Teals, community independents, and, probably Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party may be able to walk around Labor's manipulation of the electoral laws to put themselves on an equal footing with Labor in their capacity to attract virtually unlimited donations, and, probably, increased access to public funding.

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

Login or signup to continue reading

They need a party structure to get into the Labor rort. Only with it can they expand the sums they can spend. The Liberals are part of the rort, too, but face disaster at the next election - and a decline in public funding of perhaps $18 million.

As the debate of recent weeks has demonstrated, most of the teals and other moderate independents are not much attracted by the idea of becoming a party, even if to get out of restrictions imposed on them by Labor and the Coalition.

The restrictions which Labor has so crafted that they do not, in effect apply to the big mainstream parties put independents at a disadvantage, something Labor consciously - some would say corruptly - intended.

Labor's main form of evading rules it imposes on others is because of its branch structure. Each state or territorial branch, and the federal branch, is effectively regarded as a separate body for the purpose of funnelling donations to election campaigns.

Separate party administrations can and do shuffle, launder and deal with donations to be able to keep some embarrassing sources of funds below disclosure limits.

Beyond expenditure limits for candidates in particular electorates, they inject "national campaigning funds" on which limits do not apply into marginal seats. Only groups with party status get this sort of expanded access to funds. Independents (non-party) in single electorates do not have access to these expanded sources of funding and opportunities to evade donation disclosure rules.

Electoral law made with rorts in mind

The disadvantages will multiply at the next federal election, after "reforms" supposedly designed to create expenditure limits and donation transparency were rammed through both houses by the major parties. Don Farrell, the Labor factional chief, made little secret about his intentions to put candidates not in the mainstream parties at a disadvantage.

The Coalition party machine, with a 120-year history matching Labor's of creating room for rorts and avoidance of disclosure, supported the changes, making opposition by Greens and independents irrelevant.

If opinion polls are any indication, both parties in the Coalition are set for a battering at the next election. A massive loss of votes means a massive loss in the money given to candidates according to the number of first-preference votes received - previously $3.50 but set to rise to $5 indexed. The Liberals, who received $28 million at the last election might be looking at being lucky to get $10 or $12 million, making them much more dependent on donations.

By contrast Labor, which received about $38 million after the election, would expect to come out with about the same. This would give it a tremendous edge against the Coalition, with or without Pauline Hanson's One Nation.

In the past Pauline Hanson has been an inveterate winner from public funding even when her candidates have not won many seats. She may collect about $30 million at the 2028 election, even if her side of politics falls short of a majority. The money will mostly come from Coalition loss.

Community independents, including the teals, have received generous funding from donations, much to the annoyance of Labor, which hopes to peg them back with its disclosure laws in 2028. Collectively they fundraised perhaps $12 million in donations, and perhaps a total of $1.4 million in votes won. Although these independents are not, of course, contesting many seats, they........

© Canberra Times