This bill became law on Feb 20th, 2025.
Government & democracy
Political donations now have to be disclosed once they reach $5,000, so fewer small donations will appear on the public register than first proposed.
Slow, infrequent disclosure rules left voters in the dark about political donations and campaign spending until long after elections. The bill speeds up reporting, sets dedicated federal campaign accounts, and expands who must follow federal transparency rules.
Before this bill, federal donation and campaign-finance disclosure rules were slow and infrequent, so voters often learned who funded election activity well after polling day. In late 2024 the government answered that problem with what it called the biggest overhaul of Commonwealth electoral law in more than 40 years, using Joint Standing Committee on Electoral MattersA parliamentary committee whose reports the government says helped shape this bill and its later amendments. recommendations to push faster reporting, dedicated federal campaign accounts and wider transparency rules, and Parliament passed the package in February 2025.
The main criticism was that the bill’s funding and spending rules would tilt federal elections toward Labor and the Coalition by giving incumbents more money and making it harder for independents, minor parties and new challengers to compete. That case was pushed most strongly by teal independents and the Greens, while some broader concern about the rushed process and insufficient scrutiny was also raised before the Coalition backed an amended version.
Patrick Gorman MP introduced this bill. In the Senate final vote, support came from Labor, Liberal Party, some crossbench members; opposition came from Greens, One Nation, Australia's Voice, UAP, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 20 Feb 2025
Final passage
Recorded final vote
3 counted final-passage votes were recorded.
Passage speed
94 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Political donations now have to be disclosed once they reach $5,000, so fewer small donations will appear on the public register than first proposed.
Donors and recipients must report political gifts much faster, with monthly reporting outside elections, seven-day reporting during elections, and 24-hour reporting around polling day.
People and groups that spend less than $20,000 a year on federal election campaigning stay outside the special third-party reporting rules.
Political parties, candidates, MPs, senators and major outside campaigners must use dedicated federal accounts for campaign spending and for federal political gifts.
Parliament must review how these election law changes worked within 12 months after the first general election held after 1 July 2026.
disclosure threshold means $5,000.Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Act 2025 final Act text
Gifts received by relevant entities outside election periods will be required to be disclosed within 21 days following the month the gift was received. Generally, gifts received during the election period by relevant entities will be required to be disclosed within 7 days of receipt, and in the week commencing the Saturday before polling day and the week following gifts will be required to be disclosed within 24 hours of receipt.Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) explanatory memorandum
third party threshold means $20,000.Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Act 2025 final Act text
Registered political parties, candidates, members of the House of Representatives, Senators, significant third parties, associated entities, nominated entities and third parties must have federal accounts to be used for paying for electoral expenditure or for crediting gifts of money.Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Act 2025 final Act text
(a) review the operation of the amendments made by this Act before the end of 12 months after the first general election that is held after 1 July 2026; andElectoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Act 2025 final Act text
Context
Before this bill, federal donation and campaign-finance disclosure rules were slow and infrequent, so voters often learned who funded election activity well after polling day. In late 2024 the government answered that problem with what it called the biggest overhaul of Commonwealth electoral law in more than 40 years, using Joint Standing Committee on Electoral MattersA parliamentary committee whose reports the government says helped shape this bill and its later amendments. recommendations to push faster reporting, dedicated federal campaign accounts and wider transparency rules, and Parliament passed the package in February 2025.
Government unveils major federal electoral finance overhaul
When introducing the bill, the government said it was the biggest reform of Australia's electoral laws in more than 40 years and tied it to stronger transparency and accountability in federal elections.
Hansard ↗Bill introduced to speed up donation and spending disclosure
The bill began its parliamentary journey with measures aimed at giving voters earlier information about political gifts and campaign spending than the old disclosure system provided.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Senate passes the bill with government amendments
The Senate approved the bill after agreeing to amendment packages, locking in the final shape of the new reporting thresholds, timing rules and campaign-account requirements.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
After the House agreed to the Senate's changes, both chambers settled the bill in the same form and completed its passage through Parliament.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe formal step that turned the passed bill into law. turns the reforms into law
Royal AssentThe formal step that turned the passed bill into law. made the electoral finance changes law and cleared the way for the new disclosure, reporting and account rules to be implemented.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
Recorded vote: 49 to 14.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
Recorded vote: 48 to 15.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Committee of the Whole debate
Recorded vote: 27 to 19.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Consideration of Senate message
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe formal step that turned the passed bill into law., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill’s funding and spending rules would tilt federal elections toward Labor and the Coalition by giving incumbents more money and making it harder for independents, minor parties and new challengers to compete. That case was pushed most strongly by teal independents and the Greens, while some broader concern about the rushed process and insufficient scrutiny was also raised before the Coalition backed an amended version.
Criticism was substantial but not universal, with some objections focused more on process and safeguards than the reform goal itself.
Favours major parties and incumbents
Critics argued the donation caps, expenditure caps, public funding settings and related rules would entrench the two major parties and make it harder for independents, minor parties and new entrants to compete on anything like equal terms.
Rushed without proper scrutiny
A repeated objection was that Parliament was being asked to pass a large and complex rewrite of election law too quickly, without the full committee examination and advice critics said was needed to test unintended effects.
Transparency was weakened or undercut
Some opponents said the package mixed worthwhile disclosure reforms with weaker transparency settings elsewhere, arguing the bill should have passed urgent transparency measures separately instead of tying them to contested funding changes.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Passed 27 to 19. Support came from Labor and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens, One Nation, Australia's Voice, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 48 to 15. Support came from Labor, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 49 to 15. Support came from Labor, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 25 to 19. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens, One Nation, Australia's Voice, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 49 to 14. Support came from Labor, Centre Alliance, and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Amendments grouped by chamber. Where APH reports aggregate counts, the package card summarizes the matching public amendment sheets by source theme.
House
Passed 65 to 15. Support came from Labor, Centre Alliance, and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a procedural vote, not a final vote on whether the bill would become law.
Passed 65 to 15. Support came from Labor, Centre Alliance, and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 67 to 15. Support came from Labor, Centre Alliance, and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a gag motion that cut off further discussion and pushed the House to a decision on the bill's final handling.
Passed 67 to 15. Support came from Labor, Centre Alliance, and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated 14 to 50. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was an early attempt to slow the bill and force more scrutiny before debate proceeded. Its defeat let the House continue without referral.
Defeated 14 to 49. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Centre Alliance. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was another crossbench attempt to delay the bill and require further inquiry. Its defeat allowed the legislation to proceed in the House.
Defeated 8 to 46. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This amendment targeted the bill's new public funding arrangements. Its defeat preserved the government's proposed party funding model.
Defeated 7 to 50. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a safeguard amendment that would have forced post-implementation scrutiny of the reforms. Its defeat meant no extra statutory review requirement was added.
Defeated 10 to 51. Support came from minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a crossbench attempt to limit the size of the public funding stream for party expenditure groups. Its defeat left the funding formula uncapped at that point.
Defeated 10 to 50. Support came from minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This amendment package tried to narrow how campaign advertising counted for the bill and to require later review. Its defeat left the broader wording and no extra review requirement in place.
The House agreed to the amendments made by the Senate, so the bill could pass both chambers in the same form.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senate
Passed 26 to 19. Support came from Labor and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens, One Nation, Australia's Voice, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a procedural gag motion. Carrying it allowed the chamber to move the bill forward without further debate at that point.
Defeated 19 to 26. Support came from Greens, One Nation, Australia's Voice, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a threshold procedural vote. Its defeat kept the normal rules in place and blocked the proposed shortcut.
Defeated 15 to 26. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, One Nation, and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The amendment was a second-reading position statement, not a direct law change. It would have pressured the government to separate the transparency measures from the funding measures and seek further scrutiny.
Defeated 3 to 39. Support came from One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Liberal Party, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The amendment was a second-reading statement rather than a direct change to the bill text. It tried to redirect the debate toward broader constitutional and voting-administration changes.
Defeated 19 to 25. Support came from Greens, One Nation, Australia's Voice, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a second-reading protest amendment. It did not amend the bill directly; it recorded objections to the process and to the bill's effects on competition and funding.
Passed 25 to 19. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens, One Nation, Australia's Voice, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was the main second-reading passage vote in the Senate. Carrying it allowed the bill to proceed to detailed amendment consideration.
Passed 28 to 18. Support came from Labor and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, UAP, and minor parties and independents. One Nation had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This package refined the bill's transparency and compliance machinery while preserving the government's broader reform package.
Defeated 4 to 42. Support came from One Nation and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Liberal Party, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a broad opposition package aimed at shrinking party funding and tightening voting-administration rules. Its defeat left the government's framework intact.
Defeated 17 to 29. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a symbolic second-reading style amendment. It would have renamed the bill but not changed its legal operation.
Defeated 16 to 30. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This package fine-tuned the gift rules and enforcement structure. It added an administrative pathway for donor status determinations while backing up the regime with offences and record-keeping.
Defeated 16 to 29. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This package tried to trim parliamentary entitlements attached to leaving office. Its defeat kept the existing former-member allowance rules in place.
Defeated 15 to 31. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a substantive constitutional-style proposal about territory representation, combined with a symbolic renaming amendment. Defeat meant the bill's territory provisions were unchanged.
Passed 28 to 18. Support came from Labor and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, UAP, and minor parties and independents. One Nation had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The proposed change was agreed.
Defeated 16 to 30. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a committee-stage refinement of the gift regime. It failed, so the bill kept the government's version rather than the alternative donor-exemption structure.
Defeated 18 to 38. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, One Nation, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a scrutiny motion aimed at sending the bill to committee before further progress. Its defeat kept the bill on the floor instead of sending it to inquiry.
The APH progress record says 39 Government amendments were agreed without a counted division being collected by this run.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate recorded this on voices, and the matched sheet would delete administrative assistance fundingPublic money given to parties and some independents for administration, which several amendments tried to cap or remove. and related reporting and schedule provisions from the bill.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate recorded this on voices, and the matched sheet would remove public election funding and repeal the related election-funding provisions.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate recorded this on voices, and the matched sheet would strip out the bill’s expenditure-cap rules and related definitions.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate rejected this on voices, and the matched sheets covered abolishing public election funding, removing expenditure caps, creating gift caps for parties, and broadening proof-of-identity documents for voting.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate rejected this on voices, and the matched sheets covered cutting the pre-poll period to three days, lowering the election-funding threshold, and broadening proof-of-identity documents.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
APH records 36 Government amendments agreed on the voices. The public amendment list groups them into 5 amendment sheets, so this page summarizes the package by source theme.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment package without a counted vote. APH records the agreed count by amendment, while the source documents are grouped into amendment sheets.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Patrick Gorman supports the bill and says it delivers the biggest overhaul of federal electoral law in more than 40 years by improving transparency, capping donations and spending, and strengthening enforcement.
Read in Hansard ↗Spender opposes the bill because, while she supports electoral reform in principle and welcomes some transparency measures, she says this package is being rushed through without scrutiny and is designed to entrench the major parties and disadvantage independents.
Read in Hansard ↗Hume says the opposition will back the bill after amendments, because the government has addressed many of its concerns and improved the package through bipartisan work.
Read in Hansard ↗Steggall opposes the bill and says the House should not pass it until it is properly examined by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral MattersA parliamentary committee whose reports the government says helped shape this bill and its later amendments..
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
2 speakers · 3 contributions · 2 support
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Patrick Gorman on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Patrick Gorman supports the bill and says it delivers the biggest overhaul of federal electoral law in more than 40 years by improving transparency, capping donations and spending, and strengthening enforcement. He argues these reforms will reduce the influence of big money and make elections fairer and more accountable.
“It proposes the largest reform to Australia's electoral laws in over 40 years, delivering on our commitment to strengthen and enhance the integrity of federal elections through improved transparency and accountability.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Patrick Gorman strongly supports the bill, saying it will get big money out of politics through donation caps, spending caps and faster disclosure. He argues it is the product of years of inquiry and consultation and says it will make elections fairer and more transparent.
“This bill is the result of more than two years of committee inquiries, reports, recommendations, careful drafting, consideration and consultation, including consultation with those on the crossbench.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“I commend this Bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 2 support · 1 mixed
“The government has worked with all parties and members, including the opposition, to improve this legislation. While this is not the electoral reform that we would have brought forward, and while some parts do remain of concern, we note and appreciate that the amendments that have been brought forward address the concerns around the potential impacts of the proposed laws.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We will continue to work with the government on this legislation as there are aspects with which we agree; however, the process for its debate and introduction have not been conducive to considering the wide-ranging impacts on the electoral system or the broader Electoral Act. As such, the opposition will be reserving our final position on this legislation, noting that we have yet to receive advice on some aspect which the government has undertaken to provide.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We should never forget that we owe it to the voters to have a fit-for-purpose democracy. The coalition supports this bill on that basis.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 oppose
“We call again for an inquiry into the funding elements of this bill, to allow proper scrutiny. This is the dodgiest deal that I've seen done between these two big parties in my 14 or 15 years here—however long I've been here. This is it, folks. When they're going down in the polls, this is all they've got. They don't have policies to help you. They've got policies to help each other. I move:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is an attempt to ensure that the will of the Australian people is not represented. Instead of just doing better, Labor and Liberal are trying to change the rules to rig the system in their favour.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
11 speakers · 13 contributions · 1 support · 9 oppose · 1 unclear
“Unfortunately, this bill completely fails on the first three principles and the way that the government is trying to ram it through the parliament without consultation or proper scrutiny absolutely undermines trust in the fundamental system of electoral reform. As the Centre for Public Integrity, Transparency International, the Australian Democracy Network and the Australia Institute said in a joint statement earlier today: 'This bill should not proceed in its current form because it would entrench major party and incumbency advantage and further disadvantage Independent and challenger candidates. Legislation that will have such a significant consequences for our democracy should only be passed after a parliamentary inquiry has had an opportunity to properly, thoroughly scrutinise its provisions. To do otherwise is not in the interests of the Australian public.' I completely agree.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I urge the government: do not proceed, like you are at the moment, with this second reading vote; instead, refer this bill to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to inquire into the unintended—but, I would say, likely intended—consequences of this bill, and that is set out in detail in the amendment that I have moved. This bill should not proceed without it going to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In summary, this bill is a travesty. It addresses a cynical anticompetitive oligopoly play as reform, which is being fed to an unsuspecting public. There are huge problems with the process it's gone through. There are problems with the massive increase in public funding, which locks in the status quo. There are problems with limiting spending in a way that creates a very uneven playing field for new challenges. The transparency reform is too little too late, and it's a huge disappointment. Australian voters will not be taken for granted. They will not be taken for voters. And if the major parties ignore their desire for greater choice and push this through with no inquiry, Australians will remember and punish them with their most effective tool—their votes. I do not commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This legislation is not designed to take big money out of politics; it's designed to prop up a flailing two-party system.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Deputy Speaker, if you think the Chairman's Lounge is an exclusive club, then you should have a look at this so-called electoral reform bill. It's going to make the federal parliament an exclusive club for incumbents and the major parties. I have serious concerns about this bill and I say to the government: do better. Give this the scrutiny the Australian public deserves.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“What our democracy does need is more voices, more debate, more scrutiny and more competition. That's what we need in our parliament. So let's do better. I urge the government to send this bill for further scrutiny. (Time expired)”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This legislation will benefit the major parties, leaving Independent candidates—especially new candidates—out. It is a stitch-up. Best practice systems are subject to independent external scrutiny and review. The government has told us that this is the most comprehensive electoral reform in 40 years. We're told that the government has been working on this legislation with the Liberal-National coalition for six months. It was first shared with the crossbench five days ago. We have been denied the opportunity for appropriate scrutiny and evaluation of its complexities. Complex pieces of legislation are customarily subjected to detailed committee review.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Quite seriously, the more time I spend looking at this bill the worse it gets. Ramming it through the parliament without proper scrutiny before Christmas when it won't even come into effect until after the next election is a sign of desperation from the major parties—'Quick! Get it through just in case any more Independents get in and stop us.' This law could fundamentally change who can get into the parliament for a generation. Australian needs a new approach to politics that encourages political engagement and participation in our democracy, not a lockout strategy that signals to ordinary Australians that they are not welcome to get involved. Lead better. Don't change the rules to help you win.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The government claims that this bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024, will get big money out of politics.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“On balance, I support this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 3 separate contributions by Lidia Thorpe on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Thorpe opposes the bill, saying it was rushed through by the major parties and would weaken democratic rights, participation and representation. She argues it would entrench a system that favours incumbents and big parties over independents and minor parties.
“This bill is a done deal between the major parties and is being rushed through parliament, explicitly because they know it is so flawed and they're so ashamed of it themselves and it's in breach of basic democratic rights. I want to make clear to everyone here and all voters out there that this bill represents an erosion of democratic principles, participation and representation. This is why I'm proposing to rename it the 'Sham Democracy Bill', because at least that would tell people the truth about what they're up for.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Thorpe opposes the bill, saying the electoral reforms are a stitch-up by the major parties that will entrench their power and make the system less representative. She argues it favours incumbents and major donors while locking out independent and grassroots candidates.
“This spits in the face of voters and is not in their best interests. The government is even refusing to put this bill through an inquiry process, which is a standard parliamentary procedure. This should be an absolute necessity for a bill which will dramatically change electoral and policy outcomes for everyone in this country. This bill gives more public funding to parties and incumbents. We're in a cost-of-living crisis. You're all paying each other.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Thorpe opposes the bill and moves an amendment that would have the Senate note its unfairness and limited scrutiny. She says it favours incumbents and major parties, disadvantages independents, and gives the government and parties more public funding instead of helping Australians under cost-of-living pressure.
“(v) the bill creates an unfair playing field, giving advantage to incumbents over new candidates by failing to give all candidates the same public funding for administrative support and failing to account for incumbent resources such as an office, staff, a vehicle and marketing budget whilst imposing a spending cap on candidates,”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 49 to 14.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 48 to 15.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the whole: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 27 to 19.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendments
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe formal step that turned the passed bill into law., turning the bill into an Act.
