‘Banning big money, just not theirs’: Teal MPs accused of seeking to protect wealthy donors

Teal independent MPs elected on a platform of transparency are seeking to preserve the influence of their wealthy financial donors, according to senior minister Don Farrell, as the debate over money in politics becomes incendiary.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Farrell turned their sights on a group of crossbenchers who on Tuesday revealed their own proposed bill that would cap political donations at $1.5 million per person but not set limits on election spending.

Special Minister of State Don Farrell this week.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

The independents’ move came in response to this masthead reporting last week Labor’s intent to limit the amount spent in a seat and how much a person or company could donate to a political party or candidate. The government’s plan would likely set the cap well below the crossbench’s proposed figure.

“Some of the teals are saying to us that they agree with banning big money, just not theirs,” Farrell said in response to the crossbench proposal, representing one of the sharpest political disputes between Labor and the new group of progressive independents elected in 2022.

“Labor is committed to this reform. We need to stop billionaires throwing their money around and trying to buy our elections.”

The teals, led by Curtin MP Kate Chaney, have raised concerns about changes they fear would make it harder for independent candidates to be elected. However, the teals received big sums in donations and spent large amounts to win their place in parliament.

Their proposed private members’ bill was revealed in a press conference with a big group of crossbenchers held on Monday in parliament, just days before key teals were scheduled to receive a briefing from Farrell on Labor’s plans.

A senior government source, speaking anonymously to detail private views, said Farrell was furious with the teals’ stunt, viewed within Labor as a bad faith move that could compromise negotiations on electoral reform. Farrell is seeking bipartisan support to engender maximum trust in the electoral process.

The source noted Chaney and her colleagues had been afforded many meetings with Farrell in recent months on what was always likely to be a tricky policy development process with competing concerns across the parliament.

Simon Holmes a Court, the founder of the Climate 200 crowdfunding vehicle which helped give $13 million to teal campaigns, has also previously met Farrell to put his view that stripping money out of politics, while a potentially worthwhile reform, could entrench the dominance of major parties.

Crossbench MPs Dai Le, Zoe Daniel, Kylea Tink, Monique Ryan, Kate Chaney, Sophie Scamps and Zali Steggall in Canberra in August.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

Chaney used question time on Tuesday to press Albanese on whether Labor would allow consultation on a draft bill or release a bill agreed upon with the Coalition “designed to lock out political competition”.

In a mocking tone, Albanese responded: “With respect to the member for Curtin … the lobbying on this issue has not been exclusively from people in the major parties”. His answer was supported by light heckling from the government and opposition benches.

“If the member for Curtin wants me to talk about some of the lobbying that’s going on, including from crossbenchers, I’m happy to do so.”

In the morning press conference, Chaney said expenditure caps could prove unfair because they stopped candidates from spending money donated by concerned citizens, some of whom were not wealthy. Goldstein MP Zoe Daniel said none of her donors gave more than $100,000.

Albanese at question time on Tuesday.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

Of the $1.5 million cap, Chaney said: “It’s a donation cap that still stops an individual from having a disproportionate impact, but still allows multiple people to make donations and for campaigns to spend the money they raise.”

Chaney questioned the government’s level of transparency on its plans and argued Farrell had provided little detail.

Mining magnate Clive Palmer last week told this masthead he would likely challenge in the High Court any laws to remove money from politics on the basis they might impinge upon the implied right to political communication.

In response, Farrell said: “If Clive Palmer is against it, we’re clearly on the right track”.

The government has received legal advice on the potential for a High Court challenge.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.