They said they’d clean up political donations. The major parties will certainly clean up (21 Nov 2024)
Article summary: The Centre for Public Integrity has been a leading advocate for reducing the influence of "big money" in Australian politics. A key legislative step in this direction is Labor's recently introduced reform bill, which has passed the House and is expected to clear the Senate soon.
The proposed law, set to take effect in 2026, significantly lowers the disclosure threshold for political donations from $16,900 to $1,000 and mandates faster and more transparent reporting, including monthly disclosures and expedited timelines during elections. However, critics, including Independents David Pocock and Kate Chaney, argue that the bill could undermine democracy by entrenching the dominance of major parties while limiting opportunities for independents and smaller players.
Key transparency measures in the bill are widely welcomed, such as requiring disclosures within 24 hours close to election days. Yet, substantive concerns loom large. The donation caps, ostensibly designed to curb undue influence, remain high enough to allow wealthy individuals and entities to wield disproportionate power. A well-funded donor can contribute up to $180,000 annually across various party branches, or $540,000 over an electoral cycle—a level unattainable for ordinary citizens. This perpetuates the problem of access and influence that the bill ostensibly aims to address.
Expenditure caps further deepen concerns about fairness. While individual candidates face a spending limit of $800,000 per seat, major parties benefit from a $90 million federal campaign cap, allowing them to saturate electorates with advertising and outspend independents.
In addition, the bill introduces generous administrative funding for sitting MPs and Senators—$30,000 per lower house member and $15,000 per Senator—raising questions about fiscal priorities in a cost-of-living crisis. Critics point out the lack of evidence justifying this funding increase, as well as the significant rise in public funding per vote, from $3.35 to $5, benefiting the major parties disproportionately.
The bill’s rushed passage without parliamentary inquiry or expert review raises alarms. Complex and significant legislation, like this one, typically undergoes committee referrals for scrutiny. By making the 227-page bill public just days before its expected approval, the government has limited proper analysis, leading to accusations of sidelining democratic processes. Kate Chaney and other Independents have decried this approach as a "stitch-up," designed to fortify the two-party system and marginalise new entrants.
Critics also highlight the absence of policy development funding for independents or smaller parties, which could help foster a more competitive political landscape. The omission of a statutory review mechanism, a common feature in significant legislation, exacerbates concerns about the bill's sincerity and effectiveness.
Ultimately, while the bill takes commendable steps toward greater transparency, its design appears to favour incumbents, potentially undermining the democratic principles it seeks to uphold. The Centre for Public Integrity and other experts warn that legislation addressing political integrity must prioritise fairness and competition to genuinely enrich Australia’s democracy.
