3 days Ago By The Guardian
The Albanese government is willing to consider Coalition amendments on its proposed $20,000 donation cap and $1,000 disclosure threshold to get its through parliament. On Tuesday the Coalition party room agreed to wave the bill through the House of Representatives but reserved its final position, giving itself leverage in negotiations with Labor over the bill, which has . The bill contains spending caps of $90m for a federal political campaign and $800,000 for an individual electorate campaign.
Labor believes both are necessary to prevent wealthy individuals having an advantage but independents believe it would put the clamps on local campaigns’ ability to raise the profile of those competing with the major parties. In the Coalition party room the most contentious elements were the $20,000 cap on receipt of gifts, the $1,000 disclosure threshold, and the advantages given to unions, whose affiliation fees to Labor are not capped and who can still spend $11m each in federal campaigns. Despite the government briefing last week that it believed it had in-principle support for the bill from the Coalition, the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, confirmed on Tuesday the prime minister had raised it with him but no deal had yet been struck.
“If there’s an agreement reached or we have an announcement to make in relation to that we’ll do it in due course,” Dutton told reporters in Canberra. A government spokesperson said the special minister of state, Don Farrell, “is open and has been open to any views or potential improvements” to the legislation, including on the disclosure threshold and the $20,000 donations receipt cap. Despite leaving room to ask for amendments, the Coalition has rejected a crossbench push to send the bill to an inquiry, meaning it is still on track to pass this fortnight well ahead of coming into force in mid-2026.
On Tuesday the Centre for Public Integrity, Transparency International, the Australian Democracy Network and the Australia Institute called for the $1,000 donation disclosure threshold and real-time disclosure to be broken out of the bill and passed as “a matter of urgency”. “We are united in our view that the government’s proposed bill should otherwise not proceed in its current form,” they said. They claimed the bill “likely .
.. doesn’t fix the problem of big money in politics that it sets out to address” because of “major loopholes” including the creation of bodies called “nominated entities” that can give money to political parties without those transfers qualifying as donations.
That provision appears directed at funding vehicles associated with a political party, such as the Liberals’ Cormack foundation, but could allow wealthy donors to “circumvent donation caps and spend millions on the election”, they said. “The bill would also entrench major party and incumbency advantage, and further disadvantage independent and challenger candidates in elections. “These laws include of political parties and candidates, most of which would go to the major parties.
” In Senate question time, Farrell fended off questions from Greens senator Larissa Waters and independent David Pocock about the bill and the decision not to hold an inquiry. The earlier joint standing committee on electoral matters inquiry into the 2022 election recommended spending and donation caps but did not set a particular level or examine the bill, which was introduced on Monday. Farrell said the $20,000 donation cap and spending caps were “reasonable limits” that the government believes can survive a high court challenge.
“It has taken longer than I would have liked but we can’t waste a day,” he said. Farrell said the bill would give “ordinary Australians a chance to participate in the electoral system” by taking “big money out of this process”. “We get one chance in the next week to do something about preserving and protecting our electoral system.
” Earlier, on Sky News, Farrell said he “completely rejects” the suggestion the bill gives major parties an advantage. “If you can’t get your message across with an $800,000 cap then there is something wrong. What we’ve done here is set a level playing field for all the participants.
”.
