- Exclusive
- Politics
- Federal
- Political donations
Clive Palmer plots High Court challenge to keep spending millions on election ads
By Paul Sakkal
Mining billionaire Clive Palmer is actively considering a High Court challenge to Labor laws that would limit the amount of money a donor can give to a political party.
A spokesman for the one-time federal MP said he was “absolutely considering a legal challenge”.
Clive Palmer’s business gave $117 million to the United Australian Party before the last election.Credit: Scott McNaughton
Labor has cited Palmer’s donations, including $117 million to the United Australia Party before the last federal election, as grounds for its move to clamp down on money in politics. The move has been backed by many civil society groups and will mirror changes in parts of Europe and Canada.
Under the proposed changes, an individual, company or third-party group who could currently contribute an unlimited amount to a campaign would be banned from giving large sums to parties. The government has not yet landed on a precise figure for the cap, but it is likely to be in the tens of thousands of dollars.
In response to a report in this masthead on Labor’s plan, Palmer, who previously claimed his $60 million spend on the 2019 election was “worth it” to keep then-Labor leader Bill Shorten out of office, said it would harm the political process.
“Limiting the flow of ideas reduces people’s ability to choose,” he said in a written statement. “It is worrying that Labor wants to silence the diversity of ideas in this country. Advertising allows all political parties to express their ideas.”
Palmer’s litigious nature previously has put him at the centre of several high-profile legal suits against state and federal governments.
In 2019, the High Court unanimously struck down a NSW law that halved the amount third-party groups such as unions could spend on state election campaigns from $1.05 million to $500,000, determining that it breached the implied freedom of political communication.
More recently, the High Court decided a $20,000 cap on electoral spending for byelections was unconstitutional for the same reason.
While the Australian Constitution does not expressly protect freedom of expression, the High Court has on multiple occasions since 1992 held that implied freedom of political communication was an inherent part of Australia’s system of representative government.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese faces tricky talks with crossbenchers over the campaign finance rules.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
The Albanese government is aware that a cap on donations or seat-by-seat spending could lead to a High Court challenge. Because of that threat, the federal donation cap, which will be revealed through legislation in coming months, will likely be higher than the cap that exists in states such as Victoria, where donations must be smaller than $4700.
Special Minister of State Don Farrell is aiming for bipartisan support for his overhaul of Australian campaign finance rules. But teal independent MPs, who were backed by $13 million in donations from the Climate 200 fundraising body, and the Greens, whose big spending in target seats could become unlawful, have expressed concerns.
Goldstein independent MP Zoe Daniel, elected in the teal wave of 2022, said she supported a lowering of the threshold for revealing donors’ identity and real-time disclosure, both of which Labor supports. However, she stopped short of backing caps on donations and election spending.
“I am suspicious that the major parties are dressing this up as electoral reform when their real goal is to shore up their duopoly when their support continues to decline and more and more voters see independents as representing their real interests,” she said.
“This smells like an attempt to lock out newcomers and tilt the playing field in favour of the major parties.”
North Sydney independent MP Kylea Tink said Labor’s decision to pursue greater transparency on election funding was evidence of the growing influence of the integrity-minded crossbench.
Tink welcomed the proposed changes but wanted to make sure independent candidates were not disadvantaged. She said any cap on spending in individual seats could advantage a major party running a national campaign because, for example, spending on a TV ad may not be captured in a seat-specific cap even though voters in that seat may see the ad.
“It’ll be about making sure it’s still possible for independents to get up,” Tink said.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.