A party of community independents funded on the same basis as the other parties might be just what we need to deliver good government and a vibrant democracy.

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, and 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 at the rate of $3.50 a vote, a decline in public funding of perhaps $18m.

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 puts independents at a disadvantage, something Labor consciously – some would say corruptly – intended.

Labor’s main way of evading rules it imposes on others is 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 keep 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 – now about $3.50 each. The Liberals, who received $28 million at the last election might be looking at being lucky to get $10 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........

© Pearls and Irritations