KATINA CURTIS: Election funding stoush will stay in crossbench memories

Anthony Albanese flies back this morning from global grip-and-grins into a nest of discontent in Canberra.

In what is widely speculated could be the final sitting for this Parliament, the crossbenchers are angry, the Senate is recalcitrant and the Opposition is pulling political swifties.

Welcome back, Mr Prime Minister.

Ministers are increasingly desperate to concrete their pet reforms as the electoral cycle nears its end but, so far, the Senate hasn’t passed a thing.

The Government also has a couple of brand new priorities it wants to push through hastily, usual processes be damned.

Top of the list is the long-promised electoral funding reforms.

Special Minister of State Don Farrell has been promising the legislation was imminent for the best part of a year.

He’s been in talks on all sides about it — including with Curtin MP Kate Chaney leading the charge for the independents — for nearly two years.

The legislation has three main parts: greater transparency over the money pouring in to political parties and candidates, caps on individual donors, and caps on campaign spending.

It fills the Government’s election mandate and was drafted by those who know the full bag of sneaky campaign tricks in order to close as many loopholes as possible.

Labor and the Coalition have an in-principle deal but negotiations are expected to continue throughout the weekend to turn that into a “reluctant yes” from the Opposition.

Independent MPs and minor parties feel shut out and furious.

They view the spending caps and increase in public funding as pulling up the ladder to stop further expansion of crossbench ranks.

Simon Holmes a Court — whose Climate200 organisation bankrolled the 2022 teal wave — estimates the major parties will reap a combined $140 million from taxpayers after the 2028 election, more than double the status quo.

Even some Liberals are worried the spending caps could lead to American-style super PACs springing up to try and match the might of the unions.

The counterpoint argument is that limiting donations without limiting spending heavily advantages people who have their own wealth and don’t have to pass the hat around.

It also ignores the fact that all sides would be capped.

In fact, independents seeking to unseat a major party incumbent or stave off a challenge could find they benefit from flow-over support as the big parties inevitably run ads attacking each other.

The Opposition’s only public contribution to the debate so far — from junior shadow minister James Stevens — flagged concerns around the $1000 threshold for disclosing donations and the need to make sure any caps are fair when all players in campaigns are taken into account.

It has kept its powder dry in the Lower House, abstaining from all votes on the Bill including crossbench bids for changes.

This has sparked suspicions in some quarters — strengthened after this week’s surprise U-turn on student visa caps — that the Liberals might string talks along but backflip at the last minute for pure politics.

For safety, Labor is keeping its options open to a Greens-crossbench deal in the Senate.

Farrell says he’s open to changes if the Liberals put any up but that “it’s a good piece of legislation”.

He’s also taking swipes at the independents.

“What the teals want to do is to protect the rivers of gold that come from their links with the billionaires,” Farrell told this column.

“We say that the Australian electoral system should be open to all Australians and that you shouldn’t have to be funded by billionaires in order to get a seat in Parliament.”

The laughter from the crossbench at the mention of Farrell’s “consultative way” in yesterday’s question time spoke volumes.

The minister put noses out of joint when he didn’t turn up in person on Monday night to brief independents on his new Bill, in contrast to other Cabinet colleagues.

But his office did spend more than two hours answering every last question, having also offered briefings over the weekend.

The timing of the legislation with Albanese’s absence at overseas summits is seen as incredibly convenient; one crossbencher said it meant the PM avoided their wrath while the Bill was passing through the Lower House, despite the deployment of every delaying tactic.

Albanese could put money — capped or otherwise — on changes to the regime featuring high on wish lists in the event of a hung parliament.