Experts across the country have long called for stronger, more consistent political donations laws. Yet in many states, and at a federal level, such change remains elusive. So when South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas announced his government would move to ban donations altogether, it felt like a breakthrough moment.

But even in the initial selling of the policy, Malinauskas set about controlling expectations. While labelling it “world-leading”, he flagged that any law reform like this would probably be challenged in the High Court. So would it survive such legal scrutiny?

As constitutional law expert Anne Twomey explains, the South Australian proposal has some major flaws. One is the significant power it would give to third-party campaigners such as unions and business lobby groups, as their ability to raise and spend money would continue unencumbered. Another is how the proposed model would favour incumbent parties and MPs.

“Why does this matter? First, because a healthy democracy needs to accommodate newcomers, competition and disruption. A law that protects and supports existing parties only is likely to result in political stagnation and the loss of public engagement in politics,” Twomey writes.

She points out that this legislation is a good chance to experiment on a state level in the hope the federal government could learn something. It seems this is Malinauskas’ approach too. He told the ABC that while a legal challenge might be waiting in the wings, “that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give it a red hot try, because what if we succeed?”

And while we’re on the subject of donations and democracy, we need your support to help fund our unique model of journalism. We hope in turn that our content helps our readers make better decisions in all areas of life, whether it’s the ballot box, the bank, the school or the supermarket. So please consider making a contribution.

​Contact us here to list your job, or here to list your event, course or podcast.

For sponsorship opportunities, email us here