In 1996 the American intellectual Noam Chomsky wrote, ‘The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.’ Professor Chomsky has now lost the ability to speak, but his words continue to ring true.
In Australia, both major political parties have a strong interest in shutting down dissenting voices, particularly in the form of independent voters seeking to change the political duopoly. While strident arguments about deckchair placement are always welcome in LibLab land, ecological collapse, AUKUS and the failings of late-stage capitalism are not open to discussion.
And so, with grassroots popular support for both major political brands collapsing, and influential donors to appease (including the unions and Gina Rinehart), the vast loopholes in the ALP’s new Electoral Reform Bill appear custom-designed to suit the existing big party players and shut out pesky newcomers – not just Clive Palmer, but teal candidates and other progressives.
Having had years to develop its proposed electoral reforms, Anthony Albanese’s government is now trying to push these changes through with minimal public discussion over the final sitting week of parliament in 2024.
It appears the Coalition will require only minor changes. They need to stop Climate 200 somehow, and it’s certainly not going to be with good climate policy.
Swings and roundabouts
Yes, there are good things in the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill, including more transparency for political donations and real-time disclosure, and limits on election spending, but unfortunately the proposed playing field is far from flat. Big parties can spread their money across the country, while individuals campaigning in individual electorates will be hobbled.
Although they’re urgently needed, there will be no truth in political advertising laws included in this reform (Labor has pushed this idea into another bill, which appears to be on a distant backburner).
‘Nominated entities’ established by major parties are loopholes for big players to outspend their competitors, by hiding money accumulated in the past beyond the reach of donation caps. Also, because of all the sub-parties (technically, there are nine ALP state parties plus one federal organisation, as well as eight Liberal parties, and five National parties) – each of these entities would able to access $20,000 per calendar year, while independents are only able to get one bite at the funding cherry.
Because public election money only gets distributed after votes are counted, new parties and candidates have to start with nothing. It’s anticipated that 75 per cent of public funds will go straight to the major parties. Additional big bucks for administrative funding will go only to existing sitting members, with those in the Reps getting twice as much as those in the Senate (where most of the non-duopoly politicians sit, coincidentally).
Finally, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, there’s the fact that these reforms will cost Australian taxpayers millions of dollars more than the current arrangements (about $5 per vote, instead of $3). Which brings us to…
Coleworths and cozzie livs
Beyond our political parties, the other great Australian duopoly relates to our supermarkets, with Coles and Woolworths (Coleworths) accounting for 58 per cent of national grocery sales. Their nearest competitor is Aldi, with 8.1 per cent (although they’re crushing the Stollen cake competition).
The Liberal-dominated Select Committee on Cost of Living has just handed down its final report after multiple delays, saying the crisis was all basically the fault of Labor governments and unions, and that they should get out of the way of the corporate sector.
In the fine print, the committee also said that the government should ‘continue their policy of holding major supermarket chains to account for the prices they charge on groceries’. The Australian Greens Dissenting Report went much further, saying ‘while millions of people across the country are struggling to make ends meet, big corporations have been raking in massive profits off the back of the community’s pain.’
The ACCC’s year-long investigation into supermarket pricing also wrapped up last week, having spent most of this year discovering that the duopoly does indeed appear to be contributing to the national cost of living crisis as a result of collusion over price gouging, fake specials, land banking, exploiting farmers and other dastardly practices to exploit customers and prevent competition.
The competition watchdog’s final report is due in February, which will be too late for anyone in government to do anything serious about it. Unlike the electoral reform law, there’s no way this issue will be resolved before the next federal election, which probably means it will be years before anyone looks at it again.
If you are lucky enough to have grocery choices where you live, you don’t need to wait. Vote with your dollars next time you shop, and let the two supermarket groups in the duopoly know exactly what you think of them.
Originally from Canberra, David Lowe is an award-winning filmmaker, writer and photographer with particular interests in the environment and politics. He’s known for his campaigning work with Cloudcatcher Media.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
