1. Aggregation of donations for the purposes of both the gift cap and disclosure
The failure of the Act to aggregate donations to different party branches for the purposes of the gift cap and disclosure means that wealthy interests will be able to continue to access the political process in a way the average Australian can't. This is inequitable.
In respect of associated entities, when such an entity is controlled by, or operates solely or to a significant extent to the benefit of one or more political parties, donations to that associated entity should be aggregated with donations to the party for the purpose of the disclosure threshold and donation cap.
2. Spending caps: lower national cap, higher per seat cap and 'anti-piling in provision'
The national cap of $90 million will be able to be used by parties to flood key races and will do nothing to alleviate the arms race for funding. The setting of the per seat cap also disadvantages new entrants and independents. Our solution is three-pronged:
- An "anti-piling in" provision to require all electoral expenditure to count against seat caps, according to how that spending is distributed
- Allowing a higher per seat spend of $1,200,000 to allow new entrants to compete; and
- lowering the national cap to $60 million.
3. Establish an independent, technical review process
Establish an independent, expert Commission in the style of Queensland's former Electoral and Administrative Review Commission. This Commission would report pre-implementation on the setting of relevant caps and public funding arrangements, as well as conduct statutory reviews in line with the JSCEM review process the Act establishes, and 'own-motion' investigations as required.
4. Abolition of the special treatment of nominated entities
Some associated entities can receive special treatment by being named as nominated entities. This will mean that parties with substantial assets can spend vastly more than those without.
Nominated entities should be able to spend and donate just like any other associated entity, but they should not be exempt from any of the limitations applying to those entities.
5. Requirement that all cash-for-access and corporate donations be disclosed, regardless of size
The $5,000 disclosure cap means that millions of dollars will remain hidden and is too high to capture most cash-for-access payments.
All cash-for-access and corporate donations should be disclosed, regardless of size.
6. Ensure charities can continue to have a voice in election debates by having fit-for-purpose rules and regulation, instead of treating them like political parties
Charities need to be able to draw on general donations for electoral advocacy as they previously have done, whilst being subject to the new gift caps, spending caps, and disclosure requirements.
The definition of electoral expenditure should remain limited to material that has the dominant purpose of influencing how people vote, otherwise it will be too broad and capture non-electoral advocacy.
"Rushed and unfair changes to electoral laws give the major parties an unfair advantage, reducing voter choice and election competitiveness. Loopholes in spending caps will allow some parties to spend just as much as they always have, while constraining new entrants and independent candidates. Elections would be fairer if the national spending cap were lowered, the seat-by-seat cap raised and 'anti-piling in' provisions introduced. Otherwise, major parties will continue to be unlimited in spending on target seats, at the expense of a fair contest," said Bill Browne, Director of The Australia Institute's Democracy & Accountability Program.
"The reforms as passed fail to address the problem of wealthy interests being able to unduly influence the exercise of public power. Without aggregation of donations across state and federal party branches, hundreds of thousands of dollars annually will continue to be able to flow from a single donor into the coffers of a party with multiple branches. This is seriously inequitable and must be redressed", said Dr Catherine Williams, Executive Director of the Centre for Public Integrity.
"The legislation still allows for a large number of cash-for-access payments and donations under $5,000 to remain in the shadows and corrupt the policy making process. So all corporate donations and cash-for-access payments should be disclosed, regardless of size," said Clancy Moore, CEO of Transparency International Australia.
"Politicians need to stop thinking that they are the only legitimate voices in election debates. The public actually wants to hear less from them and more from independent groups, including charities. But the recent electoral reforms makes it harder for charities to have a voice and push for policy change. The next parliament must fix this as an urgent priority," said Ray Yoshida, The Australian Democracy Network.
