Selective treatment of industries
Susan McDonald argued that the bill would financially throttle political participation by industries the Greens oppose, rather than applying the same transparency rules to all participants.
This bill is currently before Parliament.
Government & democracy
The bill would amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to prohibit political donations from specified industries and their close associates, while also reducing caps on other donations.
Senator Steph Hodgins-May introduced the bill as a Greens private senator's bill to go further than the electoral reforms passed in 2025. The explanatory memorandum says the bill targets industries that have used, or are publicly perceived as using, political donations to influence policy decisions. The bill also responds to concerns about large donations and loopholes by proposing lower caps, broader aggregation rules, treatment of some subscription and affiliation payments as gifts, and anti-avoidance provisions.
The bill is part of a longer Greens campaign to reduce the role of large political donations in federal politics, especially donations from sectors that regularly seek policy decisions, project approvals or public funding. It also sits beside the 2025 electoral reforms: Labor senators argued those reforms already imposed broad disclosure, donation and spending controls, while Greens senators argued they left major industry-donation loopholes open.
Critics in the collected Senate debate argued that the bill was selective rather than even-handed: it would ban donations from named industries while leaving other forms of political influence and campaign funding less directly addressed. Labor senators also argued that Parliament had already passed broad electoral reforms in 2025, while Coalition and National senators said the Greens proposal would silence lawful industries they disagreed with.
Senator Steph Hodgins-May introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from Greens.
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
No final vote yet
The bill has not yet completed passage through Parliament.
Days since introduction
126 days
Updated 10 June 2026.
Meaning
The bill would amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to prohibit political donations from specified industries and their close associates, while also reducing caps on other donations.
The prohibited donorA person or entity covered by the bill's donation ban, including specified industry entities, their close associates and some industry representative organisations. categories would include property developers, financial institutions, tobacco and inhaled nicotine businesses, liquor and gambling businesses, mineral resources or fossil fuel extraction businesses, defence industry entities, pharmaceutical entities, and representative organisations mostly made up of those donors.
A political donationA covered gift or loan made to, for the benefit of, or through another person for political parties, candidates, members of Parliament, associated entities, significant third parties or electoral expenditure. would include covered gifts or loans made to or for the benefit of political parties, state branches, members of Parliament, candidates, associated entities and significant third parties, as well as gifts routed through another person or entity for electoral expenditure.
The bill would make it unlawful for prohibited donors, or people acting for them, to make or solicit political donations, and unlawful for recipients to accept those donations. The bill would attach criminal penalties, civil penalties and recovery of unlawful donations as debts to the Commonwealth.
For donations not banned outright, the bill would lower and fix gift caps, including a $1,000 annual gift capThe legal limit on how much may be given as covered political gifts. This bill would lower the annual gift cap to $1,000 and set $3,000 caps for by-elections and Senate-only elections. and $3,000 caps for by-elections and Senate-only elections, and the explanatory memorandum describes the reform as a $3,000 cumulative limit per election term.
The bill would treat more subscription, membership and affiliation payments as gifts when they are for federal political purposes or credited to federal accounts, and would aggregate gifts to state branches and associated entities with the relevant registered political party.
The Electoral Commission would be able to issue 12-month determinations that a person is presumed not to be a prohibited donorA person or entity covered by the bill's donation ban, including specified industry entities, their close associates and some industry representative organisations., and would have to publish a register of those determinations.
If enacted, the bill would commence on the later of the start of the day after Royal AssentThe formal approval a bill needs after passing Parliament before it becomes an Act. This bill had not received Royal Assent in the collected APH record. and immediately after Division 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Act 2025 commences. The collected APH record shows the bill was still before the Senate, so no passed text or Act text is available.
The Bill proposes amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Act) that will prohibit political donations from certain industries, and impose a reduced cap on all other donations.Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) explanatory memorandum
prohibited donor means: (a) a property developer; or (b) a financial institution; or (c) a tobacco industry business entity; or (d) a liquor or gambling industry business entity; or (e) a mineral resources or fossil fuel extraction industry business entity; or (f) a defence industry entity; or (g) a pharmaceutical entity; or (h) an industry representative organisationCommonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) introduced bill text
For the purposes of this Division, a political donation is: (a) a gift made to or for the benefit of a political party or a State branch of a political party; or (b) a gift made to or for the benefit of a member of the Commonwealth Parliament; or (c) a gift made to or for the benefit of a candidateCommonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) introduced bill text
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.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, when made for a federal purpose or credited to a federal account to be used for federal purposes, 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
The Electoral Commission must maintain, and publish on the Commission’s website, a register of determinations made under subsection (1).Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) introduced bill text
The later of: (a) immediately after the commencement of Division 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Act 2025; and (b) the start of the day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) introduced bill text
Context
The bill is part of a longer Greens campaign to reduce the role of large political donations in federal politics, especially donations from sectors that regularly seek policy decisions, project approvals or public funding. It also sits beside the 2025 electoral reforms: Labor senators argued those reforms already imposed broad disclosure, donation and spending controls, while Greens senators argued they left major industry-donation loopholes open.
High Court authority cited for donation limits
The statement of compatibility cites McCloy v NSW as supporting donation caps and restrictions aimed at preventing corruption and undue influence in the political system.
Explanatory memorandum ↗Senate donation-influence inquiry forms part of the bill's case
The explanatory memorandum says the bill implements recommendations of the Senate Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations by banning donations from specified industries and capping donations from other sources.
Explanatory memorandum ↗Federal electoral reforms passed before this bill
In debate, Labor pointed to the 2025 reform package as already addressing disclosure, donation caps and campaign spending. Greens senators argued those reforms did not ban donations from harmful industries and left avoidable pathways for large influence.
Senate Hansard ↗Hodgins-May introduced the bill in the Senate
The APH timeline records the bill as introduced and read a first time, with the second reading moved on the same day.
Parliament of Australia ↗Second-reading debate tested the proposal
Greens senators argued the bill was needed to curb corporate influence, while Labor and Coalition/National senators criticised the Greens' approach or said broader, more even-handed reform was preferable.
Senate Hansard ↗Legislative route
Senator Steph Hodgins-May introduced the private senator's bill in the Senate.
Introduced and read a first time
Hodgins-May moved the second reading and tabled the explanatory memorandum, opening debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The Senate continued second-reading debate, with Greens senators arguing for the bill and Labor, Liberal and National senators criticising the proposal or arguing for different reform settings.
Key criticism
Critics in the collected Senate debate argued that the bill was selective rather than even-handed: it would ban donations from named industries while leaving other forms of political influence and campaign funding less directly addressed. Labor senators also argued that Parliament had already passed broad electoral reforms in 2025, while Coalition and National senators said the Greens proposal would silence lawful industries they disagreed with.
The criticism summary is based on the supplied local speeches and source bundle. It does not rely on external searches or material outside the repository.
Selective treatment of industries
Susan McDonald argued that the bill would financially throttle political participation by industries the Greens oppose, rather than applying the same transparency rules to all participants.
Other influence channels not addressed
Matthew Canavan and Susan McDonald argued that the proposal did not deal equivalently with money flowing through renewable-energy, environmental, activist or foreign-backed campaign organisations.
Existing 2025 reforms cited as the better approach
Murray Watt argued that Labor had already passed major electoral reforms with lower disclosure thresholds, donation caps, campaign-spending limits and rules that apply regardless of donor identity.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes have been found yet for this bill.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Steph Hodgins-May supports the bill and presents it as a reintroduced Greens proposal to get big money out of politics.
Read in Hansard ↗Matthew Canavan opposes the bill, arguing that the Greens are selective about political money and that the proposal targets resources and other legal industries while ignoring influence from renewable-energy and environmental campaigns.
Read in Hansard ↗Peter Whish-Wilson supports the bill and argues that falling major-party support is connected to public distrust about corporate influence.
Read in Hansard ↗Susan McDonald opposes the bill, arguing that it would financially throttle participation by industries the Greens dislike while not requiring equivalent disclosure from activist groups, foundations and campaign organisations.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“In February last year our government passed once-in-a-generation reforms to our electoral system to get big money out of politics.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 oppose
“The Greens' solution is to create legal prohibitions around who can participate in the democratic process. They seek to financially throttle political participation based on ideology and to silence industries and Australians that they disagree with.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 4 contributions · 3 support
“This bill also expands the aggregation rules so that donations to state branches, local branches and associated entities are counted together towards the federal cap, preventing donors from splitting contributions across different arms of the party, which is another way that the 2025 laws can be circumvented.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Steph Hodgins-May on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Steph Hodgins-May supports the bill and presents it as a reintroduced Greens proposal to get big money out of politics. She says the 2025 electoral reform deal left the disclosure threshold too high and did not stop donations from industries that the Greens say have a history of seeking policy influence.
“I also note that electoral reform passed last year after a last-minute backroom deal with the Coalition. That deal kept the disclosure threshold far too high and refused to wind in donations from harmful industries with a history of seeking to influence decision-makers.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Steph Hodgins-May supports the bill, saying it would ban political donations from industries with a history of using money to buy influence and would cap individual political donations at $3,000 per election term. She links the proposal to public frustration about corporate influence over climate, gambling and gas policy.
“The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2026 is pretty straightforward. It bans political donations from industries with a clear history of using money to buy influence and get privileged access to decision-makers.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“The Greens bill would finally, and it is desperately overdue, clean up our political system. It would stop dirty donations from harmful industries that are not acting in the public interest like gambling, weapons corporations, fossil fuel corporations and big pharma.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
Senator Steph Hodgins-May introduced the private senator's bill in the Senate.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
Hodgins-May moved the second reading and tabled the explanatory memorandum, opening debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The Senate continued second-reading debate, with Greens senators arguing for the bill and Labor, Liberal and National senators criticising the proposal or arguing for different reform settings.