Climate 200 founder Simon Holmes à Court used an address at the National Press Club to criticise the major parties and Clive Palmer, and praise independents.
Climate 200 founder Simon Holmes à Court used an address at the National Press Club to criticise the major parties and Clive Palmer, and praise independents for vastly improving political discourse.
Mr Holmes à Court defended the multi-million-dollar donations Climate 200 had made to independents as supporting grass roots politics.
“Climate 200 does not start campaigns. Climate 200 does not run campaigns. Climate 200 does not target seats or select candidates,” he said.
“Climate 200 simply recognised this profound shift in our democracy and sought to provide the resources and support needed to help communities and their independent candidates succeed.”
Climate 200-backed independents – sometimes referred to as teals – have drawn criticism from the major parties, who question whether the millions of dollars of donations they have received from the group disqualify them from being considered independent.
But Mr Holmes à Court maintains a majority of Climate 200 donations came from smaller grass roots donators.
“All up, in 2022, independent candidates spent twenty-five million dollars. Climate 200 made up thirteen million dollars of that. I personally contributed around two per cent of that Climate 200 total.
“The funds we raised from more than 11,000 donors is a lot of money, but it’s still a small fraction of what the major parties spend.”
In February, independents and lobby groups rallied against donation caps introduced to parliament as part of a bipartisan deal, calling them rushed and secretive.
Under the changes, which will take effect after the next federal election, political donations would be required to be reported within days, rather than months, and the disclosure threshold would decrease from $17,000 to $5,000.
Donations would also be capped at $50,000 from a single source to a single candidate.
Independent Curtin MP Kate Chaney received $975,000 in donations during her 2022 campaign, including $450,000 from Climate 200.
She said rather than banning big money in elections, the change guaranteed big money to the big parties.
“While an independent would have to comply with an $800,000 spending cap, advertising for a party doesn’t have to fit within this cap,” she said.
“As well as this huge party loophole in the cap, parties will have a publicly funded war chest, existing infrastructure, economies of scale, the ability to shift funds to seats where they are being challenged, additional so-called ‘admin funding’, tax deductibility … the list goes on.
Mr Holmes à Court was also critical of the changes.
“In 1975, ninety-six per cent of Australians voted for the two major parties. By 2022 it had fallen to just sixty-eight per cent. But rather than changing their votes to broaden their appeal to the electorate, they chose instead to rig the rules.
“They rarely agree on anything, but when self-interest is at stake, they came to get they came together.”
Mr Holmes à Court maintains it’s not just the financial support that has helped independents win their seats.
“Clive Palmer spent $120 million and ended up with one senator. He gave us all a lesson: community is far more powerful than money alone,” he said.
“This election is truly a sliding doors moment for our country. Will Australia emerge improved, or impaired?
“Will we import authoritarian populism from Trump’s White House or will the best of the Australian character once again reveal itself?”
