Crossbenchers flare up at electoral funding ‘stitch-up’ as Clive Palmer threatens to take it to court

Crossbenchers are accusing the major parties of a “stitch-up” to lock out future challengers with an overhaul of electoral funding the Government wants to push through Parliament in the next fortnight.

The new laws, which would not come into effect until after the next federal election, would cap donations and campaign spending while increasing public funding in a bid to reduce the influence of big spenders.

The changes would allow parties to spend up to $90 million nationally — less than either major party did in 2022 — while capping the spend in individual electorates at $800,000.

No candidate or party could receive more than $20,000 from a single donor, and donors would not be able to give more than $600,000 in any year.

But independent MP Kate Chaney — whose campaign for Curtin spent just shy of $1 million — said the limits would threaten the future of independent voices.

“Instead of trying to earn back the trust of voters, the bill is a desperate attempt by the big parties to rig the rules, squeeze out the competition and protect their patch,” she said.

“Both parties are running scared of the possibility of a bigger crossbench that will continue to hold them to account.”

Independent senator David Pocock said the in-principle deal struck between Labor and the Liberals over the changes looked like a “major party stitch-up”.

Clive Palmer’s company Mineralogy has funnelled tens of millions into his United Australia Party, which spent $123 million at the last election.

The billionaire said on Friday he would challenge the new laws.

“This new legislation is designed to rig elections. It will also hinder the independents, the regular Australians, from standing for parliament, which is what the constitution was designed for,” he said.

“Labor and the Liberals working together on this issue is a disgrace. The only hope for Australian people is if the High Court looks at the constitution and the implied rights of freedom of speech.”

But Special Minister of State Don Farrell was confident the caps had been set high enough they would withstand a legal challenge, saying the laws had been drawn up in the knowledge they would almost certainly be dragged through court.

“This is designed to take big money out of Australian politics. We’re not targeting individuals. We’re targeting the system that allows an uncapped amount of money to be spent on elections,” he said.

“We don’t want to go down the track of the American election system. We want to cap the amount of money people can spend, and that applies to anybody.”

A spokesperson for shadow minister Jane Hume said the Coalition would go through its usual processes to determine its stance on the legislation once it saw the final version in Parliament next week.