Money and power in South Australian elections
Author
Media release
SA Government’s Proposed Donations Bill a Threat to Political Competition
The cost of party and candidate campaigns in the 2022 South Australian election exceeded public funding by $3.3 million. The shortfall was covered with private funding, including political donations.
The Electoral (Accountability and Integrity) Amendment Bill 2024 (“the Bill”) would increase public funding by about $14 million per electoral cycle. This new funding would substitute for private funding both of election campaigns and of party administration. However, it would go overwhelmingly to the major parties. Sitting independent MPs and minor parties with parliamentary representation would also benefit.
This is because the public funding provisions in the Bill are based on the number of MPs a party has in the South Australian Parliament, rather than on the level of public support enjoyed by a given party or candidate, or on how many South Australians are party members.
If the Bill passed, independent candidates and minor parties that lack parliamentary representation would receive little or no public funding at all – and, in addition, they would be capped in how much private money they can raise. This would leave some minor parties in a situation where they would neither receive public funding nor be eligible for private funding, a “funding trap” that would make it impossible for them to operate.
An alternative public funding system, called “democracy vouchers”, could better achieve the Bill’s objective of removing private money from South Australian elections while also putting incumbents and new entrants on a level playing field; encouraging parties and candidates to engage with the public ahead of an election; and leaving it for the public to decide how much money is spent on public funding. Australia Institute polling research shows that Australians would be much more likely to participate in a donation voucher scheme than to make a private donation to a political party.
There are also problems with the Bill’s limits on spending, which do not account for the advantages of incumbency. Further, the Bill would make spending caps mandatory for all candidates while not restricting third parties at all. The danger is that this means candidates could be incapable of countering expensive campaigns from third parties.
The Bill should not be passed in its current form.