This private senator’s bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to link political donations to Commonwealth procurement, grant and approval activity. It stops corporations (and defined close associates) from giving gifts above the disclosure threshold to political entities associated with the governing party while they are engaged in Commonwealth procurement/grant/approval processes, and it stops corporations from applying for or entering into Commonwealth arrangements for a 12‑month period after making such a donation.
The package is an integrity measure with teeth: it creates civil and criminal penalties, empowers the Electoral Commissioner to tackle schemes designed to evade the rules, and makes contracts or approvals void or revocable if they conflict with the new prohibitions. Firms that bid for Commonwealth money, their directors, significant shareholders and retained lobbyists will need new compliance and donation controls; procurement and grant officers should expect new grounds for contract challenge and recovery actions by the Commonwealth.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts new sections (302J–302L) into the Electoral Act that (a) prohibit gifts above the disclosure threshold from certain corporate donors to political entities tied to the federal government while those donors are engaged in procurement or grant processes, and (b) impose a 12‑month bar on corporations applying for or entering arrangements after making such a gift. It also adds an anti‑avoidance power for the Electoral Commissioner and links definitions to the Commonwealth Grants and Procurement Rules.
Who It Affects
Corporations that tender for Commonwealth contracts, participate on standing offers (including legal services panels), apply for Commonwealth grants or seek approvals under prescribed Commonwealth laws; their directors, officers, >20% shareholders, spouses and externally engaged lobbyists (all defined as close associates); and political entities and associated entities whose related federal party is in government.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts how businesses schedule donations and procurement activity: firms must reconcile political contribution decisions with procurement and grant timelines or face voided arrangements and significant penalties. For procurement and legal teams, the change raises compliance, contract‑management and reputational risks; for the public it signals an attempt to reduce perceived pay‑to‑play.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill tightens the connection between political donations and Commonwealth spending or approvals. It creates a category of "prohibited donor"—a corporation (or its close associates) that has submitted to a tender, is party to a standing offer, applied for a grant, or sought an approval, licence or permit under certain Commonwealth laws.
From the day those actions occur (or, for contracts, the day the corporation becomes a party), the corporation becomes subject to the new restrictions.
A "prohibited gift recipient" is a political entity or associated entity when its related federal political party is in government. The law stops prohibited donors (and their close associates) from making gifts at or above the disclosure threshold, or cumulative gifts meeting that threshold over 12 months, to those recipients.
Separately, if a corporation makes such a gift it is barred for 12 months from submitting tenders, applying for grants, or entering into arrangements (including standing offers) and from seeking specified approvals.Enforcement combines civil penalties and criminal exposure. The bill sets a civil penalty that is the greater of 200 penalty units or, if the court can estimate it, three times the gift’s value; a similar formula applies for civil liability after an anti‑avoidance notice.
The Electoral Commissioner can issue written anti‑avoidance notices where there are reasonable grounds to suspect schemes to split or recharacterise gifts to evade the regime; ignoring such a notice can trigger a 200 penalty unit criminal sanction and corresponding civil penalties. Contracts and approvals entered into in breach are void or revocable, and the Commonwealth can recover funds paid under those arrangements as a debt.Definitions matter: "close associate" explicitly includes related bodies corporate, directors and officers, persons with more than 20% voting power, spouses of those persons, and lobbyists engaged to lobby on the corporation’s behalf.
The text ties the procurement and grants references to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines and identifies the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 as an example of a prescribed law; the Finance Minister may add others. The new sections apply to gifts made on or after commencement.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A corporation becomes a "prohibited donor" the day it submits to a limited/open tender, becomes party to a standing offer, submits a grant application, or applies for a prescribed Commonwealth approval; the restriction period starts from that day (or from notification of outcome in some cases).
The blackout is 12 months: if a corporation or its close associate makes a reportable gift at or above the disclosure threshold (or cumulative gifts reach that threshold within 12 months), the corporation is barred from tendering, applying for grants, entering arrangements or seeking prescribed approvals for 12 months from the day the gift is made.
The bill defines "close associate" to include related bodies corporate, directors/officers, anyone holding >20% voting power, spouses of those persons and lobbyists engaged to lobby on the corporation’s behalf—bringing both internal and external actors into the prohibition net.
Breaches attract heavy financial consequences: a civil penalty is the higher of 200 penalty units or three times the known or estimated gift value; arrangements and approvals entered into in breach are void or revoked and the Commonwealth may recover paid amounts as a debt.
The Electoral Commissioner can serve anti‑avoidance notices on persons who enter schemes to circumvent the rules; issuing such a notice is a reviewable decision, and deliberate non‑compliance with the notice can trigger a 200 penalty unit criminal penalty plus civil penalties.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Make anti‑avoidance notices reviewable
The amendment updates the Act's review table to ensure that certain decisions created by the new anti‑avoidance provision are reviewable. Practically, that means recipients of an anti‑avoidance notice from the Electoral Commissioner can seek merits review under the Act—an important procedural protection that also channels disputes into the tribunal/court system rather than leaving enforcement solely to administrative fiat.
Reciprocal ban: gifts vis‑à‑vis applications and approvals
Section 302A receives an addition that establishes a two‑way control: corporations and their close associates must not make gifts over the disclosure threshold to specified political recipients for 12 months after applying for Commonwealth money or approvals; conversely, a corporation must not apply for or enter into Commonwealth money arrangements or approvals for 12 months after it—or a close associate—has made such a gift. This creates timing risks for both donations and procurement stages and forces coordination between corporate governance and bid/grants teams.
Who counts as a donor and which rules apply
The bill inserts a compact set of definitions that matter for application and enforcement: it ties 'corporation', 'director', 'officer', 'related body corporate' and 'voting power' to the Corporations Act, and imports the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Commonwealth Procurement Rules by reference. Critically it lists who is a close associate (including lobbyists engaged to lobby), which expands the group subject to restrictions beyond the legal entity itself.
Triggers and scope for prohibited donor and prohibited gift recipient
These provisions spell out how and when a corporation becomes and stops being a prohibited donor (for example, ceasing 12 months after notification of grant contract outcomes or the day after ceasing to be party to a standing offer). They also define 'prohibited gift recipient' as political entities or associated entities when their related federal party is in government, and clarify that coalition partners count as in government—so the rule activates only when the related federal party holds government power.
Policy purpose made explicit
The bill revises the Division’s objects to make its dual purpose clear: reduce foreign influence risks and reduce the risk (and appearance) that corporations exert influence over awarding of Commonwealth money or approvals. This framing clarifies enforcement intent and helps administrative officers interpret ambiguous cases through the lens of preventing undue or perceived improper influence.
Operational prohibitions, voiding and recovery
Section 302J criminalises gifts by prohibited donors above the disclosure threshold to prohibited gift recipients and attaches a civil penalty that is either 200 penalty units or, if the court can estimate it, three times the gift’s value; it also makes arrangements or approvals that led to prohibited donor status void or revocable and allows recovery of funds paid. Section 302K flips the timing—if a gift is made, a corporation is barred for 12 months from submitting tenders, applying for grants, entering arrangements or seeking certain approvals; entering into such arrangements in breach is void and subject to recovery.
Electoral Commissioner anti‑avoidance power and penalties
This section gives the Electoral Commissioner power to issue written notices where there are reasonable grounds to think a person or entity has entered a scheme to avoid the prohibitions (for example, splitting contributions or using intermediaries). The notice must describe the scheme and require cessation; non‑compliance can attract a 200 penalty unit criminal penalty and corresponding civil liability. Important procedural protections are included: the decision to issue a notice is reviewable under the Act.
Temporal scope
The new prohibitions apply to gifts made on or after commencement of the item, so the regime is forward‑looking. That limits retroactivity risk and means compliance planning addresses future donations and procurement activity from commencement date onward.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Elections across all five countries.
Explore Elections in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal procurement competitors that do not make political donations — they gain a clearer separation between political giving and procurement activity, reducing perceived pay‑to‑play advantages for rivals who donate.
- Electoral integrity and transparency advocates — the bill gives them statutory tools (voiding, recovery and anti‑avoidance notices) to address suspected influence tied to procurement and grants.
- Commonwealth agencies and procurement officers — the law supplies an additional legal basis to decline or unwind awards linked to disallowed donation activity, supporting administrative enforcement of impartial procurement.
Who Bears the Cost
- Corporations that bid for Commonwealth contracts, participate on standing offers (including legal panels), or apply for grants — they must design donation policies and timing controls and may lose or have to return awards if they breach the blackout.
- Directors, major shareholders and engaged lobbyists defined as close associates — these individuals face increased compliance exposure because their conduct can create prohibited donor status for the corporation.
- Commonwealth agencies and contractors providing ongoing services — voiding or revoking arrangements creates operational disruption and legal exposure; agencies may need to manage service gaps while funds are recovered or contracts reprocured.
- Electoral Commission and courts — enforcement of anti‑avoidance notices and civil recovery actions will increase administrative and litigation workloads, requiring resources and interpretive guidance.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between insulating Commonwealth spending and approvals from the appearance of political influence and preserving political freedom and commercial certainty: a strict timing blackout and broad associate definition reduce perceived corruption risk, but they also restrict lawful political participation and create contractual instability that can disrupt services and raise compliance costs for firms and government alike.
The bill trades off two legitimate objectives—preventing undue political influence tied to Commonwealth money and maintaining commercial and political freedoms—by imposing a timing‑based blackout that can produce practical and legal friction. The definition of "close associate" is broad (it sweeps in internal actors, >20% shareholders, spouses and retained lobbyists), which increases compliance burden and creates factual questions about whether a particular transfer or contact was motivated by procurement objectives.
Proving that a gift was made in breach requires establishing the donor’s status at the relevant time, accurately measuring gift values against the disclosure threshold (including cumulative gifts within 12 months), and connecting timing to tender/grant/approval activity. Those factual assessments will generate disputes and litigation.
Voiding or revoking arrangements is an aggressive enforcement tool that protects integrity but risks service disruption and costly legal challenges, especially for multi‑year contracts or arrangements awarded in good faith where the government later alleges a prohibited status existed at award. The anti‑avoidance notice power is operationally useful but depends on the Commissioner reaching reasonable grounds; recipients can seek review, so implementation will turn on administrative practice and judicial review standards.
Finally, the linkage to Commonwealth Procurement/Grants Rules and to prescribed laws (e.g., EPBC) means this electoral regime overlaps with other statutory frameworks, raising coordination issues between agencies and potential gaps where state or non‑prescribed approvals sit outside the rule.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.