Independent Weatherill Government ministers Martin Hamilton-Smith and Geoff Brock currently have no obligation to publicly disclose any campaign donations they receive.

The glaring loophole in South Australia’s political financing regime will be nominally closed from July, when amendments to the Electoral Act, relating to funding, expenditure and disclosure, come into force.

The amendment was introduced in response to the rise of so-called micro-parties through strategic preference deals in the 2013 federal election, but it will also impose new reporting requirements on independents already sitting in parliament.

But just how robust those requirements will be remains unclear. InDaily was given markedly varying interpretations of the act by Attorney-General John Rau and the state electoral commission.

Outgoing electoral commissioner Kay Mousley described the disclosure regime as it applies to independents as “quite messy”.

But while the incoming law may be clear as mud, it replaces a regime that is non-existent.

According to Rau, there is currently “no state regime in respect of disclosure”.

A 2012 federal parliamentary research paper into campaign financing explains that the 1985 SA Electoral Act “contains no provisions for funding and disclosure”.

Instead, the state regime piggy-backed on federal guidelines; but that left a significant loophole.

“Political donation disclosure limits in SA apply to federally-registered political parties and candidates only,” the paper explained.

“Independents and parties registered only at state level do not have to disclose any donations received.”

From July, that loophole will be closed, to a point.

“All MPs will be required to make appropriate disclosure of their donations,” Rau told InDaily.

“All I can say is as far as I’m concerned, each member of the parliament will be required to make disclosure of donations in exactly the same way – everyone will be equally transparent.”

But a briefing from the Electoral Commission suggests a different story.

While registered parties will be obliged to declare donations above $5000 every six months from July, independents currently sitting in parliament will not have to do so until just before the next state election – in January 2018.

Furthermore, they will only have to declare donations received after the laws come into effect in July 2015.

And if they decide not to stand for re-election, they have no disclosure obligations at all.

That’s despite Hamilton-Smith – whose portfolio responsibilities include Defence Industries and Veterans’ Affairs – having sought campaign funds since his defection to the Weatherill Government. He briefed the Waite Industry Leaders’ Club at a meeting last year at the CBD’s Naval and Military Club, telling InDaily at the time: “I have raised a lot of funds for the Liberal Party over the years using my business connections … I’m having informal discussions to explain my decision.”

Independent minister Geoff Brock.

InDaily revealed earlier this month that a prominent veteran who publicly defended the Government’s planned closure of the Repatriation General Hospital is the husband of Hamilton-Smith’s fundraiser, Denise Rowe.

Hamilton-Smith did not return calls from InDaily, but in response to a series of emailed questions his office sent the following statement:

“The same cabinet and parliamentary rules on disclosure of interests apply to independent MPs as they do to all Ministers and Members.

“Any legislative requirements  past or proposed regarding donations are and will continue to be adhered to.”

Geoff Brock did not respond to requests for comment before deadline.

Labor sources have told InDaily that it was now-retired Liberal MP Iain Evans who insisted in discussions back in 2013 that the amendments should address the issue of independent MPs’ campaign donations. It’s understood this was fuelled by discontent about the likes of Karlene Maywald and Rory McEwen having no disclosure obligations despite serving for several years in the Rann cabinet. Ironically, though, Evans could not have foreseen that the resulting law would be later applied to his great nemesis, Hamilton-Smith.

“I’ve always held the view that independents should be treated no differently to parties in regards to campaign donation disclosures, because independents can be Speakers, they can be ministers,” Evans told InDaily.

“All MPs deserve to be held to the same standard.”

Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, who was not covered by reporting requirements during his time in the state Legislative Council, agrees.

“As a principle, the rules that apply to major parties should apply to independents in relation to transparency,” he said.

“It’s as simple as that.”