Labor and Libs want to be Coles and Woollies, but many of us want to shop around

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.