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.
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.
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 are at a considerable disadvantage, in profile and advertising expenditure terms, to the mainstream parties. Most contest metropolitan seats, and much of their advertising budget is hard to focus on a specific electorate.
Although the conservative enemies of the teals make much of the donations received from Climate 200, in fact most of the donation income comes locally from members of community groups. They fundraise outside their electorates but do not have an enormous base. Nor are they able to create branches and associated bodies in the way that Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals, and now One Nation can. One Nation has always had big coffers from the number of votes per candidate (including Senate candidates) but has had, until recently, a more modest fundraising arm and an untidy corporate structure.
The teals and community independents are rightly very cautious about doing anything which suggests that they have become a party in the conventional sense. They may have a fairly common view - for example on honest government, climate change, conservative economic management and a liberal and moderate approach to immigration.
But the candidates do not always agree, and fear suggestions that they vote in a bloc, or that they do not bring independent and locally focused judgment, buoyed up by community meetings, to their representation. It's a more sensitive matter when their conservative opponents suggest that they are little more than Greens or creatures of the Climate 200 sponsorship.
Yet they are at a considerable campaigning and fundraising disadvantage if they let their opponents have rights, privileges and resources not allowed to them. Those who are angry at the discrimination seem to think that there is something fixed and legal about the nature of a party which could compromise their approach to voters, or force them, against their will, to take a common position on some issues.
In fact, the electoral legislation imposes no such requirement. It sets some minimal standards about public offices and registered addresses. Some parties, including Labor, have constitutions, rule books, and horizontal and vertical divisions of power between the federal and state spheres, and the trade union and membership base, but these have become dead letters to political and organisational leaderships.
Other groups, such as One Nation have highly authoritarian structures (there is only the pretense of a democratic structure; everyone must obey Pauline Hanson; and, at least until now, candidates must do all their own fundraising without much access to party reserves). The Electoral Office may require financial returns, but it does not police the governance of any of the parties.
What this means is that a collection of like-minded people can assemble under a very loose flag indeed. They do not need a particular title - and it need not include the word "party". Their title need not commit them to any policy, or system of governance, so long as they meet some minimum requirements such as notification of an office address and a person to whom the mail should be addressed. A group could get registered under the title Community Independents - something suggesting that they are independent of each other even if walking in broadly the same direction.
Such a "party" could decide not to campaign as a group, or on a common platform, and stress the local connections, the grassroots democracy in place and the differing credentials of different candidates. It is quite true that in Australia there has been a strong tradition of party discipline, particularly in the Labor caucus. By comparison, in the US, no Democrat and no Republican is required to follow the leader, or pre-commit to policy. Of course, some strong leaders, such as Trump, will sharply criticise some of his own if they do not support him, and some will be labelled as RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).
So far as there might need to be some explanation of who, why and what they are (if that is really thought necessary even after most have substantial reputations and popularity), there is scope for general, but broad aims. Perhaps something like:
The Community Independents are a grouping of people with broadly similar ideas about:
This group, or "party" could immediately create structures which would bring it into the same realm as the mainstream parties in terms of expanding their rights to extra funds.
It could form state and territorial branches, and a federal branch, and stand ready to support community independents at other levels of government. It could fundraise from each section of the organisation, with supporters able to direct their funds towards particular candidates, or, if they wanted, particular causes. [The advantage of this is that each division or section could add to and expand the legal limits of a candidate's war chest in each seat. There would be no intention of using such structures to avoid disclosure of sources of funds.]
The public's loss of confidence in the political system, in the honesty, vision or leadership of its various leaders and the failing abilities of the bureaucracy to achieve results for the community are the most significant political phenomena of our age. The emergence of the teals and community independents are one of the few hopeful signs of commitment to good government, a vibrant democracy and an enlightened public square. It would be especially cheering if they were to do well at the next election, if only because of the corrupt Labor thinking that has sought to hobble them.
Where members are standing for Senate as well as lower house representation as community independents, a "ticket" could expand the group's ability to get public funding at different levels, and some occasion for seeking to encourage the development of other community level groups in other areas. Heaven knows, it could sharpen the performance of people of other party loyalties.
If the non-party party does anything by way of acquiring central funds, it could use them immediately for midterm campaigns around issues on which the group was united. An example might be the restoration of a workable Freedom of Information Act, consciously broken by the Prime Minister and the senior public service. Or the reform of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, one which, with proper leadership, new commissioners, and open hearings might take on problems that are becoming more urgent than before. Given the lamentable performance of the commissioners so far, and the pig's breakfast they have made of most of their inquiries, it might be time to give them some baby jobs first.
Perhaps some open hearings on our politicians or our most senior public servants. Or better still both together. I have absolutely no confidence, for example, that the Department of Finance, the minister Katy Gallagher, or the Tax Office have got to the bottom of the PwC affair. And I have entirely lost confidence in the idea that the Australian Federal Police has the ability or the will to get justice for the community either.
There should be a public inquiry into why the robodebt affair fell into such a heap at the hands of the Public Service Commissioner, its advisers and the NACC, though that, of course, could hardly be a matter for the NACC.
Given the dearth of educational work carried out by the commissioner (please God, do not set this as a task for Paul Brereton over the final two unnecessary months of his term) it could even be a good time for a quick look over how the stewardship of Finance, Treasury and PM&C failed to spot any of the serious problems with robodebt before, during or after their enthusiastic disappearance act.
While we are onto prayers to the Almighty, let's pray that the selection committee for the next NACC commissioners does not include Senator Katy Gallagher, Michelle Rowland or Anthony Albanese. Nothing personal, but they are all rotten at identifying talent, developing it, or backing them up when they do their job.
