Climate Council Media Release
THE LABOR AND LIBERAL/NATIONAL PARTIES have cut a backroom deal to push through electoral laws that kneecap charities like the Climate Council from speaking out during elections.
Backed by both major parties, the laws passed near midnight last night, after debate was cut inside Parliament and questions from minor parties and independents went unanswered. The legislation gives the Labor and Liberal/National parties an extra $80 million of taxpayer money per election to fund their political campaigns, but makes it much harder for charities, independents, and minor parties to hold power to account.
The bills ban charities from using general donations on public communications about ‘electoral matters’, which includes commentary on issues like climate change during an election campaign.
Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said the dirty deal is an attack on democracy and truth in politics:
“This law kneecaps charities from doing their essential work during elections. By silencing independent voices, the Labor and Liberal parties are making sure Australians only hear from politicians on issues like climate change.
“This law gags independent and fearless advocates like the Climate Council from speaking out on the very issue we were set up to solve. How will Australians know what politicians are up to on climate change, if the only voices left in the debate during elections are politicians or their financial backers in the fossil fuel industry?”
And it’s not just charities being silenced. The major parties have also stitched up the rules to disadvantage independents. Meanwhile, the big parties will still be able to pull in millions through their state branches, effectively sidestepping the new donation limits.
The new law does nothing to crack down on the real threat to democracy: the influence of vested interests and big corporate donors. Instead, it targets the very organisations working in the public interest while the Minerals Council, Business Council and unions get special exemptions.
“Voters want fair and transparent elections, not politicians rigging the rules in their own favour,” said Ms McKenzie.
“This isn’t reform, it’s a power grab that entrenches political power at the expense of our climate and Australian voters.”
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Absolutely disgusting. There has to be a legal way around the blocking of political comment. Go the Independents.
I’m with Patricia. Labor lost my vote over a number of issues including the NACC ‘deal’ with Dutton, A number of these issues including climate change, they campaigned on and won because people wanted action and we get sweet F all except sweetheart deals for themselves like this.
Andy56, ‘Vote labor and accept its not perfect.’
It’s not about being perfect. It is about being, at the very least, adequate. Worthy of the voter’s endorsement.
Labor is not even adequate. They are hostile towards the environment which is always sacrificed in the name of the economy which is, believe it or not, an artificial construct that can be reconstructed without the need to suck the life out of the very, very real environment. They make more effort making things worse than they make an effort to deal with Climate Change, You could be easily forgiven for thinking that they are AGW deniers such is the deliberate inadequacy of their actions. They refuse to reign in the Private Sector’s exploitation of the unwealthy, again deliberately. And as for AUKUS and the Submarine deal, that was Scott Morrison’s crime perpetrated under his multiple illegal Ministries. Why did Labor go along with it? And their latest stand on principal has been to refuse to condemn the most blatantly obvious act of genocide in history, choosing instead to attack and equate those protesting against genocide as antisemites and condemn them instead.
Sure you can bleat that the Lib/Nats are even worse, but that is no reason to vote for an inadequate Labor. They need to be punished for their despicable behaviour not endorsed.
Voting for them will only encourage even worse behaviour and guarantee that they will continue to emulate their policies with those of the Coalition but contrive to succeed where the more venal Coalition tends to fail.
Why do people like andyfiftysix think that the only alternative to voting Labor is to vote L/NP???
It is clear, this legislation is defective but to say that you won’t vote Labor in the future neglects the fact that this legislation was a dog’s breakfast from the beginning as it required agreement between the major parties and that’s where the wheels started to fall off.
Unlike the US we have an independent High Court and this issue will undoubtedly go before the HC before the legislation comes into force – i.e. it won’t affect the upcoming federal election.
Professor Anne Twomey has written extensively on this subject and the High Court have recognised that in order for the people to exercise their voting responsibilities under the Constitution, they must be capable of making a free and informed vote. This means that there must be free political communication which aids electors in forming their voting intentions – i.e. a level playing field.
Any law that ‘burdens’ this implied freedom of political communication will be held to be constitutionally invalid, unless the law is reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner which is compatible with the system of representative and responsible government prescribed by the Commonwealth Constitution.
Leave it to the High Court, they are good at this sort of thing and they will strike the legislation down if they find it has constitutional weaknesses: that is the beauty of our system which so far has remained corruption free.
“…our system which so far has remained corruption free”??? Is that satire?
Max
I was referring to our courts, in particular the High Court of Australia – I believe them to be free of political interference and corruption unlike what we have seen happen in the US.
Anyone heard of the Greens or the independents?It most definitely doesn’t have to be a choice of two stale,and failed political parties.Until the grip of lobbyists, vested interests,mining crooks IS SHUCKED ,NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE.It is not a binary choice…in case no one has noticed, the tide on their primary support is heading for South America.
As soon as I saw the headline of this article, I thought, hang on, such legislation has a snowflakes chance. It is against the Constitution provision that mandates people’s right to freedom of political communication so they can make an informed vote.
Thanks TM for your informed comment. And onya Anne Twomey, always can be relied upon to give a balanced view on whether legislation meets the provisions of the Constitution.
Mind you, our Constitution remains outdated, like most others of the ‘Western world’. But sadly, we’ve a snowflakes change of changing it atm. Maybe we’ll have to wait till the Orange pustule has breathed his toxic effluvium wrecking the already debilitated USA … that is if we don’t join their conga line to the abyss.
Mark Gaetani explains in an article in Pearls and Irritations the role that advocacy from charities plays in our society. How when someone uses their service they get help, but when the charity continues to see and help many like that someone over and over again then it is evident that there is an underlying problem that our society needs to fix.
“At the Society, advocacy grows directly out of our charitable work.”
That is when charities’ advocacy comes into play, they can raise the alarm, lobby the government to take necessary action.
“Three years ago, the Albanese Government set out to rebuild its relationship with Australia’s vital not-for-profit sector. It commissioned the Not-for-profit Sector Development Blueprint, bringing together sector leaders, experts and community organisations to identify the reforms needed to strengthen one of Australia’s most important civic institutions.
The Blueprint recognised what charities have long known: advocacy is a legitimate and valuable public service. It acknowledged that charities strengthen democracy by bringing community experience into public policy discussions and helping decision-makers understand the realities facing everyday Australians on the ground.
The process was extensive. The recommendations were delivered. One of the conclusions was clear and widely supported: charities must be able to advocate on behalf of the people and communities they serve. Yet one of the most important reforms arising from that process remains unfinished.
The government asked the sector what reform was needed. The sector answered.
Detailed legislative proposals have now been developed by the Stronger Charities Alliance to provide greater certainty and protection for legitimate charity advocacy.
Yet the final step remains unfinished. Without legislative protection, charities remain vulnerable to the changing attitudes of governments and regulators. History has shown that goodwill alone is not enough. The ability of charities to advocate for the communities they serve should rest on law, not patronage.”
Almost a year ago, August 5th ’25, the Stronger Charities Alliance wrote to the relevant Labor ministers with the answer they wanted: “We write to urge your government to deliver on your promise and prioritise long-overdue reforms to protect the essential and vibrant democratic voices of the charity sector within the first year of the 48th parliament.
We are calling for the passage of reforms that will:
Recognise that advocacy benefits the public,
Prohibit government officers from restricting the voices of charities when they are receiving government funding, and
Require the merit-based and transparent appointment of the Commissioner of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC)
These reforms are simple to implement and budget-neutral and were also endorsed by the government-commissioned Not-For-Profit Sector Development Blueprint. Importantly, they would deliver meaningful protection for the democratic role of charities, ensuring we can continue to speak up on critical societal challenges without fear of political interference.”
So, Labor identifies a problem in the relationship between government and charities, that developed during the Coalition’s lost decade or earlier, commissions a blueprint, asks charities what they need, get the answer, then does nothing for almost a year.
Is this another case of Labor pretending to address a problem but not actually solving it? or is it to do with the electoral funding law changes as mentioned in this article? is Labor waiting on the High court challenge to its naked power grab?
The electoral funding laws that are the subject of this article are not defective, they do exactly what Labor and the Liberals have designed them to do, rig the system in their favour. They are designed to disadvantage Independents financially, advantage the two duopoly parties financially, add to their own funds, and suppress dissent yet again. As Amanda McKenzie says, they are an attack on democracy and truth in Australian politics.
As for the argument ‘don’t worry the High Court will reject them’, two points:
first, what does it say about the government when we have to hope we will be saved from the government by the High Court? Surely, that is bad governance.
Second, Labor is making a habit of passing unconstitutional legislation, is it after the impact of the bills having their effect during the time it takes the High Court to come to a decision about them?
Is Labor just churning out unconstitutional legislation to disadvantage and silence dissenters?
If you voted Labor ahead of more progressive alternatives in ’25, when you look at your grandchildren, do you think ‘Hah, I’d rather vote Labor into power than you know the truth.’