Contributed from Victoria

It seems that bipartisan agreement to change the electoral rules over public funding has been secured. The changes are touted as a means to prevent people like Clive Palmer using their fortunes to distort election results. This is not what they are about. The truth is more sinister.

The real purpose is to help protect the duopoly. Labor and the Coalition find themselves in long term decline, and third forces are in a slow rise. This threatens to accelerate. The proposed change to the rules promises to more than double public funding to the duopoly. Those who challenge it will be left in the cold.

It works this way. A party gets a certain amount per vote received at the prior election indexed for inflation. If we take the result of the 2022 election, each vote will carry $5. This is way up from the $3.35 provided by the current rule. The duopoly parties will get a windfall of $82.66 million to keep control of the information flow to voters.

^{Image by Ingram Pinn}

The Albanese government’s claim is that this is aimed at removing he spectre of corporate funding of political campaigns. Ot true. If this is the intent, why not just outlaw them. No matter what the Minister for State Don Farrell claims. This is a sleight of hand to cover the painfully obvious. His insistence that the change is “designed to take big money out of politics,” is false.

No doubt about it. It is right to cap the amount of money spent on elections. But it means little if this is not accompanied by a level playing field. This can’t exist unless every candidate has the same amount of funding. Without this, how can it be said that everyone is free to stand as an equal? Creating more disadvantage in inherently undemocratic.

Outlawing open corporate donations and hidden backdoor other means to transfer this money, must come with equality in public funding. This must apply to every electorate. And it must come with changes to other rules. Those that deviate from ensuring equality and violate the principle that all votes are equal.

But this would bring a disadvantage to the duopoly, and it won’t be entertained by them for a second.

If the major parties want to reverse their misfortunes, the major parties should consider listening to the voters. Then they should offer real answers to their concerns. They should consider listening to the concerns of voters and offer real answers. Offer solutions to the rising cost of living. Suggest real job creating proposals. Lay out plans for securing housing affordability. Show a clear path towards a green carbon free future. Have a plan to put an end to poverty. Ensure to spend less on means to wage war and more on health, education, and other vital services. Have a plan to rebuild Australia’s manufacturing capacity.

This would be much better than raising the bankrolling of their election campaigns.