GetUp says the Turnbull government needs to address concerns that business is wielding too much influence in Australian politics rather than blaming the rise of activist groups for its poor performance at the federal election.



GetUp’s national director, Paul Oosting, said on Thursday the government had flagged an intention to potentially regulate the activities of third-party groups, but had “failed to explain what an activist group is, or set out any specific regulatory proposals”.

Oosting’s comments follow the special minister of state, Scott Ryan, declaring that any overhaul of the rules regulating donations and disclosure for political parties must also consider the role of activist groups, such as GetUp, otherwise reform would create an uneven playing field, and not serve the public interest.

Ryan told Guardian Australia in an interview: “There’s no point regulating political parties to within an inch of their life, and then saying it’s a free-for-all elsewhere.”

GetUp released polling on Thursday evening showing 71% of a ReachTel sample of 2,126 residents wanted a cap on donations for political parties.

A strong majority of respondents – 85% – supported monthly disclosure of donations to political parties, while 68% supported a ban on politicians and parties accepting donations from foreign citizens and companies.

A majority of respondents – 67.4% – thought big business had too much influence in Australian politics.

Oosting said Ryan’s comments about the influence of third-party activists were “merely an attempted diversion from the poor election performance”.

“Any power our movement has comes from the thousands of GetUp members who have conversations with voters on issues they care about,” he said.

“Our campaigns are driven by our members, hundreds of thousands of people who give what they can because they are concerned that the decisions politicians make do not address their concerns.”

The government has not yet specified what if any action it might take to regulate the role of third-party activists in Australian politics, or what defines a third-party activist for the purposes of participation in politics or in campaigns.

The Canadian government restricts campaigns by third-party groups during election seasons.

Under electoral law in Canada, third-party activist groups are permitted to spend what they like on advertising before the start of an election campaign but, once the writs are issued, spending is capped, which works to limit the influence of these groups.

Ryan has sent a reference to the joint standing committee on electoral matters asking the committee to canvass options for reform of the donations and disclosure system in the wake of controversy that erupted over a decision by the Labor senator Sam Dastyari to ask a Chinese businessman to cover a travel overspend.

The inquiry will examine the options available to parliament to ensure consistent application of disclosure rules to, and the regulation of, all entities undertaking campaign activities – not just political parties.



The committee has been asked to assess the extent of donations and contributions “from foreign sources, persons, entities and foreign-owned subsidiaries to political parties, associated entities and other third parties and entities undertaking campaign activities” – and present options to regulate these contributions.

The reference on donations more broadly is wide ranging. The committee will be required to look at the current level of donations, contributions and campaign expenditure, examine the disclosure regime, consider whether the disclosure rules are timely enough, and canvas “alternative approaches available to parliament”.

On Thursday, delivering a campaign wash-up at the National Press Club, the Liberal party’s federal director Tony Nutt said when it came to campaign finance reform, wise people hastened slowly.

“I think this whole issue needs to be examined very thoughtfully. First rule of campaign finance reform, don’t make any new error. Second rule of campaign finance reform, watch out for lots of unintended consequences,” Nutt said Thursday. “The US is a graveyard of well-intended campaign finance reform that winds up with hugely unhelpful developments.”

Nutt said it would be hard to ban foreign donations to political parties given some of the potential donors would be dual citizens.

“Are citizens who have houses and businesses and activities in Australia, family in Australia but also in, for instance, some other countries, China, other parts of Asia, Europe, America – are they permitted as citizens to make donations or not and if they’re not going to be permitted to make donations, what’s the legal basis on which they’re going to be prohibited from making donations?”

“We need to work through these issues very carefully, look at them through the joint standing committee, examine if there is a harm that needs to be dealt with – because sometimes in campaign finance reform it’s outrage in search of evidence.”