Electoral expenditure for parties capped in proportion to the number of electoral divisions in which they endorse candidates.
Transparency & AccountabilityPolitical Party Financing
Political Party Financing · The Democrats' planThe biggest bank balance shouldn't win the argument
Australia's political parties spent A$418 million in the year leading up to the 2022 federal election — and voters were not told until well after they had voted. A significant proportion of the public funding for elections is reported to the AEC but released publicly only as an aggregate, so the source of much of that money can fairly be called a mystery. Nine changes would show voters who is paying, and cap what the money can buy.
418m Dollars parties spent in the year to the 2022 election Revealed in February 2023 — nine months after Australians voted.
1bn Dark money given to parties over 20 years Around A$1 billion, and over 40 per cent of income in the case of the LNP.
53% Private income left undisclosed in 2018-19 For Labor it was 36 per cent.
44.5% Fall in UK party spending after caps tightened Combined Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat spending, 1997 to 2001.
The disclosure dial
Drag the donation and see when — or whether — voters ever find out.
Thresholds: $15,200 today vs $1,000 accumulative with weekly campaign disclosure under our plan.
The case in three beats
- The set-up
Large donations buy access and influence.
There can be little doubt that political donations buy access to ministers and other members of parliament, and that the purpose of large donations is to bring influence to bear over public policy. Australia lacks the level of transparency of many other Western democracies on campaign finance, and a significant proportion of the public funding for elections reported to the AEC reaches the public only as an aggregate figure.
- What it costs
An arms race funded by a small number of donors.
The drive to outcompete political opponents in paying for advertising and campaigning makes parties highly dependent on a small number of cashed-up corporations, wealthy individuals and unions, most of whom have self-interest at heart. One of the biggest donors, Pratt Holdings, gave A$3.7m split more or less evenly between Labor and the Coalition — even-handedness that suggests a donor holding onto influence whichever party takes office, rather than backing anyone to win.
- The fix
Caps work, and the level they are set at matters.
Analysis of expenditure caps in other jurisdictions suggests they are effective at arresting the arms race. The Centre for Public Integrity points to Alexander Fouirnaies' analysis of United Kingdom caps between 1885 and 2019, which indicates that lower caps on electoral expenditure increase the pool of candidates and the competitiveness of elections, and mitigate the benefits of incumbency. Real-time disclosure, a lower reporting threshold, caps on donations and excluding sectors such as government contractors all help — but the limit on campaign expenditure is the one to do first.
The plan at a glance
Limits on donations to parties, candidates and third parties, with penalties for non-compliance.
Down from A$15,200 and accumulative, with aggregated donations from a single donor disclosed, fundraising-event payments over A$1,000 per individual named and each event's total raised reported — plus weekly reporting of donations during election periods.
No donations from businesses and organisations that have a financial interest in federal government contracts for goods and services.
Properly fund the AEC to enforce electoral laws and scrutinise party records, and bring back public broadcasting of election pitches and candidate debates.
Who gets to see the money?
Today the answer is almost nobody, and almost always too late.
Today
- Only donations above A$15,200 are ever named
- Nothing is reported while the campaign is running, and fundraising-event takings stay unnamed
- Businesses and organisations with a financial interest in federal contracts can donate freely — the big four accountants gave A$4.3m to Labor and the Coalition over a decade while the value of their government contracts rose 400 per cent
- An AEC the Auditor-General found was not doing enough to enforce the laws, and which did not scrutinise third-party records
Our plan
- An accumulative A$1,000 threshold, with aggregated donations from a single donor disclosed
- Weekly donation reporting during election periods, with event payments over A$1,000 per individual named and each event's total raised reported
- Donations banned from businesses and organisations that have a financial interest in federal government contracts for goods and services
- The AEC properly funded to enforce electoral laws and scrutinise party records
The most urgent single change
No cap on what a federal campaign can spend
Electoral expenditure capped in proportion to the divisions a party contests
Of every reform on the table, the Democrats treat a limit on campaign expenditure as the most urgent — a reform the High Court has ruled constitutional. Every state and territory government other than Victoria already caps expenditure: Queensland's 2012 caps reduced electoral expenditure to about A$8 million per major party, down from a 2006 high of roughly A$23 million for the ALP and A$11 million for the LNP. Empirical studies in countries such as France and Brazil have found that expenditure caps increase the competitiveness of elections and diversify the pool of potential candidates.
The full policy
Word for word — the platform as our members wrote it.
The Issues
There can be little doubt that political donations buy access to ministers and other members of parliament, and that the purpose of large donations is to bring influence to bear over public policy. Australia lacks the level of transparency of many other Western democracies when it comes to campaign finance and political parties.
A significant proportion of public funding for elections is reported to the AEC yet is only released to the public as an aggregate figure. Simply put, the source of a large amount of the money parties spend on elections in Australia can be described as a mystery.
Without spending caps, our election debates are dominated by those with the biggest bank balance, not those with the best ideas.
— Alice Drury, Human Rights Law Centre
Our Plan
-
Cap electoral expenditure for political parties proportional to the number of electoral divisions in which they endorse candidates.
-
Cap donations to political parties, candidates and third parties, with penalties for non-compliance.
-
Reduce the donation disclosure threshold from the current $15,200 to $1,000 accumulative.
-
Disclose political fundraising event payments of more than $1,000 per individual, and require parties to report the total raised at each event.
-
Require parties to disclose aggregated donations from a single donor.
-
Report weekly on donations during election periods.
-
Ban donations from businesses and organisations that have a financial interest in Federal Government contracts for goods and services.
-
Bring back public broadcasting of election pitches and candidate debates.
-
Properly fund the Australian Electoral Commission to enforce electoral laws and scrutinise party records.
The Evidence
In February 2023 — nine months after the 2022 Federal election — we discovered that political parties spent $418 million in the year leading up to the election. The drive to outcompete political opponents in paying for advertising and campaigning makes parties highly dependent on a small number of cashed-up corporations, wealthy individuals and unions, most of whom have self-interest at heart.
One of the biggest donors — Pratt Holdings — donated $3.7m, split more or less evenly between Labor and the Coalition. This even-handedness suggests the donor is not backing a party to win, but wants to hold onto influence whichever party takes office. Why otherwise would so much money be wasted for no election gain?
Accountants KPMG, PwC, Deloitte and EY donated $4.3m to Labor and the Coalition over the past decade. During that time, the value of their government contracts increased by 400%.
There are numerous measures that could be adopted to make the donation process transparent, such as real-time disclosure, lowering the threshold for reporting, putting caps on donations and excluding certain sectors like property developers and Government contractors. However, the most urgent measure is to put limits on campaign expenditure — a reform ruled by the High Court as constitutional.
All state and territory governments other than Victoria have caps on expenditure. Queensland introduced caps in 2012, reducing electoral expenditure to ~$8 million per major party, down from a high in 2006 of ~$23 million for the ALP and ~$11 million for the LNP.
Around $1 billion in ‘dark money’ was given to political parties in the last 20 years — over 40% of their income in the case of the LNP. The Auditor-General found the AEC was not doing enough to enforce the laws or to see that accurate records were provided. It did not scrutinise third party records. In 2018-19, 53% of private income was undisclosed; for Labor it was 36%.
The only accountability reform to be passed by this government was the ban on foreign donations — something the Australian Democrats called for years ago.
Analysis of expenditure caps in other jurisdictions suggests they are effective at arresting the arms race. For example, in the United Kingdom, collective spending of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democratic Parties decreased by 44.5 per cent between the 1997 and 2001 elections after the imposition of additional expenditure cap legislation. Empirical studies in countries such as France and Brazil have shown that expenditure caps increase the competitiveness of elections and diversify the pool of potential candidates.
In considering the level at which caps should be set, Alexander Fouirnaies’ extensive analysis of expenditure caps in the United Kingdom between 1885 and 2019 indicates that lower caps on electoral expenditure increase the pool of candidates, the competitiveness of elections, and mitigate the benefits of incumbency.
— The Centre for Public Integrity
References
-
Parliamentary Library — Election funding and disclosure in Australian jurisdictions: a quick guide.
-
The Conversation — A full ban on political donations would level the playing field — but is it the best approach?
-
The Australia Institute — Voters Back Donations Ban for Government Contractors.
What we’ve done about it
We don’t just demand transparency from others — we practise it, and we’ve been on this beat for decades.
Our own public donations register
We hold ourselves to the standard we demand of every party: our donations register is published for anyone to inspect.
Inspect our register →We called for the foreign donations ban
The ban on foreign donations — the only accountability reform passed in that parliament — is something the Australian Democrats called for years earlier.
Our transparency platform →The research behind the plan
Expenditure caps cut UK party spending by 44.5% between the 1997 and 2001 elections, and the Centre for Public Integrity finds lower caps make elections more competitive.
Parliamentary Library guide →Keeping the bastards honest
Accountability isn’t a talking point for us — it’s the founding job description. Money in politics has been on our docket since day one.
Our history →Make it happen.
Policies like this only become law when enough people push. Push with us.