Email asks members to take daily action until Labor decides its position on bill

This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

Labor is the target of a new campaign by GetUp to persuade it to oppose the proposed ban on foreign donations and other electoral law changes, in what the progressive campaigning body is calling the “biggest week-long campaign” in its history.

In a mass email on Monday evening, GetUp asked its members to take one 15-minute action a day until the opposition determines its position on the electoral funding and disclosure bill early next week.

The bill, introduced by the Coalition in December, would ban foreign political donations but is opposed by GetUp, charities, the Greens and the Institute of Public Affairs because it will increase red tape including requiring statutory declarations to check the identity of donors and for charities to keep foreign donations separately so they are not spent on advocacy.

Mathias Cormann concedes Coalition may have to change foreign donations ban Read more

GetUp would also be affected by a change in the definition of “associated entities” that would make it more likely to be defined as a related body of Labor and the Greens.

Labor’s charities spokesman, Andrew Leigh, and the deputy chair of the electoral matters committee, Andrew Giles, have sounded the alarm over the changes but the party has not decided whether to seek amendment or oppose the bill in full.

While the Greens have announced their total opposition, Labor is still torn about whether it can risk thwarting the foreign political donation ban in an effort to block the less palatable parts of the bill.

In its email, GetUp labelled the bill an attack from the “hard-right” on “Australians’ collective right to have a voice in our democracy”.

“If the attack bill passes parliament, it’d gut civil society and entrench the power of massive multinationals in our politics — at the expense of our democratic rights,” it said.

“The fate of civil society — and the GetUp movement — hangs on Labor’s decision.”



GetUp has called on its members to contact every Labor MP and senator, starting with a letter-writing campaign, to express concern about the bill.

In February, Leigh told the lower house that “banning donations to political parties should not include curtailing free speech”, warning that the bill conflates political campaigning by parties and issues advocacy by charities.

Giles has accused the Turnbull government of a “single-minded determination to get GetUp” and said the associated entities changes were “completely at odds with the ostensible purpose” of the bill to reduce foreign interference.

Tim Costello compares Coalition's foreign donation ban to Putin's crackdown on dissent Read more

On Monday the shadow special minister of state, Don Farrell, said that Labor was committed to preventing “improper influence from overseas” but is “concerned that the government has overreached with its legislation”.

“Labor will not let the government silence legitimate political debate.”

But, short of promising to oppose it in full, Farrell said Labor would “work with the government to find a sensible way to ban foreign donations, without selling out charitable organisations that do incredibly important work in our community”.

By contrast, Shorten came out hard against changes in foreign espionage and secrecy legislation, which prompted a Coalition backdown and promise to bolster defences for handling and publishing security information in the public interest.

In January the special minister of state, Mathias Cormann, said the bill aimed “to ensure all organisations involved in relevant political expenditure and activity are subject to the same transparency, disclosure and reporting requirements”.

He said the bill “clarified an ambiguity” about the meaning of associated entities operating for the benefit of a political party but said this did not amount to an extension of scope.

“GetUp is plainly a political campaigning organisation engaged in political activity and incurring political expenditure,” Cormann said, adding it was “entirely appropriate” it be subject to the same disclosure requirements as other political actors.