Unfairly blocks lawful participation
Opponents argued the bill would treat legitimate industries such as pubs and pharmacies as suspect and stop law-abiding people and businesses from taking part in political donations and the democratic process.
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations)
Current status
This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Policy area
Government & democracy
What does this bill do?
Federal political parties, candidates and related campaign groups could not take donations from fossil fuel, property, tobacco, banking, liquor, gambling, pharmaceutical or defence businesses and their peak bodies.
Why was it introduced?
Political donations from powerful industries, large donors, and fundraising loopholes left policy decisions open to donor influence and some campaign income undisclosed. The bill bans donations from specified industries, caps other donations at $3,000 a term, and counts fundraising fees and discounted services as political gifts.
Broader context
Australia already had some political donationA gift or benefit given to a party, candidate or related group that counts under the donation rules on this page. limits, including a 2017 move to ban foreign donations, and the High Court confirmed in 2019 that a state ban on property developer donations could stand, but domestic corporate money, large gifts and fundraising loopholes still left room for donor influence. The bill was reintroduced in November 2022 to ban donations from several high-risk industries and cap other donors at $3,000 a term, yet it did not pass and lapsed in July 2025 as Parliament kept negotiating broader federal donation reform.
Key criticism
Critics said the bill would unfairly stop lawful businesses and community-linked industries from donating, while sharply limiting how ordinary supporters can participate in politics. That case was raised mainly by Coalition senators and One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts that the rules could still be worked around and would not fix all influence problems.
Who supported it?
Senator Larissa Waters introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from Greens, some crossbench members.
Introduced in Senate 24 Nov 2022
Failed in Senate 21 July 2025
Did not reach House —
Did not become law —
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
No final passage
The bill has not completed passage and is no longer proceeding.
Time before failure
970 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
What does this bill do?
-
Federal political parties, candidates and related campaign groups could not take donations from fossil fuel, property, tobacco, banking, liquor, gambling, pharmaceutical or defence businesses and their peak bodies.
-
All other donors would be limited to giving no more than $3,000 over a single federal election term.
-
Money raised through fundraising tickets, large party or group membership fees, free or discounted services, and interest-free loans would count as political gifts under the donation rules.
-
Donations to a party's state branches, local branches, members and candidates would be added together when checking whether one donor has gone over the $3,000 cap.
-
Making, taking or helping to arrange banned donations could bring criminal penalties, including up to 2 years in prison and major fines.
Show source excerpts
-
Prohibiting donations from property developers, tobacco industry business entities, liquor and gambling business entities, financial institutions, pharmaceutical industry business entities, defence industry entities, and mineral resources or mining industry business entities, and industry representative organisations whose majority members are prohibited donors.
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) explanatory memorandum -
The Bill also recognises the potentially corrupting influence of large donations, irrespective of their source, and imposes a cumulative limit on donations from any source (individual, organisation or business) of $3,000 per election term.
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) explanatory memorandum -
The amendments extend the definition of “gift” to include subscription and membership fees and attendance at fundraising events to close the loophole that has allowed these significant sources of campaign income to remain undisclosed and unaccounted for.
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) explanatory memorandum -
This section provides for the aggregation of donations for the purposes of determining whether the donation cap has been exceeded during the donation period. For the purposes of aggregated caps, donations made to individual members, candidates, endorsed groups or State branches are treated as a donation to the relevant political party.
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) explanatory memorandum -
A person who makes an unlawful political donation, whether as prohibited donor or on behalf of a prohibited donor, commits an offence punished by up to 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to 400 penalty units. It is an offence for a political donor, or another person on their behalf, to solicitor someone to make a political donation.
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) explanatory memorandum
Context
Broader context for this bill
Australia already had some political donationA gift or benefit given to a party, candidate or related group that counts under the donation rules on this page. limits, including a 2017 move to ban foreign donations, and the High Court confirmed in 2019 that a state ban on property developer donations could stand, but domestic corporate money, large gifts and fundraising loopholes still left room for donor influence. The bill was reintroduced in November 2022 to ban donations from several high-risk industries and cap other donors at $3,000 a term, yet it did not pass and lapsed in July 2025 as Parliament kept negotiating broader federal donation reform.
- 14 Nov 2017
Australia moves to ban foreign political donations
The Turnbull government announced laws to stop foreign donations and tighten foreign influence rules, showing that federal donation restrictions were already part of the electoral system before this bill.
Australian Financial Review ↗ - 17 Apr 2019
High Court backs Queensland's property developer donation ban
The court upheld Queensland's ban on property developer donations, reinforcing that targeted bans on donations from particular sectors could survive legal challenge.
Australian Financial Review ↗ - 24 Nov 2022
Greens reintroduce the Banning Dirty Donations Bill
Senator Larissa Waters reintroduced the bill to ban donations from fossil fuel, banking, defence, pharmaceutical, liquor, tobacco and gambling interests and to cap other donors at $3,000 per electoral term.
Hansard ↗ - 01 Dec 2022
Senate debate centres on big money and disclosure loopholes
Supporters argued that large donations and industry money were distorting democratic decisions, while opponents disputed the bill's design and scope.
Hansard ↗ - 11 July 2024
Broader federal donation reform talks pick up
As Labor pursued a wider electoral donations package, the Greens again pushed for bans on money from miners, gambling companies and tobacco giants, showing the bill's core ideas were still in play.
Australian Financial Review ↗ - 21 July 2025
The bill lapses at the end of Parliament
The proposal never completed its passage and fell away when Parliament ended, leaving its tougher sector bans and donation capThe maximum amount a donor could give over one federal election term under the bill, set at $3,000. unlegislated.
Parliamentary timeline ↗
Legislative route
How did it move through Parliament?
House Senate
Introduced 24 Nov 2022
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 24 Nov 2022
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Second reading debate 01 Dec 2022
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Lapsed at end of Parliament 21 July 2025
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main case against this bill
Critics said the bill would unfairly stop lawful businesses and community-linked industries from donating, while sharply limiting how ordinary supporters can participate in politics. That case was raised mainly by Coalition senators and One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts that the rules could still be worked around and would not fix all influence problems.
Opposition was real but limited, and mostly focused on fairness and design rather than defending corporate influence outright.
One-sided and incomplete reform
Critics said the bill singled out private-sector donors while leaving other sources of influence, such as unions, super funds, lobbyists or bureaucratic power, outside the same ban, so it would restrict donations without solving the wider transparency problem. Malcolm Roberts also argued some interests could still find ways around the rules.
Further sources
Votes
Recorded votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Who spoke, and what they said
Start here — lead voices
Sponsor speech Supports
Larissa Waters
Waters supports the bill and says it is an important first step to get big money out of politics by banning donations from industries with a record of seeking influence and capping other donations.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead opposing voice Opposes
Gerard Rennick
Rennick opposes the bill, saying it is hypocritical and one-sided because it targets private sector donations while ignoring unions, super funds, lobbyists and bureaucratic influence.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead supporting voice Supports
David Pocock
Pocock supports the bill and says he will keep pushing for it because he thinks it would curb corporate influence, improve transparency, and make decisions more accountable to ordinary Australians and future generations.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead voice Opposes
James McGrath
McGrath opposes the bill and says it is a waste of the Senate's time because it would stop law-abiding people and industries like pubs and pharmacies from taking part in political donations and the democratic process.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
Labor
1 speaker · 1 unclear
Labor
1 speaker · 1 unclear
-
Jenny McAllister McAllister did not state support for this bill.
“As a government we are interested in exploring with the parliament the ways that we can improve and enhance our electoral systems, and we’re interested in doing that in a collaborative way.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Coalition
2 speakers · 2 oppose
Coalition
2 speakers · 2 oppose
-
Gerard Rennick ★ Rennick opposes the bill, saying it is hypocritical and one-sided because it targets private sector donations while ignoring unions, super funds, lobbyists and bureaucratic influence.
“I rise to speak to this bill, which is basically laced with hypocrisy. This bill does nothing. It's got one side of the picture, in terms of private sector, but doesn't mention anything about money coming from unions or super funds.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
James McGrath ★ McGrath opposes the bill and says it is a waste of the Senate's time because it would stop law-abiding people and industries like pubs and pharmacies from taking part in political donations and the democratic process.
“This is a waste of the Senate's time. Go back and do better, Greens.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Greens
2 speakers · 3 contributions · 2 support
Greens
2 speakers · 3 contributions · 2 support
-
Larissa Waters ★ 2 contributions Waters strongly supports the bill and says it is an important first step to get big money out of politics by banning donations from industries she says have a corrupting influence and capping other donations.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Larissa Waters on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Waters supports the bill and says it is an important first step to get big money out of politics by banning donations from industries with a record of seeking influence and capping other donations. She argues it will level the playing field, restore public confidence, and reduce the corrupting influence of donors.
“This bill is an important first step towards getting big money out of politics and restoring public confidence in our democracy.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
Waters strongly supports the bill and says it is an important first step to get big money out of politics by banning donations from industries she says have a corrupting influence and capping other donations. She argues it will restore public confidence and make democracy less vulnerable to donor influence.
“The Greens strongly support these measures, but we recognise that transparency alone will not remove the corrupting influence of political donations. The 2022 election results confirm that the Australian public want more transparent and representative governments that act in the public interest. This bill is an important first step towards getting big money out of politics and restoring public confidence in our democracy.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗ -
David Shoebridge Shoebridge strongly supports the bill, saying donations from fossil fuel and other corporate interests are corrupting democracy and that the bill is essential to clean up Parliament.
“If we want to save democracy, if we seriously want to clean up this parliament, this bill is essential. I commend Senator Waters for bringing this bill. I am disturbed at the unhinged response we get from the major parties whenever we mention donations reform. I seek leave to continue my remarks.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
One Nation
1 speaker · 1 mixed
One Nation
1 speaker · 1 mixed
-
Malcolm Roberts Roberts acknowledged the bill had positive aspects but warned that some industries would work around it and used the debate to criticise political influence from renewable energy backers and teal independents.
“this bill has very many positive aspects, but there will be industries that will get around this.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Minor parties and independents
1 speaker · 1 support
Minor parties and independents
1 speaker · 1 support
-
David Pocock ★ Pocock supports the bill and says he will keep pushing for it because he thinks it would curb corporate influence, improve transparency, and make decisions more accountable to ordinary Australians and future generations.
“I commend this bill. On behalf of people in the ACT I represent, I will keep pushing this. This is something that is important to people in the ACT. They want to see meaningful action. They're sick of seeing decisions being made that aren't in the best interests of Australians. They're sick of having governments that argue that the government doesn't have a duty of care to future generations. If we don't have a duty of care to future generations, what are we here for? This is a meaningful way of putting checks and balances and added transparency in place so that Australians can look at this place and say, 'I can be more confident now that decisions are being made that are going to benefit me and my family and my children, and their future and their children's children, rather than some big gambling or fossil fuel company that can spray $100,000 a year to buy a bit of influence in this place. I commend this bill.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Full record
- Status
- Not Proceeding -- Collected from the APH bill page.
- Originating house
- Senate
- 24 Nov 2022
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.
- 24 Nov 2022
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.
- 01 Dec 2022
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 21 July 2025
Senate · Lapsed at end of Parliament
Lapsed at end of Parliament
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.