The proposed laws would deliver tens of millions of dollars in additional taxpayer funding to the major parties ahead of the 2028 federal election, giving them a huge financial advantage over minor parties and independents seeking a seat in the nation’s parliament.
With the government on the verge of rushing laws into the House of Representatives today, 1,009 people were asked if a major change to electoral law should be reviewed by a multi-party parliamentary committee first.
Key findings:
- Four in five (81%) agree that major changes to electoral law should be reviewed by a multi-party committee, including a third (33%) who strongly agree. Just 5% disagree.
- Major party voters are most likely to agree that major changes to electoral law should be reviewed by a multiparty committee: 83% of Labor and Coalition voters agree, as do four in five Greens voters (80%), three in four Independent/Other voters (76%) and two in three One Nation voters (66%).
“The integrity of Australian elections is too important for the Albanese government’s proposed changes to be rushed through without scrutiny, including a thorough parliamentary inquiry,” said Bill Browne, Director of the Australia Institute’s Democracy & Accountability Program.
“Politicians voting together to give political parties more money will reduce trust in government unless the public is included in the process.
“The changes are not due to start until the election after next, around 2028, so why the unseemly haste to pass them in the last sitting weeks of the year?
“When similar changes have been introduced at the state level, they have had perverse outcomes including giving political parties preferential treatment over independents; funding some parties excessively while not funding others at all; and allowing major parties to ‘pile in’ to target seats in defiance of spending caps.
“Major political parties run about 200 candidates each federal election, many of whom have no chance of winning, so any ‘per candidate’ limit on donations or spending affects independent candidates far more than it does the parties.
“Better donation disclosure laws and truth in political advertising are tried and tested policies, and could be passed for this election, while changes that could make Australian elections less competitive are sent to a parliamentary inquiry. This would also allow parliament to consider public funding models that give voters control over how their money is distributed, like the democracy voucher system developed in the City of Seattle.
“The devil is in the detail – loopholes in how donations are defined could end up allowing some vested interests an outsized level of influence on political parties and their policies.”
