<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?> <docID>338135</docID> <postdate>2025-02-12 14:32:19</postdate> <headline>Donations and election spending capped as deal sealed</headline> <body><p><img class="size-full wp-image-322275" src="https://citynews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/20231019001853937479-original-resized.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="604" /></p> <caption>Special Minister of State Don Farrell... spearheaded negotiations and agreed to more than double the initial donation cap of $20,000 and increase the disclosure threshold from $1000. Photo: Lukas Coch/AAP</caption> <p><span class="kicker-line">By <strong>Dominic Giannini</strong> in Canberra</span></p> <p><strong>Australians will only be able to give $50,000 to political candidates and donations over $5000 will need to be declared under proposed electoral reforms. </strong></p> <p>Labor and the coalition have sealed a deal on controversial legislation, clearing the path for it to pass parliament by Thursday, although it won't come into effect before the federal election slated to be held before late May.</p> <p>Special Minister of State Don Farrell, who spearheaded negotiations, agreed to more than double the initial donation cap of $20,000 and increase the disclosure threshold from $1000.</p> <p>The threshold is $16,900 for 2024/25.</p> <p>Senator Farrell told Labor's caucus on Tuesday morning parliament would decide whether billionaires determined who got into power within the coming days before parliamentarians go home, perhaps for the final time before the election.</p> <p>Neither Labor or coalition party rooms were briefed on any amendments to the legislation when they met on Tuesday morning.</p> <p>Crossbenchers have branded the reforms "a stitch-up", arguing it entrenches incumbency and disproportionately benefits the major parties.</p> <p>More cash will be handed to candidates by the Australian Electoral Commission per vote received, significantly boosting the coffers of Labor and the coalition compared to independents.</p> <p>Crossbenchers argue the $90 million national spending cap will disadvantage independents, who will be stuck with the $800,000 electorate cap or separate state or territory cap for Senate candidates.</p> <p>This meant the major parties could move money from safe seats, where less would be spent, and target marginal seats with broad advertising while independents would be limited.</p> <p>Parties with an independent's name in it, which Senate candidates do to get their name above the line where most people vote, will still be capped at the electorate or state spend rather than accessing the $90 million other parties can.</p> <p>The crossbench wanted transparency measures that had wide support - such as lowering the disclosure threshold and increasing reporting requirements so they're "real-time" - split from the bill and passed but Senator Farrell refused.</p> <p>Greens Senator Larissa Waters branded it "a dirty deal" that rigged the system towards the major parties and locked out competitors.</p> <p>Senate debate was scheduled for Thursday but the legislation is set to be brought forward to Wednesday after a deal was done. The government has the numbers to stymie debate and ram it through.</p> <p>The real-time disclosures and reduction in the threshold were "much-needed sunlight on who is funding our elected representatives", Transparency International Australia CEO Clancy Moore told AAP.</p> <p>"But the two-party deal being rammed through the senate as the clock ticks down for this parliament risks entrenching the major parties and harming minor parties and challengers."</p> <p>While greater transparency, capping political donations and campaign expenditures were important safeguards to curbing corruption and undue influence, they had to be "carefully calibrated with public funding models", he said.</p> <p>While the laws would help limit the influence of big donors and promote more people participating in politics, they could also limit freedom of expression and disproportionately impact independents or new candidates, a parliamentary human rights committee said.</p> <p>"As such, the committee considers there may be a risk that these measures would impermissibly limit the rights to take part in public affairs, freedom of expression and equality and non-discrimination in practice," it found.</p> <p>More cash for primary votes "may increase the relative monetary power of some individuals and entities over others, particularly incumbents and bigger parties, which may impact the ability of independents and non-incumbents", the committee said.</p> </body>