**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.
* * * * 評估 píng gū : : * * * * The The Age Age 的 de 報導 bào dǎo 屬實 shǔ shí , , 準確 zhǔn què 報導 bào dǎo 了 le ACT ACT 立法 lì fǎ 議會 yì huì 的 de 決定 jué dìng 。 。
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.
將此 jiāng cǐ 呈 chéng 現為 xiàn wèi Coalition Coalition 特有 tè yǒu 的 de 「 「 腐敗 fǔ bài 」 」 問題 wèn tí , , 忽視 hū shì 了 le 該 gāi 決定 jué dìng 的 de 兩黨 liǎng dǎng 共同性 gòng tóng xìng 質 zhì 以及 yǐ jí ACT ACT 由 yóu Labor Labor 執政 zhí zhèng 的 de 事實 shì shí 。 。
Presenting this as a Coalition-specific "corruption" issue ignores the bipartisan nature of the decision and the Labor governance of the ACT.
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.
將此 jiāng cǐ 呈 chéng 現為 xiàn wèi Coalition Coalition 特有 tè yǒu 的 de 「 「 腐敗 fǔ bài 」 」 問題 wèn tí , , 忽視 hū shì 了 le 該 gāi 決定 jué dìng 的 de 兩黨 liǎng dǎng 共同性 gòng tóng xìng 質 zhì 以及 yǐ jí ACT ACT 由 yóu Labor Labor 執政 zhí zhèng 的 de 事實 shì shí 。 。
Presenting this as a Coalition-specific "corruption" issue ignores the bipartisan nature of the decision and the Labor governance of the ACT.
Furthermore, Labor governments in other jurisdictions implemented different but significant donation limit reforms, suggesting this was a jurisdictional variation rather than a partisan pattern.