string talks along but backflip at the last minute for pure politics”, and is duly “keeping its options open” for a late deal with the cross-bench. In the absence of such a deal, Curtis further notes that amendments to the regime will assuredly feature in post-election horse trading in the event of a hung parliament.
That the 227-page bill looks set to proceed swiftly to enactment without a parliamentary inquiry has drawn criticism from constitutional law expert Anne Twomey and former NSW Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy, the former concluding that the High Court will likely “end up doing the job instead”. At issue is the doctrine of implied constitutional freedom of political communication, by which the court disallowed the Hawke-Keating government’s attempt to ban political advertising in the electronic media, and more recently caps on third party spending in New South Wales. Twomey perceives two potential difficulties: that the spending caps are “so high that it undoes their aim”, and would make it difficult to establish that the laws serve a legitimate purpose justifying limitations on political communication; and that the bill’s provisions, as noted below, tend to favour parties over independents and incumbents over challengers.
The main provisions of the bill are as follows:
• What Graeme Orr of the University of Queensland describes as “the headline the government wants us to focus on” is that federal electoral donations will be capped at $20,000 per donor per year, increasing to $40,000 in election years, with individual donors allowed to donate no more than $640,000 in total. However, this is calculated at the level of the state or territory branch, such that an enterprising donor could contribute $720,000 to a party over a three-year term, plus extra for by-election campaigns. Joo-Cheong Tham of the University of Melbourne law schools notes loopholes include exemptions for union affiliation fees to Labor (uncapped, unlike similar laws in New South Wales) – and, “most significantly”, a failure to apply to donations made by candidates to their parties, which would seemingly amount to ongoing carte blanche for Clive Palmer.
• Caps on spending set at $90 million for general party spending and $800,000 for individual electorate campaigns. As proof against a legal challenge, this would barely clip Clive Palmer’s wings: his party spent $83 million on its 2019 campaign onslaught, and $70 million in 2022. The latter is an issue for the teals, whose campaign spends in some cases exceeded $2 million, which explains the Coalition’s enthusiasm for the package. Katina Curtis of The West Australian notes that spending caps are fair enough to the extent that “limiting donations without limiting spending heavily advantages people who have their own wealth and don’t have to pass the hat around”. However, the two distinct caps mean that parties trying to see off independents will be able to match their local campaign spend, and trump it by targeting the electorate with further spending that doesn’t mention their candidate, or mentions them alongside Senate candidates. Caps can also encourage third-party spending, which has reached its apotheosis with the “super PACs” that dominate election campaigning in the United States.
• The threshold for public disclosure of donations, which the Howard government hiked from $1500 to an indexed $10,000, will be cut from $16,900 to $1000. The Libeals are continuing to grumble about this, arguing that small businesses will feel too intimidated to donate to them. The bill will also dispense with the notoriously lax requirement that disclosures be made only twice yearly, henceforth to be monthly, then weekly during the campaign period, then daily in the week before and after election day.
• The public funding that currently allocates $3.35 per vote to candidates who exceed 4% will have the rate increased to $5. There will further be administrative funding amounting to $30,000 per lower house member and $15,000 per Senator, advantaging incumbents over challengers.
Meanwhile, the South Australian government last week introduced legislation to ban nearly all political donations and fill the gap with public funding, a move that has attracted the interest of The Economist. It may also yet attract the interest of the High Court, with Peter Malinauskas conceding the “challenging” task of drafting the legislation around the objections that might arise.
Can we keep this thread for discussion of campaign finance legislation. The open thread for general discussion is here.
Interesting how in a cost of living crisis this Albanese government wants to redirect more taxpayer money to help it and the LNP’s reelection bid from 2026.
The duopoly being re-elected is the Labor priority as both have their main interests and policy development for the USA, business and wealthy Australians.
The aim is to keep the Labor Party and the existing MPs firmly in power, a well financed election campaign wins many politically uninterested voters.
This is a naked attempt to exclude new entrants, candidates who listen to the needs of their electorate.
Compared to those in Labor and the LNP who listen to wealthy donors and lobbyists.
Shows a total lack of interest in most Australians. Again indicates Albanese’s ‘ no one left behind ‘ is a lie.
The link back to the general discussion thread takes you to the ABC instead.
There’s not much to like about the Federal legislation. As William has pointed out, the suggestion that it would in any way restrict future Clive Palmer spend-a-thons is a load of bollocks. The only expenditure it is really going to curtail in any significant way is that by Teals and other independents: and, even then, not all that much.
The main thing it will do is to relieve the major parties of some of the work of raising their own donations and instead put more of the burden of the cost of their electioneering onto taxpayers.
Assuming it gets through the Parliament, my response will be to give my first preference in future elections to the least objectionable independent running in my seat, and then my second preference to the party of my choice.
In the end, it’s just more evidence that the major parties thoroughly deserve to be receiving a steadily declining share of the votes. Sadly, that is going to lead to less stability going forward, and a continuing strong role for the ghastly Greens. But it seems to be inevitable.
My goodness, Meher and Irene in agreement that the current free for all spendathon at elections must continue to allow democracy to flourish. To pretend that this legislation is to preserve “the duopoly” is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.
To justify spending $2 million to “buy” a seat is ludicrous. Kooyong, for example, saw the independent and the incumbent spend that much each. $800,000 is more than enough to run a local campaign. Clearly the large national parties have the advantage of a national platform, but that is balanced by their support post preferences.
I may be politically naive but I do think keeping big money out of election campaigns is good for democracy regardless as to whether the donor is Palmer or Holmes a Court.
Kage: “I may be politically naive but I do think keeping big money out of election campaigns is good for democracy regardless as to whether the donor is Palmer or Holmes a Court.”
——————————————————————————-
And how exactly is this going to keep Palmer’s big money out of election campaigns?
The electoral reform bill does not really reform anything. It appears big money will still have significant influence while taxpayers will need to fork out more money in a last gasp attempt to keep the duopoly afloat by creating barriers to independent challengers. It’ll probably blow up in their faces when reviewed by the High Court.
The main thing it will do is to relieve the major parties of some of the work of raising their own donations and instead put more of the burden of the cost of their electioneering onto taxpayers.
@meher baba
There’s two ways to look at that though. You could suggest it put the burden on the tax payers,- but I know Al Gore suggested American elections should be public funded because the corporate donations have too much sway with how administrations govern. You can’t have it both ways.
Thanks William. IF this reform does not limit the CLive Palmer type campaign, then I’m not sure I see the point.
Overall, spending caps per seat or party rather than donation limits might be the more critical factor to control.
The major parties are wanting it both ways though, more public funding without really limiting private donations while trying to hogtie any independent challengers. It’s designed to protect themselves.
This is a naked attempt to exclude new entrants, candidates who listen to the needs of their electorate. Compared to those in Labor and the LNP who listen to wealthy donors and lobbyists.
@Irene
Irene you bemoan wealthy donors, but I’m not sure why you don’t include the teals. Atlassian founders Scott Farquhar and Mike Cannon-Brookes donated more than $2.5 million to the Climate 200 group that propped up the teal independents. A trading firm founder from Sydney named Rob Keldoulis gave $1.85 million. Independent federal MP Zali Steggall received a $100,000 donation from the family trust of former coal company director. It’s fair enough point about big money and influence in politics. But teals were not just founded by mum’s and dad’s donating $5 and $10 donations. Let’s make that clear.
It was never going to be popular to have more public money for elections rather than make politicians continue to need to rely on donations, and the likes of Irene would always exploit it, and yet it is obviously a necessary step if you think about it – if you don’t like it, fuck off complaining about the influence of political donors.
That’s separate from the issue with the donation limits, which I haven’t yet had time to analyse to decide whether or not the whining has substance or not.
Professor Twomey has a mixed track record on High Court predictions and my impression has been the Court is increasingly limited on how far it will stretch the implied freedom of political communication (at least one judge believes it shouldn’t exist, Steward J), we might get an advanced view of the current position with the CFMEU action as they are relying on the implied freedom for part of their challenge.
The donation limits are mentioned above in William’s piece. Effectively $720,000 per 3 year term, this obviously favours parties with divisions at all levels something independents do not have. Then on top off that you have public admin funding for each incumbent MP which further advantages people and parties already in parliament. This bill looks anti-democratic to me in that it doesn’t really do much in the way of limiting donations and funding other than to set up a system to favour parties and those already elected and to hobble future upstart independents.
Thanks William for the link to Professor Tham’s article in The Conversation. A good read.
Agreed Socrates. If candidate donations are uncapped, it is a major limitation to the legislation. I do not think it worthless, as the transparency is still progressive. But this has shades of the NACC legislation about it.
“a failure to apply to donations made by candidates to their parties, which would seemingly amount to ongoing carte blanche for Clive Palmer”
Only if Palmer was himself a candidate, which of course he can only be in one place at a time.
It’s the one that’s completely unstoppable though. There’s no real way you can prevent people spending their own money on their own campaigns.
“Caps can also encourage third-party spending, which has reached its apotheosis with the “super PACs” that dominate election campaigning in the United States”
Yes, I’d like to see this blocked off too. However it would make the Teals even madder since at the moment their complaints are a bit specious – if their individual campaign expenses need to go above the cap, their backers can easily divert some through Climate 200 or whatever. But they couldn’t if such third party spending was also limited.
I think the problem here (I agree the problem) is that prospect for general party spending and third party spending on n top of the individual electorate cap. Totally in favour of capping donations (and lower than they are doing), and replacing it with public funding, and in favour of capping the spend per electorate race (again, would favour it being even lower so you don’t need such a rich backer to seriously compete as an indy) but it does seem unfair to give parties that special treatment. If anything, give Indies a raised individual limit to compensate for not getting the party allowance. While most won’t use it anyway, at least it is there.
The South Australian model sounds interesting too.
The comments of Merkel responding to the responsibilities Trump has vested in Musk are relevant
Government acts as the arbitrator between Capital and citizens ensuring equity and fairness
This also covers the influence industry and by extension donations to political parties by those with the where-all to so contribute seeking that influence (noting Unions represent a demographic not an issue)
I think the reaction to this bill is indicative of a general distrust of government, and why it’s so hard to get anything done. The proposal is far from ideal, but it does represent modest improvement on the status quo, and given that it’s likely to have bipartisan support, it’s likely to have some longevity. But all I hear about is what’s wrong with it. You can understand why governments are reluctant to undertake extensive reform, it’s not like they’ll get any thanks for it. So they as well go for something that has a few good things, a dollop of self-interest, and no-partisan support, and then move on.
“Bi-partisan support”.
If this is to suggest he could only donate up to the cap in the electorate he was running in, Joo-Cheong Tham appears not to think so: “They would not, for example, prevent Clive Palmer from continuing to donate millions to the United Australia Party.”
Griff
With public funding to political parties going up, I don’t see any political kudos likely to be gained out of this bill by Labor with voters. Therefore the only question is if it works efffectively.
William
THanks for the clarification re funding of people like Palmer. IF things like that are not stopped, I’m struggling to see the public benefit in this bill.
And to those complaining that the major parties represent vested interests (so the Tories Capital and the ALP labour – witness the changes to the Tories tax policy by this government) depending on where your alliance lays, you can actually join a Party, promote your ideas, seek numbers and influence the agenda of that Party
IF you do not so engage, don’t complain – and the membership numbers (and demographic) of the Parties is paltry and telling
Like it or not, the candidates the major parties present and their success instructs that they are the only options in delivering a government as distinct from an armada of individuals all with different agendas and dysfunctional government
The major parties go to an election with a manifesto covering the range of responsibilities (so all responsibilities)
If you want to change those policies join the Party and seek the numbers to change that policy.
I know from attending a function in Adelaide a couple of years back, in the lead up I happened across activity at the Conference Centre on North Terrace and wandered in to see what it was all about (still having an hour or so up my sleeve). It was the ALP National Conference where policy was being formulated I do not know what process the Tories have, they appearing more Leader centric
So instead of complaining about representation do something about it
You may or may not get the required numbers – so try again
And with the ALP, aka Albanese and fight upgrades, upgrades were offered when travelling seeking member votes in the leadership contest so members voted
Minor parties and Independents are what and who they are – minor parties and Independents
They are not the major parties and by extension not the government of the day
They may influence at the margins but that is their limitation
And in regards distrust of government, why is this only an issue when the ALP is in government so over the past 2 years and the Tories having been in government for the greater majority of time?
Hmmm
Maybe the High Court will overturn the made up constitutional freedom of political communication. This would be no different to the SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade because that was based on a made up right.
The fact that Union affiliation fees are unlimited is a joke.
The proposal is heavily biased to supporting both existing major parties. New parties who may have massive public support will be limited from being able to leverage off that support.
I hope it gets canned.
On last week’s open threat I confined my comments to a criticism of the special pleading by the Teals over how hard done they feel they are with a $800K cap for individual electorate campaigns. Especially when their biggest single backer – Holmes a Court – can also campaign on their behalf on a more national level with a further $11 million, and/or create a series of “Super-PACs”, each operating up to an $11 million cap. I have zero sympathy for them, even though I heartily support their undermining of the coalition base in teal coloured former Liberal heartland seats.
That being said, I think the criticisms of the lawyers will prove themselves to be valid and the High Court will chop this legislation to pieces in short order early next year. Leaving yet another political hot mess of no consequence at the feet of the government in the weeks leading into the federal election – an oxygen inducing distraction that it simply doesn’t need.
I am also thinking that all these little self inflicted political wounds may end up doing the government in, because it adds to the narrative that Dutton and his MSM are creating. Fuck knows why the Labor ‘brains trust’ thought THIS – of all issues – was worth spending precious political capital on at this phase of the electoral cycle in what is shaping to be a very tight race.
Deepers @ #21 Sunday, November 24th, 2024 – 10:11 pm
Yeah, nup. Like a few others here, I have been there and seen just how futile this approach is.
In politics, your vote is your voice.
Use it.
I agree with many who disagree with ‘If you want to change those policies join the Party and seek the numbers to change that policy.’
The bosses like Shorten and Farrell have been entrenched since 2010. Their views of supporting the USA, business and wealthy people is a priority.
And no newcomer to Labor membership will change that. Even in the 1970’s it was the same. People joined Labor. Were not listened to.
Then resigned in disgust.
What would be very amusing is if Labor lost over 10 seats in the coming election ( an outcome that The Voice vote achieved – many Labor MP seats would be lost if Advance Australia works its magic again ) and the LNP were the main beneficiaries.
Which would keep them in government for a very long time.
Wrong thread 🙁
So much for a major party stich up. The electoral reforms are dead. I never thought the Liberals would pass it, they are looking to cause chaos from blocking it using Tony Abbott’s strategy.
“But while the Coalition had hinted at its in-principle support for the plan, it had reserved the right to push for amendments, including increasing the $20,000 limit on how much a donor can give to any one party branch.
The Coalition also has concerns about the $1,000 disclosure rule, which it argues would expose small businesses and individuals to harassment from activists.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-27/electoral-reform-plans-abandoned/104656276