‘We do not campaign’: Kylea Tink’s new outfit cops AEC warning

The election watchdog has warned a teal campaigning organisation headed by former North Sydney MP Kylea Tink to comply with disclosure rules as the group insists it does not have to reveal its funding sources as other political groups do.

Shadow attorney-general Michaelia Cash wrote to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) on April 4 asking if the Community Independents Project (CIP) was breaching electoral law by failing to register as a campaigning organisation, which would force transparency for its funding and spending.

Kylea Tink (left) with Nicolette Boele, the teal candidate for Bradfield.Credit: Edwina Pickles

The project is largely run by former staffers for independent MPs and plays a central role in training and connecting teal hopefuls under the new leadership of Tink, whose seat is being abolished at this election.

Despite stating on social media on April 2 that “we do not campaign or raise funds”, the project has paid for dozens of online ads spotlighting the work of teal MPs, encouraging volunteers to sign up for their campaigns, and has solicited donations via its website.

Tink herself toured Queensland in late March, visiting Climate 200-backed candidates in the Coalition-held seats of Dickson, Fairfax and Fisher.

Australian electoral law requires a group to register as a third-party campaigner if it spends money on material such as social media posts designed to influence voters. Organisations such as unions, right-wing campaign outfit Advance and the Climate Action Network are registered.

Shadow attorney-general Michaelia Cash, pictured at the Liberal Party campaign launch on Sunday, has written to the Australian Electoral Commission to ask if the Community Independents Project breached electoral law.Credit: James Brickwood

But CIP director Tina Jackson, who worked for teal MP Zali Steggall, argued it did not fall into the category of a campaigning organisation based on legal advice that suggested its advertising and activity were not designed to influence votes.

“The CIP is a not-for-profit organisation that provides networking opportunities for everyone involved in the community independents movement, shares resources, provides civics education and spotlights the role of community independents,” Jackson said. “The CIP does not meet the definition of a third party or significant third party. The vast majority of our work is carried out by unpaid volunteers with a small number of contractors.”

A CIP spokesman said it did not fund Tink’s travel to campaign in Queensland and that the donations it received were not used “for the purposes of electing candidates”.

A spokeswoman for the AEC said it was “aware of, and actively monitoring, the activities of the CIP”.

Asked if it was in recent contact with the CIP to warn of the rules to disclose political spending, the spokeswoman said: “Yes, we are in contact with CIP in relation to potential disclosure obligations. We address issues and concerns directly with entities and don’t discuss these considerations more broadly.”

The opposition’s scrutiny of the CIP intensifies the political contest between the teal movement and the Coalition, which will struggle to win elections unless it takes back some of the seven previously safe seats it lost to independents. Conservatives argue that the independents operate as a quasi-political party with a sophisticated national structure that generates new candidates in seats deemed winnable. This claim is rejected by Climate 200 founder Simon Holmes a Court and the MPs.

This masthead reported last month that Climate 200-supported MPs were irritated when Holmes a Court delivered a National Press Club speech naming target seats, revealing polling and talking about support for new candidates – functions usually performed by political parties.

Another teal MP, Allegra Spender, is separately facing scrutiny for paying social media influencer Milly Rose Bannister to post videos about the Wentworth MP’s campaign. Spender defended the practice, saying the media landscape had changed.

The Member for Wentworth, Allegra Spender.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

“We’ve worked with an agency and a bunch of influencers and content creators to reach different audiences,” she told the ABC.

Kooyong MP Monique Ryan could not say on ABC’s Insiders on Sunday whether MPs should disclose if they are paying for favourable coverage.

Cash’s letter sent on April 4 stated: “Noting [the CIP’s objective to help elect candidates], and the fact the company solicits donations directly from the public, it is reasonable to conclude that the organisation may have incurred electoral expenditure.

“This could include but not be limited to any payment to staff of the CIP that formed part of the production or distribution of electoral matter, including social media posts.”

The legislative definition of electoral matter that must be disclosed to the AEC is material related to the election, or an MP, communicated with the dominant purpose of “influencing the way electors vote in a federal election”.

The ABC reported in January that the CIP was a key part of a “sophisticated ecosystem” of groups providing comprehensive support to the candidates funded by Climate 200. The report stated groups, including the CIP, worked with communities from the “very early stages” to teach campaign tools before a Voices group was “established under the CIP banner”.

The CIP disputed the ABC report and said that Voices groups were run “organically and independently by communities”.

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