The special minister of state, Scott Ryan, has declared any overhaul of the rules regulating donations and disclosure for political parties must also consider the role of activist groups, such as GetUp, otherwise reforms would create an uneven playing field, and not serve the public interest.

In an interview with Guardian Australia, Ryan argued the big change in the past decade in Australian politics had been the rise of pressure groups capable of influencing election outcomes, and he argued it would be unreasonable to look at political parties in isolation.

Ryan’s comments about third-party influence come before an election campaign post-mortem on Thursday at the National Press Club by the Liberal party’s federal director, Tony Nutt.

The Coalition has been spooked during the most recent federal election by the extensive field operation rolled out by Labor, the trade union movement and also the marginal seats operation of progressive groups such as GetUp – campaigns which are said to have had a significant impact in states such as Tasmania, where the government lost several seats.

Internal recriminations about the lack of an effective field operation spilled into the public domain immediately after the election on 2 July.

“People rightly focus on political parties and the disclosure of donations, but I think one of the big changes that’s happened in the last decade is the growing role, activity and influence of third parties and single-issue groups,” Ryan told Guardian Australia.

“They aren’t subject to the same regimes political parties are, yet it is clear they can have a political impact,” he said.

“I make no judgment on whether that is, necessarily, a good or a bad thing, but the point I’m making is if you are looking at the regulatory regimes and at financial contributions you need to look at donations, contributions such as the affiliation fees that unions pay to Labor, and you also need to look at the third-party or single-issue group activity because they are also funded by contributions and donations – and they have a big political impact.”

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

“Political parties are actually an important institution because they act to diffuse the influence of any one person, whether it be political influence, or a financial contribution influence.”

“One of the observations that I would make about what’s happened in the United States is there are very strong regulations on political parties ... the difference between the regulatory model imposed ... has, in relative terms, empowered third-party movements.”

He said his comments did not mean the government would move ultimately to regulate third parties, but “any difference between the two doesn’t serve the interests of the broader polity”.

Ryan has recently 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.

In a wide-ranging interview on the subject of donations reform, Ryan said:

He saw no problem with the current threshold at which political donations are publicly declared, but signalled he was prepared to consider changes facilitating more continuous disclosure of contributions, noting: “I think technology may be able to facilitate a different regime to the one put in place more than a decade ago”;



He had not seen evidence making a compelling case for establishing a federal integrity body, like an independent commission against corruption. “No one has put to me that we have a systemic problem that requires such a commission to be established”;



He said there was plenty of oversight of fundraising activity at the federal level, from the Australian Electoral Commission to the Australian National Audit Office to Senate estimates processes to the federal parliamentary press gallery. “There is a much larger press gallery [than exists at the state level] which is quite rightly focused on probity and other issues – I think at the commonwealth level there are a whole range of institutions that provide a very high degree, quite rightly, of scrutiny”;



He played down the chances of achieving a reform where donations to political parties would be limited to people who are on the electoral roll. Ryan said when the prime minister recently flagged that as a personal preference, he also pointed to constitutional difficulties associated with limiting the scope of groups to participate in the political process: “That needs to be taken into account”.



Going into the process of the new inquiry, Ryan said he had asked the committee to examine alternative regulatory regimes, including overseas models, and to consider past reports, including green papers of fundraising produced during the period of the Rudd government.



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.

Canadian activist groups have to register once they have run up election advertising expenses over $500 and the campaigns have to clearly identify the activist group and the state that has authorised the expenditure.

Ryan didn’t want to express views about specifics before the investigation by the joint committee, but he said it had been given a broad brief in order to consider the various alternatives and “all options should be considered”.

The committee will also examine uncapped tax deductibility that is extended to some activist organisations.

“But my starting point, rather like the high court’s, is you’ve got to establish a good reason to limit speech and political communication,” he said.