Labor and the Coalition got a little cosy last week in order to pass legislation that shifted the goalposts on how political parties and budding candidates raised money from donations.

The reaction from Independents and Teals was swift and harsh, with claims the new guidelines would make it more difficult for candidates from non-major parties to compete.

It’s definitely a bit complicated, but here’s what you need to know:

• The legislation, which passed the House of Representatives last week, placed a $50,000 cap on individual donations (Labor had wanted $20,000) and lowered the disclosure threshold from $16,900 to $5,000 (Labor had wanted $1,000).

• However, major parties were able to receive $50,000 donations at each of their multiple state and territory branches around the country. A single donor will be able to legally give $450,000 per year to Labor (spread across nine branches), $650,000 per year to the Coalition (spread across 13 branches) and $50,000 to an independent (who has only one entity).

• Spending limits for political campaigns were set at $800,000 per electorate, and $90 million nationally

• The new law will exempt payments from a party’s “nominated entity” or unions from donation caps. What does that mean? Major parties already own or control massive financial entities—and those entities can funnel unlimited money into campaigns without counting as donations.

The legislation has sparked an outraged reaction from non-major-party MPs and candidates.

Threat to democracy?

A Federal Government spokesperson said the reforms would allow for greater integrity.

“The proposed reforms create a fairer electoral system for all Australians, including through more donation transparency, caps on spending and caps on donations,” the spokesperson said.

The Centre for Public Integrity has long advocated for reform of Australia’s political donations laws. Regarding the recent deal it said: “It is an affront to our democratic process that the Electoral Legislation Amendment – significant, complex legislation which concerns the very foundations of our democracy – is proceeding without proper parliamentary process and scrutiny.”

So what do North Shore MPs and candidates think?

Paul Fletcher, the outgoing Bradfield MP, declined to comment.

Last Thursday Warringah Independent MP, Zali Steggall, pointedly questioned Labor’s Don Farrell, the federal government’s Special Minister of State, at an impromptu press conference to discuss the deal, which was struck on Wednesday evening.

Farrell claimed at the conference that the deal would make it easier for “ordinary Australians to have a chance to be elected”. 

Zali Steggall said on Facebook: “This bill undermines democracy and shortchanges the Australian public. With the major parties running from scrutiny on their dodgy electoral donation reforms – truth in political advertising reforms are still in limbo.”

Tina Brown, running as an Independent in the seat of Berowra, said in a statement the legislation was not “about fairness” but “keeping power in the hands of the few and locking everyday Australians out of their own democracy”.

“What we’re seeing now is a government more interested in protecting itself than protecting the people it’s supposed to serve.” 

She said major parties were attempting “to build a Trump-style wall around their power - funded by the very Australians they’re supposed to serve”.

Nicolette Boele, Independent candidate for the seat of Bradfield, told the North Shore Lorikeet: “This is another example of the major parties doing everything they can to block competition and protect their duopoly. People in Bradfield want more done to reduce the cost of living and improve housing affordability. These changes are yet another sign that the major parties are focused on their own interests rather than what our community needs.”

The North Shore Lorikeet has sought comment from Julian Leeser, MP for Berowra; Gisele Kapterian, Liberal candidate for Bradfield, and; Jaimee Rogers, Liberal candidate for Warringah.

Image Credit: AAP Image/Mick Tsikas