Graeme Orr

It is 40 years since the Hawke government begat the regime that still essentially governs the funding of campaigns for Commonwealth elections.  That regime remains at rest on twin pillars. Public funding, for parties or candidates that attract above 4% of the vote, in return for some disclosure requirements – whose lack of timeliness is redolent of the paper-and-pen era in which they were hatched.  Whether in an absolute sense, or relative to our usual democratic comparators, the electoral funding and disclosure rules in the Commonwealth Electoral Act remain lax. This state of affairs may align with liberal philosophy in the abstract. But it is not merely passé in terms of developments in the field in the last 40 years; it is corrosive of faith in integrity and political equality in Australian elections.

With a Labor government ostensibly driven by social democratic norms, and an expansive cross-bench of Greens and independents committed in principle to more fairness in electoral participation, what are the prospects for renewal? To discuss this, we need to consider the main dishes on the regulatory menu: disclosure, donation caps, expenditure limits. Then, finally, to ask if reform is imminent after all these years.

Julie Falck, Jessica Kerr and Marco Rizzi

This is a story about the edges of the law and the limits of accountability. It involves some of the most stringent public health measures ever imposed by an Australian government at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Those measures are no longer in force and, in the eyes of the Western Australian (WA) Government, they are accordingly no longer of interest to the public. They have effectively disappeared from public view. The effort required for three academic lawyers to find them, during the submission period for an ongoing independent review of the Government’s pandemic response, was alarming. This post offers a snapshot of how this issue has evolved in WA, and where we stand in 2023.

Craig Lenehan

Kate Griffiths

During the 2022 federal election campaign, then-Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese promised Australians a new kind of politics: one that would regain respect from the people. Australians backed this new politics – not only in their support for a new government, but also for a wave of ‘Teal’ candidates who put integrity front and centre in their campaigns.

Now, almost a year into the job, the Albanese Government faces a test of this commitment to new politics.

Josh Gibson

On 15 February 2023, the High Court (the Court) delivered its judgment in Unions NSW v New South Wales [2023] HCA 4 (Unions NSW). Unions NSW was brought by way of special case in the original jurisdiction of the Court. Two key provisions of the Electoral Funding Act 2018 (NSW) (the EF Act), sections 29(11) and 35, were challenged on the ground they impermissibly burdened the implied freedom of communication (the implied freedom). Two weeks before the hearing of Unions NSW, the New South Wales (NSW) Parliament passed the Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, which repealed section 35 of the EF Act. This raised significant questions about whether a plaintiff retains standing to challenge a provision if that provision is repealed after the case commences.