Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Continued the debate

Hodgins-May introduced the bill as a measure to ban donations from industries with a history of buying influence, including fossil fuel, gambling, banking, tobacco, liquor, defence, and pharmaceutical companies. Hodgins-May proposed a $3,000 cap on individual donations per election term to reduce the power of wealthy donors. Hodgins-May argued that recent government reforms were insufficient and that the current system allows corporations to shape policy in their favour, citing specific donation amounts from companies like Woodside and Santos to the Labor Party. Hodgins-May contended that the bill would help restore balance and ensure politicians are accountable to the public rather than corporate interests.

Government response

Watt defended the government's previous electoral reforms, describing them as the most significant package in 40 years, which lowered disclosure thresholds to $5,000 and introduced donation caps. Watt argued that the Greens had voted against these earlier reforms and were now engaging in moral posturing despite accepting donations from gambling interests. Watt maintained that the government's initiatives were sufficient to limit the influence of big donors and improve transparency without the need for the proposed bans.

Opposition response

McDonald opposed the bill, arguing it would silence legitimate participation from taxpaying industries and distract from undisclosed foreign funding flowing into environmental campaigns. McDonald cited figures suggesting millions of dollars entered Australian organisations like the Australia Institute and GetUp from foreign sources, which she claimed were not subject to the same disclosure rules. McDonald asserted that the bill was an ideological attempt to throttle political participation and that the Coalition preferred consistent transparency and equal treatment for all legal businesses.