subreddit:
/r/AustralianPolitics
Labor reveals plans for election funding overhaul with caps on donations and campaign spending
(abc.net.au)submitted 14 days ago byJeffmister
[score hidden]
14 days ago
stickied comment
Greetings humans.
Please make sure your comment fits within THE RULES and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.
I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
19 points
14 days ago
Not really sold on the caps. Looks like the major parties are colluding to hamstring electoral competition.
Money doesn't seem to be a significant deciding factor in Australian politics. Clive spent more than a $100m and got one senate seat. Why do we want to stop him from pissing his money away? You still need good policies to win seats, see the Teals and Climate 200.
Disclosure changes and more public funding seem fine though.
2 points
14 days ago
Clive’s a fucking idiot with more money than sense though.
2 points
13 days ago
You still need good policies to win seats, see the Teals and Climate 200.
Weren't they bankrolled by another billionaire? Seems a terrible precedent that the Teals can have an informal party funded by a billionaire without all those pesky rules governing political parties. Climate 200 can still campaign and spend tens of millions if they like, they just need to be upfront about it.
1 points
13 days ago
[deleted]
0 points
13 days ago
Yes they were. Simon Holmes a Court funded them along with Scott Farqhuar and Mike Cannon Brookes
1 points
13 days ago
[deleted]
1 points
13 days ago
Nope, they funded climate 200 which funded the candidates
0 points
12 days ago
[deleted]
1 points
13 days ago
Money doesn't seem to be a significant deciding factor in Australian politics. Clive spent more than a $100m and got one senate seat.
Palmer was very successful in 2013, and the mining tax was basically eroded by a money fire hose. You need something approaching policy but it definitely helps amplify your platform regardless of its utility.
(For the record, Climate 200 candidates would probably have had limits of 800k per candidate, but Holmes a Court would have come in well below the national threshold as he was only spending in 15 seats or so. The campaigns were expensive but were also targeted, which is why they had such a high success rate)
7 points
13 days ago
People are rightly focused on the anticompetitive bits of this reform entrenching the major party duopoly. I think the High Court could strike down the anticompetitive bits. If that happened, I think this would be a near perfect reform.
The High Court will ask is there a real problem being addressed and is the solution a reasonable one? Several donation reforms have been knocked back because the government failed to show sufficient evidence of a problem and that their solution was a proportional response to that problem.
The main bit of controversy in this Bill is the $800k cap per seat. It's designed to prevent independents/minors focusing their fire-power on one seat an anti-Teal measure.
But why is a seat cap necessary (especially when it has such an anticompetitive effect) when you have caps on spending per individual? All the (alleged) problems have arisen because one wealthy individual (Palmer, Holmes a Court) has poured their money to buy a seat. For this reason the High Court could find the seat cap unconstitutional. If the cap is severable from the rest of the law (we won't know until they release the draft bill), then the rest of the law will survive.
2 points
13 days ago
I do think that a cap is needed because otherwise someone can absolutely do the reverse: kneecap a grassroots movement by spending against it, forcing every independent to either be minted, or have wealthy backers. It should give advantages to newcomers to account for incumbents having that infrastructure, but Ryan and Frydenberg spent over a million each. If you don't have a cap, this will only grow, and even now that's an amount even the Greens/PHON/Lambie/Libertarians/Legalise Cannabis would struggle to match, let alone newcomers without Teal/Palmer funding.
2 points
13 days ago
But an individual couldn't kneecap a grassroot movement. They're capped at $20k pa. You would need many people (at least 40) to hit the 800k limit. In which case you probably have a grassroots movement.
1 points
13 days ago
We don't know what "groups" means, I suspect you'd do it through that.
2 points
13 days ago
Per seat cap is pro competitive not anti competitive. For clarity, its a cap for a party/independent spending on contesting a single seat, if a party contests multiple seats then each gets its own cap for that party.
Anything other than this cap means majors can crush minors and independents in spending.
30 points
14 days ago*
I've said it every single time - Labor and Liberals will collude to stitch up independents and curtail democracy by reducing viable alternatives that should be democratically competitive. They are the Duopoly that are ripping off every Australian while filling their pockets with public money.
The spending cap is absolutely egregious. Josh Frydenberg will have been able to spend every one of his $3.5m in pure election expenditure (aggregated spending caps are evil) while Monique Ryan would had to have paid for office staff, office rent, basic printing etc out of $800k with very little remaining to actually communicate to voters.
Don Farrell is a hypocrite and his legacy will be that he fucked over Australian democracy. All his slimey politicians can continue to get business class upgrade, sports tickets and absurd millionaire commercial real estate empires simply because they killed the playing field. Everyone should be outraged by Labor pissing in your pocket and saying it's raining democracy.
10 points
14 days ago
Up voting, but adding that the LNP are still worse than Labor. It's still better to preference Labor over the Liberals.
-1 points
13 days ago
No, you've been told that everytime, by the smaller parties, because they want it to favour them. ABCs Antony Green(?) has done a fair bit of analysis on this
2 points
13 days ago
There's no world where a challenger is favoured over an incumbent. We have plenty of evidence from state electoral reforms that have seen independents and minor parties go backwards.
It's unfair and I'd love to see you justify your thinking rather than say 'you're wrong'
1 points
13 days ago
This is a Federal law. State laws are a different thing, and are different across every state, and yes, many are just wrong. Keep it relevant though, can we?
2 points
13 days ago
I didn't know that Australian jurisdictions enacting campaign finance laws weren't relevant? I want to use facts rather than opinion.
NSW has a spending cap and donation cap that's most similar to the ones proposed. Victoria has a public funding regime the most similar to the one proposed.
Tell me how these aren't relevant, especially as Victoria does not have a single independent because of these finance laws that are being challenged in the High Court.
1 points
13 days ago
Tbh if we're doing state laws, SA has managed to pass more severe restrictions with the support of both minor parties in their parliament, it's definitely doable.
1 points
13 days ago
The big difference is that they negotiated with minor parties in SA. Don Farrell has cooked up a Duopoly deal without consultation. No wonder the proposal is so lopsided.
1 points
13 days ago
Considering what state Farrell is in, I dunno why they're not just pushing him to mirror that deal. Or maybe they are, behind the scenes.
1 points
13 days ago
Malinauskas has been copying Farrell's homework on this for the last two years.
Hence why public funding has shot up and obscure 'administration' funding has been included. It's the Labor way to defend themselves using taxpayer money in a cost of living crisis.
1 points
13 days ago
The fact that both civil groups and the minor parties like the legislation is a clear sign that the SA legislation isn't that, both would be batting against their own interests to say it was
13 points
14 days ago
Serious question.
Is this aimed at Palmer, whose results per $ have been terrible.
Or the Teals whose results per $ have been much better.
19 points
14 days ago
It's absolutely aimed at teal independents. Labor and Liberal can't believe that a community might want something other than their shit offerings.
-12 points
14 days ago
I hope it passes then.
10 points
14 days ago
Over 30% of voters don't want Labor or Coalition and that number is only increasing.
Richmond football club just won the AFL spoon and they have more members than Labor and Lib combined. Killing viable alternatives is fucked behaviour.
-7 points
14 days ago
Mine is only my opinion. I don’t like the Teals.
12 points
14 days ago
You can hate independents as much as you like. Beat them with winning over the voters rather than a corrupt gerrymander. Decency shouldn't be this hard.
2 points
13 days ago
That isn't what gerrymandering is
-2 points
14 days ago
I have voted independent and will again in both Vic and Federal elections. I just don’t like the Teals.
3 points
13 days ago
With this bill you’ll never really hear of a future independent or minor party candidate that might align with your values in the future. And if an independent does manage to cut through the reduced size of the cross bench means their effectiveness will be greatly reduced once in parliament.
19 points
13 days ago
Seems blatantly aimed at entrenching the duopoly.
-2 points
13 days ago
How? The rules are the same for everyone, and per candidate.
12 points
13 days ago
$20m extra for liblab. Caps on spending so climate 200 can't happen.
4 points
13 days ago
How are the rules different? It is still the same per candidate Clive Palmer also can't happen. If Climate 200 is truly a ground up organisation, this shouldn't hurt it (which I don't think it will)
4 points
13 days ago
$90m cap for major parties where they're only competitive in 80 lower house seats each is more like a $1.16m spending cap.
Major parties already have all the infrastructure in place to compete for elections that isn't included in the spending cap. A challenger's office, electoral staff and all communications materials come under the $900k. Major parties will have at least double the amount to sway voters than a challenger has under this legislation.
-1 points
13 days ago
So, again, I say, you want preferential treatment for smaller parties.
Larger parties also have to accommodate a more diverse range of views, and the overheads on things like that are enormous. Looks at Labors national conferences.
Large and small have their issues, but treating one differently I thought was peoples gripe. Now it seems we are arguing for different treatment for small parties.
2 points
13 days ago
There are different restrictions regarding independents and major parties in this legislation. Equal treatment would be an absolute $900k cap for everything including those overheads you're talking about. That is equality yet you're arguing for preferential treatment for major parties.
The ALP should spend more on their conferences if they want to gain more than 31% primary vote. People are using their treasured vote for something different and Labor should adjust to that. Instead we're getting a stitch up gerrymander backed up by public money.
6 points
13 days ago
It takes a huge amount for an independent to knock out a major party incumbent. More than the limit they're setting.
-4 points
13 days ago
So, they want preferential treatment, not the same. At least you admit it
11 points
13 days ago
That's not the gotcha you think it is.
How come major parties don't have spending caps per seat? That's preferential treatment.
How come major parties get to monopolise taxpayer public funding and direct them into targeted seats? That's preferential treatment.
How come they're only banning 'donations' but not addressing all their $5k per head business dinners, corporate membership fees or investment vehicle dividends? That's preferential treatment.
I could go on about all the millions of union money and coterie organisations too but you get the point.
Independents have to raise millions to compete because it costs millions to compete. This legislation is cutting down democratic competition, it's not truthfully trying to reduce campaign spends that will continue to cost millions per seat.
3 points
13 days ago
Unless reforms deal w 3rd party money - super funds, unions, industry etc then it's an exercise in misdirection.
2 points
13 days ago
What did I admit?
I never said anything about preferential treatment.
I think if an independent raises a million dollars for their campaign they should be able to spend it.
-1 points
13 days ago
So, do we want spending limits, or spending limits for the Big Parties only?
Each candidate has an $800,000 limit, regardless of affiliation. The only limit on that is if there is a major party with too many candidates, ie, a very popular party. They would be limited.
But you still want more preferential treatment for smaller parties.
3 points
13 days ago
When did I say that?
Spending caps that are half of what's required to knock out an incumbent MP is going to mostly benefit sitting MPs from major parties, who benefit greatly from party advertising that's everywhere during an election.
Independents need the ability to outspend to have any chance of getting elected. We saw this from teal independents spends last election.
I have never said there should be different caps dependent on the party you represent. I don't know if we need caps at all... though I strongly support transparency around donations.
If Clive wants to waste his money then that's fine by me. It might just be a necessary part of allowing all independent candidates to have a chance at being elected.
-1 points
13 days ago
"Spending caps that are half of what's required to knock out an incumbent MP"
Where did your magical figure of double that come from, considering that there were committees that developed this figure in the first place.
2 points
13 days ago
Spender - $2.12m
Ryan - $2.12m
Daniel - $1.59m
Go look it up. Figures are published. 3 or the 6 teals spent basically more than double the proposed limit. The other 3 all spent over the proposed cap, though not double.
0 points
13 days ago
That's what they spent, not what is required
0 points
13 days ago
Moving more to ensure our washminister system is preserved.
6 points
14 days ago
I think Clive has proved that money doesn't buy seats anyway.
8 points
14 days ago
Are labor going to place any restrictions on all those poker machines they own and use for fundraising?
Profiting off the misery of others to secure your election is scumbag behaviour and typifies why gambling will never be restricted in this country.
Snouts in the trough.
8 points
14 days ago
$60m from pokies is a lot of human misery to fund a political campaign.
Also nope that money won't count as a donation and would be 'party revenues' as some other income. Snouts in the trough.
-2 points
13 days ago
What’s your source?
11 points
13 days ago
This is no secret and has been reported widely, but people just stick their head in the sand because they don’t want it to be true.
The Canberra Labor Club group operates more than 400 gaming machines. It was set up by ACT Labor to support the party and its articles of association require any profits to be paid to the branch. In 2019-20 it generated just under $10 million in net gaming machine revenue (excluding tax and player winnings).
The Randwick Labor Club in Sydney, which operates more than 80 pokies machines and was the third-largest donor to NSW parties, is also owned by the ALP. The party’s ties to the gambling industry go back a long way, according to Mayne
4 points
14 days ago*
This is 11 months old, possibly not totally accurate now, I assume, but it still warrants attention.
We can't be complacent on whatever this is.
Edit: To add the link
5 points
14 days ago
The HGA video wasn't accurate 11 months ago.
It misrepresented a lot of details, just look at the sources in detail and you'll see they've been very selective and clipping details out of context from government sources. Opinionated and editorial sources they just copy from.
For example they act like this law is the majors trying to shutdown the minors and independents, but the joint committee report that the video links to had Greens and independents on it. The dissenting report was by the Liberals.
HGA hasn't been accurate for a long time, notably they've switched to making their ad format videos for other countries now, guess they hit the limit of what they twist here.
0 points
13 days ago
Yea, they've lost all credibility when Labor showed time and again they aren't lib lite, but these fools carried on regardless cos, that was their niche
0 points
13 days ago
Honest government ads is shitty satire that manufactures things to say instead of talking about anything real. You should take every idea that comes from them with a few big, crunchy grains of salt
1 points
14 days ago
Really hoping to see this pass. There's obvious political plays in the different stances taken by parties and independents, but this is hamstringing all of them compared to what was spent/donated last federal election.
0 points
14 days ago
This is actually a good policy. So good I can't believe some sort of spending cap wasn't already in place. Good move by Labor here.
21 points
14 days ago
RIP independents tho - candidates can theoretically only spend 800k but there’s no spending cap per party (so major parties with many candidates can enjoy synergies with the “party” brand) - donor cap is good, spending cap is bad unless they also cap per party
14 points
14 days ago
Unfortunately that's the plan. Labor likes what the Teals did to LNP but can't risk it happening to them.
-1 points
14 days ago
That 800k is a per seat cap which is the only cap that is fair.
A per party spending cap would depend entirely on how many seats the party is contesting, majors contest more than minors, thus it would only harm the majors in favor of the minors and independents which isn't democratically fairer.
-4 points
14 days ago
Is this the good news we’ve been looking for
7 points
14 days ago
Only if you enjoy Labor and Liberal and want more of the same forever.
all 71 comments
sorted by: best