Crossbenchers flare up at electoral funding ‘stitch-up’ as Clive Palmer threatens to take it to court

Crossbenchers are accusing the major parties of a “stitch-up” to lock out future teal-style challengers with an overhaul of electoral funding the Government wants to push through Parliament in the next fortnight.

The new laws, which would not come into effect until after the next federal election, would cap donations and campaign spending while increasing public funding in a bid to reduce the influence of big spenders.

Clive Palmer – whose company Mineralogy bankrolled the $123 million United Australia Party campaign in 2022 – has already flagged a High Court challenge.

The changes would allow parties to spend up to $90 million nationally, lower than either major party’s campaign costs in 2022, while capping the spend in individual electorates at $800,000.

No candidate or party could receive more than $20,000 from a single donor, and donors would not be able to give more than $600,000 in any year.

But independent MP Kate Chaney — whose campaign for Curtin spent just shy of $1 million — said the limits would threaten the future of independent voices.

She is a fan of the increased transparency the overhaul would bring and can see the need for donation caps.

“The big problems are the public funding and the spending caps … It means they’ve got a war chest they carry from one election to the next,” she said, adding the measures advantaged the major parties.

“We’re hearing the minister saying this is about getting big money out of politics. It’s not. It’s actually about guaranteeing big money to parties.

“Both parties are running scared of the possibility of a bigger crossbench that will continue to hold them to account.”

She and independent colleague Zali Steggall both highlighted the advantages of incumbency that meant spending caps hindered new challengers.

“As an elected MP, I already have an office, I have staff, I have a marketing budget, I put out newsletters, I have my activities in the electorate,” Ms Steggall said, noting she spent far less on her second campaign for Warringah than when she challenged Tony Abbott.

“For anyone to challenge an incumbent, someone already elected, you need to be able to match that amount of spending and then do a campaign.”

Independent senator David Pocock said the in-principle deal struck between Labor and the Liberals over the changes looked like a “major party stitch-up” while Fatima Payman said the major parties were “clinging to power” while they bled votes.

Crossbenchers have not heard from the Government about progress on the laws for months, despite repeated questioning.

All questioned the urgency to rush them through this fortnight despite them not coming into effect in time for the next federal election, due by mid-May.

“You’ve got plenty of time. As a way of not being too technical, I call bull...t,” Ms Steggall said.

Mr Palmer said the laws appeared “designed to rig elections” and would hinder independents and “regular Australians” from running.

But Special Minister of State Don Farrell was confident the caps had been set high enough they would withstand a legal challenge, saying the laws had been drawn up in the knowledge they would almost certainly be dragged through court.

“This is designed to take big money out of Australian politics. We’re not targeting individuals. We’re targeting the system that allows an uncapped amount of money to be spent on elections,” he said.

“We don’t want to go down the track of the American election system. We want to cap the amount of money people can spend, and that applies to anybody.”

A spokesperson for shadow minister Jane Hume said the Coalition would go through its usual processes to determine its stance on the legislation once it saw the final version in Parliament next week.

THE INCUMBENT ADVANTAGE

• Office expenses annual budget of $133,369 for senators and $166,632 plus $1.24 per enrolled voter for MPs — can be spent on printing, flyers, magnets, ads, websites and mobile offices
• Five electorate office staff
• Annual electorate allowance of $39,700-$57,100 to help cover travel costs
• One-off election funding of $3.346 per vote received