Teals furious as Coalition to wave through tough laws cutting campaign donations (19 Nov 2024)
Article summary: The Coalition has decided to support Labor’s electoral reforms in the House of Representatives, despite concerns from independents about the changes potentially disadvantaging smaller political players. The proposed laws aim to cap donations at $20,000 per donor annually and limit candidate spending to $800,000 per seat, measures designed to curb the influence of wealthy backers like Clive Palmer.
However, independents and integrity groups argue these caps could hinder new candidates and solidify the dominance of major parties. Labor has been accused of rushing the legislation, which also includes provisions such as requiring small businesses to disclose donations over $1000, sparking fears of repercussions from activists.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton addressed the Coalition’s intentions to amend the bill in the Senate, focusing on raising donation caps and easing disclosure rules for small donors and businesses. At a party meeting in Canberra, concerns were raised about the potential impacts on the Liberal Party’s funding model and its largest donor, the Cormack Foundation.
Coalition members see a deal with Labor as a preferable alternative to concessions with the Greens. Labor, meanwhile, plans to implement additional administrative funding for all candidates to ensure compliance, though this funding cannot be used for campaigning.
Independent MP Kate Chaney criticised Labor’s approach, saying, “Labor [is] trying to rush the bill to get away with the only path they’ve got left to arrest the trend of declining support for the sclerotic leadership of the two parties.” Over ten crossbench MPs have also opposed the limited timeframe for scrutinising the significant changes to Australia’s election system, labelling the process a "major party stitch-up."
Climate 200, which supports teal independents, expressed worries about the reforms’ impact on future candidates, while Labor dismissed these criticisms as hypocritical. The debate highlights growing tension around balancing the need for transparency in political donations with maintaining equitable competition for new entrants.
