Australian charities and independent politicians have labelled new electoral reform laws as a “stitch up”, saying the changes entrench major party dominance.
Labor and the Coalition struck the controversial deal overnight, voting together to pass the legislation, which changes electoral funding laws.
The changes won’t come into play for this year’s upcoming election, but they will take effect at the election due in 2028.
Under the changes, the maximum amount an individual donor can give to a candidate or political party will be $50,000 and the threshold above which donations must be disclosed will be $5,000.
Critics of the legislation say it disadvantages new contenders and entrenches the two-party system, while increasing the public money major parties can use to win votes. Independents note that for new challenges they’ll be able to spend $800,000, while a party has up to $90 million, which they can use for national ad campaigns.
The new laws also contains a restriction that charities say will severely curtail their ability to do critical advocacy work during election campaigns.
Standing in the halls of parliament, independent Zali Stegall confronted Labor frontbencher Don Farrell as he said it would make it easier for “ordinary Australians” to enter politics.
“If that’s so sure, why won’t you send the bill to inquiry to be assessed that it is actually democratic?” Stegall said, standing to the side of Farrell as he was taking media questions in the corridors of the press gallery.
“Why don’t you tell the Australian people that what is going to happen – the big money that will be in politics is the public money, because now the public is paying for the money that you that you want to still spend during elections,” said Steggall to a surprised looking Farrell.
In a press conference following the passage of the bill through the house, Steggall stood up with fellow independents to take another stab at the reforms, saying: “I would certainly welcome for this legislation to be challenged to the High Court as to whether or not it is constitutional… We are Independents, we don’t have the capacity to do that, but I think the Australian people deserve to have this legislation tested.”
Independent Kate Chaney added it was likely a challenge would be brought against the legislation: “No doubt that there’ll be a legal challenge, and I think that needs to run its course, to see whether these laws are unconstitutional, but whether or not they’re unconstitutional, they are against the interests of the Australian public.”
‘A cynical power grab’
Independent Zoe Daniel said that while she supports “electoral reform on a level playing field” these new changes are “nothing more than a cynical power grab by the Canberra cartel”.
Daniel called the reforms “the most significant changes to Australia’s electoral laws in over 40 years”, noting that “instead of strengthening democracy” they’re locking out independents and new competitors.
“This stitch up means that amid a cost-of-living crisis the Australian public will be paying more for elections, in return for less choice,” she said.
“The bill dramatically increases public funding, doubling taxpayer money per vote from $2.91 to $5, costing Australians an extra $40 million—76 per cent of which will flow straight to Labor and the Coalition.”
“Meanwhile, it imposes strict campaign spending caps on independents while allowing major parties to exploit loopholes to pour millions into key electorates.”
Speaking to a lack of scrutiny and transparency, Daniel also pointed out its quick passing through parliament.
“If this was about fairer elections and the public interest, why the urgency when the changes won’t even apply until 2028? The answer is simple: this is about consolidating a cosy duopoly before more independents can challenge the system.”
Nicolette Boele, who is running for the seat of Bradfield in the next election, also expressed concern.
“From the next election, the major parties will be able to spend millions more on a campaign in Bradfield than an independent like myself can,” Boele said.
“Make no mistake. This deal was done to stop communities like ours from electing independents like me. It’s the dirty backroom deal to end all dirty backroom deals.”
Major Australian charities slam electoral changes
A number of major charities have also called out the electoral reform bill as “undemocratic” for not including a key amendment.
Forty charities wrote to Farrell ahead of the rushed passing of the reforms, warning him that if the bill passed, they would only be able to use donations specifically received for electoral advocacy, limiting their ability to engage in critical advocacy during elections.
“The restrictions on our participation in public debate during elections that this bill will impose are a blow to democracy,” said Saffron Zomer, Executive Director of the Australian Democracy Network.
“This will mean Australian charities are less able to keep the public educated and informed on key issues; less able to represent the causes and communities we serve; less able to hold the Government of the day to account. The result will be worse policy outcomes, less robust debate, less transparency and accountability for our leaders.”
Dr Susie Byers, Head of Advocacy with Greenpeace Australia Pacific pointed out that it “hinders the ability of independent organisations to hold parties and candidates to account when it matters most”.
Byers said the legislation will “force charities to create new and completely separate fundraising streams explicitly for the purposes of advocacy at election time. This administrative complexity and major barrier to fundraising will make campaigning at election time extremely difficult.”
She notes it effectively locks charities out of election campaigns and said Greenpeace Australia Pacific “are deeply disappointed that what will be one of the last acts of this Parliament is to quiet the voices of millions of Australians who contribute to our community via charitable and non-government organisations.”