This new donations bill will starve small parties and independents of the cash they need to compete while fattening up the coffers of the big players.
This new donations bill will starve small parties and independents of the cash they need to compete while fattening up the coffers of the big players.
Opinion
February 4, 2025 — 2.30pm
Labor and the Coalition are about to launch the biggest attack on our democracy we’ve seen. It will undermine the ability of independent candidates to run and win.
Early money is like yeast – it makes the dough rise, as anyone will tell you. This new donations bill will starve independents of the cash they need to compete while fattening up the coffers of the major parties. That is the entire purpose.
On Monday afternoon, in Don Farrell’s office in Parliament House, WA community independent Kate Chaney was giving the Special Minister of State a piece of her fine mind, on behalf of all of us. The subject of the meeting? Proposed changes to political donations the duopoly is trying to push through this year. When I say this year, I mean any minute. This Thursday. Kill me.
Imagine Woolworths and Coles deciding what supermarkets we get to shop at. We’d never get the excellent $7-a-pack dishwasher tablets from Aldi if the two chains were in control. We’d be forced into a $1-per-tablet against our will for the betterment of supermarket profits.
The teals and other independents provide choice beyond party. They get nominated by their community after a candidate search. It’s complicated. Lotta talking, chatting, negotiating – the will of the involved electorate. These changes will make that much harder because it takes money to get elected: advertising, campaigning, T-shirts, it all works together. It all costs. Why? The parties have a slush fund, generated by the money they get back for each vote. That works to support the duopoly because money is shared across seats.
If you vote for Liberal, Nationals, Labor, the Australian Electoral Commission rebates just under $3.40 for each vote. Do you think the parties spend equivalently across seats? Haha. Nope. Pouring that damn money into marginals. The independents, in the meantime, don’t have the cross-seat slush fund. And this bill wants to increase that money to $5 per vote.
You don’t spend your precious time looking at the results of various parliamentary inquiries, but I looked at the notes from the probe into the conduct of the 2022 federal election. What did I find? Chaney’s list of all the ways parties are blessed by the current set-up. Here are some: existing office space and equipment, tax deductibility of donations, exemptions from data protection and spamming laws (God, that needs to change). That’s just some. Incumbents get benefits too.
It’s a miracle indies get anywhere, really.
Loading
Advertisement
How is it going down so far? Labor says it is negotiating widely with the crossbench and close to a deal. If that was the case, surely that would have happened over the long break from sitting weeks.
Independent senator for the ACT David Pocock and Kate Chaney were both in the news last week saying they hadn’t heard a thing until that meeting on Monday (poor old ACT senators have to do their dance every three years). Sure, Don Farrell has spoken to independent MP Rebekha Sharkie, maybe fellow independent David Van. That’s not wide consultation. That’s just plain rude of the government.
My suspicious self thinks Labor’s trying to pull a swiftie over the rest of us and cosy up to the Coalition. The proposed spending caps don’t address all the party advantages. A serious revamp of donation caps would mostly fix the problem. “Generic” branding isn’t included in the per-electorate cap. You know, those placards which just say “Vote Liberal” or “Vote Labor”, or, heaven help us, vote for the Clive and Pauline Party. Vote blue. Vote red. Vote vile lemon.
Between now and Thursday morning, do this one thing (who knows if it will work? I’ve long thought major parties don’t give a rat’s about what matters to voters). Ring your local member and tell them they have no right to limit your political choice. If they vote for this raft of changes to political donation rules, you will vote for the independent candidate in your seat. Gather your friends and neighbours. Make the two main parties pay – attention at least.
This week, we saw the Australian Electoral Commission data on money raised and spent by Australian political parties and campaign organisations for the 2023-24 election year. Seven months – too long to wait to know who gave what when. Analysis from the Centre for Public Integrity’s swift deep dive on Monday reveals big donors have a disproportionate influence on our democracy. In the financial year ending in 2006, the top five individual donors contributed 20 per cent of all donations; 16 years later, more like 70 per cent. You don’t get money for nothing.
It’s not that I don’t think candidates should raise money. Ok, let me rephrase that. When I was doing the homework for my PhD, I proposed publicly funded election campaigns. Too expensive and still would struggle to battle the problem with incumbent party power.
I know little about Rob Keldoulis and Marcus Catsaras, who dropped about $1 million each into the coffers of Climate 200 and the joint-largest donors in the country. One of them is a renowned giver-away of money to good causes and the other is on the same path. What I do know is that they are both keen to rescue the climate in the face of one bloke who wants us to switch to the nuclear power of his imagination and another bloke who means well but struggles to deal with mining interests.
We need more of them and fewer of the jokers running, fundraising and funding our major parties. If I could put a stop to the practice of selling access (as both major parties do), I’d do that too. It’s so wrong that corporations can dish out vast amounts of money for private lunches and dinners unless they included several tables for victims of robo-debt, families of veterans who died by suicide and multiple tables for those locked out of housing and renting.
Loading
It will embed an already awful two-party system. If you are thinking of voting independent, check out exactly who you are voting for. That Noddy No Friends with no volunteers at the polling booth is not the same as Zoe Daniel or Monique Ryan or Kate Chaney or Helen Haines (who benefited from Cathy McGowan’s incumbency), surrounded by people who believe we must do what we can to stop climate change.
Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.
Jenna Price is a regular columnist for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.Connect via Twitter, Facebook or email.
Loading