**The claim is PARTIALLY TRUE but significantly misleading in its framing.**
The $10,000 cap on political donations was indeed abolished in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) in February 2015 [1].
* * * *
The Electoral Act Amendment Bill passed the ACT Legislative Assembly with support from both ACT Labor and the Canberra Liberals, with only the ACT Greens voting against the changes [2].
However, the claim contains a critical omission: this was an ACT **territory-level** decision made by the ACT Legislative Assembly, not a decision by the federal Coalition Government.
The reform was part of a comprehensive package that included:
- Removing the $10,000 annual donation cap
- Increasing public funding from $2 to $8 per vote (approximately $1.6 million total for the 2016 election, up from $400,000 in 2012) [1]
- Implementing spending caps on election campaigns
- Maintaining disclosure requirements for donations over $1,000 [4]
**Critical jurisdictional error:** The claim implies this was a federal Coalition Government action, when it was actually an ACT territory-level decision.
The ACT has been governed by Labor since 2001, and the 2015 decision was supported by both ACT Labor and the Canberra Liberals [1][2].
**The trade-off mechanism:** The abolition of the donation cap was paired with:
- A fourfold increase in public funding to reduce reliance on private donations
- Spending caps to prevent an "arms race" between parties
- Maintained disclosure requirements for donations over $1,000
Attorney-General Simon Corbell stated the policy focused on "disclosure and transparency on who donates what" rather than caps [2].
**Bipartisan support:** Both major parties in the ACT supported this change.
Liberal leader Jeremy Hanson argued the package "struck a balance" and would stop the "arms race" on election spending [2].
**Greens opposition:** The ACT Greens, led by Shane Rattenbury, were the sole opponents, arguing the changes represented "an unjustifiable transfer of public wealth to the political class" [1].
It is generally considered a reputable, centrist-to-center-left news source with established journalistic standards [1].
**Assessment:** The Age article is factual and accurately reports the ACT Legislative Assembly's decision.
However, the original claim (from a Labor-aligned source) appears to have extracted this event and presented it misleadingly as a federal Coalition action, when it was actually a bipartisan territory-level decision in a Labor-governed jurisdiction.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
**Federal Labor position:** At the federal level, the Coalition maintained a disclosure threshold of approximately $15,200 (indexed).
* * * *
Labor actually campaigned for *stricter* donation limits, promising to lower the federal disclosure threshold to $1,000 - which would have made federal rules more restrictive than the ACT's $1,000 disclosure requirement [5].
**Queensland Labor actions:** In 2017, the Queensland Labor Government *reduced* the disclosure threshold from $13,000 to $1,000 and made the change retrospective, forcing the LNP to disclose donations made under the previous higher threshold [6].
This was stricter than the ACT approach.
**Victoria:** In 2018, the Victorian Labor Government implemented donation caps of $4,320 per election period and disclosure thresholds of $1,080 - significantly stricter than the ACT's approach [4].
**ACT context:** The ACT itself has been governed by Labor since 2001.
Framing this as a "Coalition" action is misleading when both ACT Labor and Canberra Liberals supported it.
**Policy rationale:** The change was part of a broader electoral reform package designed to:
1.
Maintain transparency through disclosure requirements
Supporters argued this would prevent the "arms race" mentality seen in other jurisdictions [2].
**Comparative context:** While the ACT removed its donation cap, other jurisdictions under Labor governments implemented stricter limits.
Federal Labor campaigned for lower disclosure thresholds than the Coalition maintained.
**The trade-off:** The ACT's approach prioritized reducing donation reliance through public funding over capping individual donations.
Whether this is "corrupt" or "reform" depends on perspective - the Greens opposed it as benefiting major parties, while Labor and Liberal argued it reduced overall donor influence.
**Key context:** This is not unique to the Coalition - it was a bipartisan ACT decision, and Labor governments elsewhere implemented different but comparable electoral finance reforms.
The claim implies this was a federal Coalition Government action when it was actually a bipartisan decision by the ACT Legislative Assembly (a Labor-governed territory since 2001).
Both ACT Labor and the Canberra Liberals supported the change as part of a broader electoral reform package that increased public funding and implemented spending caps.
Furthermore, Labor governments in other jurisdictions implemented different but significant donation limit reforms, suggesting this was a jurisdictional variation rather than a partisan pattern.
The claim implies this was a federal Coalition Government action when it was actually a bipartisan decision by the ACT Legislative Assembly (a Labor-governed territory since 2001).
Both ACT Labor and the Canberra Liberals supported the change as part of a broader electoral reform package that increased public funding and implemented spending caps.
Furthermore, Labor governments in other jurisdictions implemented different but significant donation limit reforms, suggesting this was a jurisdictional variation rather than a partisan pattern.