It describes changes in other jurisdictions as "rushed, self-interested and poorly justified".
The Australia Institute submission also warns that rules on early voting, roadside election signage and a 100-metre exclusion zone for handing out how-to-vote cards could undermine election day as a "festival of democracy" in the very heart of the nation's democracy.
Research shows that a "reimbursement" model for public funding, as recommended by the ACT Electoral Commission, would favour wealthy incumbents at the expense of new entrants.
Key findings:
- The ACT should not follow the electoral changes in the Commonwealth and South Australian governments.
- Rules around early voting, limits on roadside signs and exclusion zones could undermine election day as a "festival of democracy".
- At their first electoral test, the ACT's Truth In Political Advertising laws performed well - but more information on how they were applied would be useful.
- Independents ran lean campaigns, relative to their public support. The Labor Party spent the most per vote won, followed by the Liberals, Family First and Greens.
- If the ACT were to adopt a "reimbursement" model for public funding, it would punish parties whose supporters are poorer and less able to donate, and reward parties that spend a lot of money per vote won.
"The ACT was the second place in Australia to adopt truth in political advertising laws, and their successful application at this election is yet more evidence that they work well," said Bill Browne, Director of the Australia Institute's Democracy & Accountability Program.
"Over the past year, the federal and South Australian governments have rushed to change electoral laws to favour major parties and incumbents. The ACT has a very good electoral system overall and does not need to import donation caps and public funding models that further skew the playing field.
"The ACT's model of taxpayer funding for political parties and candidates is already unfair to new entrants like independents and minor parties.
"Switching to a reimbursement model would reward wealthy, established parties that spend a lot of money per vote won and punish newer candidates and those whose supporters cannot afford to make political donations.
"The major political parties spent far more per vote won than either Independents for Canberra or Fiona Carrick. A reimbursement model would mean a vote for an independent is worth less taxpayer funding than a voter for a major party.
"A democracy voucher model for public funding, like that used in the City of Seattle, would treat incumbents and challengers fairly, and give voters the power to distribute taxpayer funding."
