Recent legislative change to political donation have sparked huge controversy between independent candidates in Australia. The point is the government is touting these reforms as ways to increase transparency and lower the corrupting presence of money in politics. According to critics, such changes only serve to benefit the big boys—er, established parties. Notably, independent MP Kate Chaney has been one of the most outspoken critics of the new spending limits. She has been similarly opposed to the new donation rules.
The reforms that passed during that last parliamentary term included capping individual campaign spending at $800,000. In the meantime, political parties are still allowed to spend up to $90 million on their own election campaigns. Chaney was one of many independents funded by the centrist political organization Climate 200. He contends that these rules create an unfair playing field for independent candidates.
Climate 200, well-known for supporting candidates associated with the Australian “teal” independent movement, was dealt major blows in advance of the 2025 federal election. Under these new laws, the group’s influence would be limited from donating $8.34 million to independent candidates.
Criticism of Legislative Changes
Chaney went on to share her considerable frustrations about the recent round of reforms that she described as a “stitch-up” between Labor and the Coalition. She emphasized that the inequity in spending limits undermines the ability of new challengers to compete effectively against major parties.
“The election reforms that the major parties pushed through rapidly at the end of last term will have an impact on the ability of new challengers to take them on,” – Kate Chaney
Her concerns are underscored by the fact that nearly every successful independent MP at the last election exceeded the new spending cap. Chaney pointed out that a huge amount of money is needed to combat the spread of misinformation and fight the fight on social media channels.
“I think you can see, from the numbers today, is that taking on the big parties does require a significant campaign,” – Kate Chaney
Chaney said he was worried about potential loopholes in contribution limits. As Miller pointed out, these loopholes would allow political parties to receive large amounts of money, despite current prohibitions.
“For political parties, there are plenty of workarounds when it comes to donation caps … there will still be plenty of dark money and a lot of money in politics, unfortunately,” – Kate Chaney
The Role of Climate 200
Climate 200 has been a key source of funding for independent candidates such as Chaney and fellow Climate 200 connected candidate Sophie Scamps. During the run-up to the previous federal election, Climate 200 helped finance about $10.86 million worth of campaign expenditures on behalf of successful teal candidates. Unless advocacy changes the new laws, this funding won’t be accessible to independent candidates in 2025.
Both Chaney and Scamps have benefited significantly from powerful support provided by Climate 200. Zali Steggall, another high-profile independent candidate, has not been given a cent from the group. Still, she sees Climate 200 as a useful “funding aggregator” that serves to equalize the playing field for these community-based candidates.
“The government itself said one of the explanations for it taking so long to [put the amendments forward] was because they needed to be drafted very carefully to ensure they were constitutionally valid,” – Kate Chaney
Yet the new laws add other burdensome restrictions that will disproportionately impede independent candidates. This leaves the door wide open to questions about their capacity to mount and execute competitive campaigns against well-heeled major party competition.
Transparency vs. Inequity
The government has vigorously defended its reforms, insisting they increase transparency in political donations and spending. Special Minister of State Don Farrell touted these changes as essential to addressing corruption. Their goal is to increase public confidence in the electoral process.
“Australians deserve to know who is funding their elections and our reforms deliver this,” – Don Farrell
He explained the purposes behind these reforms, particularly their goal to reduce the corrupting impact of big money in politics.
“In the last term of parliament, we successfully passed landmark legislation to stop the billionaire arms race in federal elections by capping expenditure and donations,” – Don Farrell
Chaney contends that though some components of these reforms could lead to greater transparency, they fail to address or remove the inequities that already exist. She noted, in an unfortunate twist, independent candidates are especially vulnerable to the attacks of third-party organizations, funded by big interest groups.
“There’s a lot of misinformation that is targeted at you as a candidate, so I had to combat a lot of misinformation,” – Kate Chaney
Chaney hopes to see these legislative changes challenged in court based on their likely constitutional consequences and being fundamentally unfair.
“I think it will be ripe for legal challenge,” – Kate Chaney
