Labor donor reforms explained (23 Nov 2024)
Article summary: The Labor Party’s proposed Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill, described as the most significant electoral reform in 40 years, has ignited fierce debate. Spearheaded by Senator Don Farrell, the bill aims to reduce the influence of large donors by lowering the political donation disclosure threshold to $1,000, capping donations and campaign expenditures, and boosting public funding for elections.
It also introduces real-time donation reporting during elections and strengthens compliance measures through the Australian Electoral Commission. Proponents argue these changes will curb excessive spending, increase transparency, and protect democracy from undue influence by wealthy individuals and organisations.
Critics, however, argue that the reforms disproportionately benefit major parties while disadvantaging independents. Western Australian MP Kate Chaney described the legislation as a "cynical move by the major parties" and criticised its rushed introduction, stating, "It's outrageous that the government and the opposition are rushing this through the parliament with no scrutiny, despite saying it's the biggest change to our electoral system in 40 years." Chaney took issue with administrative allowances, saying, "There is no relationship between this extra funding and the actual increase in administrative tasks. It's clearly designed to get the Coalition on board. It translates to $17 million in extra taxpayer funding in each term, three quarters of which goes to the major parties."
She further argued that the $800,000 spending cap for each electorate unfairly favours incumbents who have access to resources like offices and staff, adding, "The ALP currently has four people to meet the admin needs of 104 parliamentarians. It does not need another $6 million a year to do that."
The legislation has also been criticised for loopholes that could allow strategic overspending by major parties. Senator David Pocock highlighted that shared campaign advertising by parties could circumvent individual expenditure caps. Chaney echoed this concern, citing analysis by the Centre for Public Integrity, Transparency International Australia, and others, who collectively warned, “The government’s proposed bill should not proceed in its current form other than the donation transparency part.”
While some independents like Rebekha Sharkie cautiously support the bill, citing the benefits of greater transparency and limitations on billionaires like Clive Palmer, concerns remain. Transparency International Australia’s CEO, Clancy Moore, praised the bill's "strong transparency provisions" but warned that poorly calibrated caps and exemptions could entrench incumbent power and stifle political diversity.
The Coalition remains divided, with ongoing negotiations to address concerns over fairness and implementation. As Kate Chaney and others have pointed out, the reforms could lock out challengers, with Chaney asserting, "Australians must be able to be aware of the sources of the parties' and candidates' funding before they cast their ballots." The bill’s fate hinges on whether these issues can be addressed before its expected passage in the coming weeks.
