The kind of financial firepower needed for a community independent to oust a major party MP is on display in the election returns for 2022 election candidates released today.
The reason the data encourages us to look at independents is because donations to major parties are revealed annually — most major party MPs and candidates appear in today’s data with nil returns, because their party handled all the finances. We’ll have to wait until February 1 for the data on what the major parties received, under our ludicrous disclosure laws that make us wait up to 19 months to find out who was giving what to major parties.
All of the successful independents who took seats off the Liberals reported big total donations. Zali Steggall, who cemented her grip on Warringah when Scott Morrison imposed the disastrous Katherine Deves on the NSW Liberals, was the lowest earner, reporting just under $900,000 in donations. Allegra Spender in Wentworth reported $1.9 million; Kylea Tink in North Sydney and Monique Ryan in Kooyong both $1.8 million; Zoe Daniel in Goldstein $1.7 million; Sophie Scamps in Mackellar $1.6 million; Kate Chaney in Curtin $1.3 million.
Much of the press coverage today is on the role played by Simon Holmes à Court’s Climate 200. For example, Climate 200 gave Spender over $600,000 and Tink over $800,000 and Ryan over $700,000. But the successful independents all garnered large donations from other sources. Steggall, for example, received $55,000 from businessman and conservationist Robert Purves; Tink received $99,000 from financial trader Robert Keldoulis, who gave $50,000 to Spender, and also received $50,000 from Private Media shareholder Nick Fairfax, $100,000 from local Robert Taylor, who also gave $70,000 to Scamps; Chaney received $25,000 from Perth pathologist Wayne Smit.
But what the successful independents also have in common is genuinely large popular funding. Spender and Chaney each reported more than 600 individual donors. Tink had 945 (including myself); Scamps had 828. Steggall reported a remarkable 1690 donors; Zoe Daniel had nearly 2000. And Monique Ryan had more than 3700 donors. Such large donor bases can generate hundreds of thousands of extra dollars, turning million-dollar election warchests into much bigger sums, along with the feet on the ground that a large volunteer group can provide.
In comparison, unsuccessful independent Jo Dyer in Boothby had a huge donor base — more than 1000 — but little support from Climate 200 (just $20,000) and no big donors, leaving her with just under $200,000. Georgia Steele, who performed strongly in Hughes, had $27,000 from Keldoulis and around $300,000 from Climate 200 but only around 350 donors, so she raised just $660,000 — clearly not enough to out-poll Labor in order to pose a threat to the Liberals. Suzie Holt, who pushed climate denialist Garth Hamilton to preferences in the regional seat of Groom, was hampered by low donor numbers and no support from major independent donors.
The narrative from media critics of the independents focuses on Climate 200 and support from wealthy donors. Those two factors indeed seem to be important to their ability to be competitive with far better resourced major parties. But genuine community support via many hundreds, even thousands, of donors is also critical, and doesn’t fit at all conveniently with attempts to portray them as tools of elite interests. When thousands of people want to contribute to your campaign, it’s both a sign that you pose a challenge and that you have the means to make that challenge formidable.
One thing I find very disappointing is the way the PM is doing everything he can to disempower the independents. I understand the importance of party to a long term Labor party man, but to tweak the Federal ICAC to win the conservatives’ support rather than work with the cross bench in my view is on the nose. I know I’m probably being too idealistic, but the PM and Labor should respect that a large proportion of the electorate voted for independents and should respect this choice and reflect it in the way they run government
You are not being too idealistic. Labor and most (or all) independents went to the election promising an ICAC. We voted for an ICAC that worked, not one castrated by the LNP elements we got rid of with the inexplainable complicity of Labor.
Not idealistic, just sensible. The Liberals lost a swag of their safest seats, making them unelectable in the foreseeable future. You would think Labor would be happy to maintain that status quo given that they are unlikely to win any of those seats. But they seem seem as ignorant as the MSM re the game-changing significance of this year’s election.
I very much agree, and I am watching closely. Labor will never take our Reps seat in my lifetime but this treatment of the community independents will make me less willing to vote for Labor Senate candidates in the next federal election.
We had a strong community independent for the Reps and I donated to her campaign – the first time I’ve ever donated to a political campaign. I also donated to C200 because it was backing candidates advocating for issues important to me AND because those candidates received C200 funds if they could demonstrate strong community support. Being able to pool my small donations with all those other small C200 donations under such circumstances felt more democratic than I’ve ever felt.
Holding our desire to see more community MPs and Senators with contempt is a bad move. Given that we are likely to go into the next election in difficult circumstances, Labor would be wise to make much more of an effort to respect this shift that is on amongst many voters. The way the independents are performing, I can only see more of us wanting a piece of the community independent action.
Despite him not being a superstar with numbers, Frydenberg would do well to reflect on the significance of Dr. Ryan getting 3700 donors for her campaign. Considering the visceral response many in Kooyong have/had to him, it is not surprising and could be higher if he was tonedeaf enough to run in Kooyong again.
Plenty of people from outside ‘Kooyong’ donated to Monique Ryan’s campaign.It was a widespread effort to get rid of JF for various reasons. His endless comments about GDP drove me nuts because a) most people don’t know what it is and b) it is but one of many ‘indicators’ of how an economy is working (or not) for the entire population
More independents has to be a good thing. The way things look at the moment the TEALS and other independents seem keener to make the Labor Party fulfill their campaign promises than Labor itself. In the meantime the LNP Opposition has become irrelevant on the political stage.
…other independents seem keener to make the Labor Party fulfill their campaign promises than Labor itself.
So that’s why Pocock is going slow on expressing any support for the IR legislation? He’s very keen to make Labor fulfill its campaign promises? Well I never!
Pocock does not like part of the legislation. He is entitled to do that. I did not say this applies to every independent or every piece of proposed legislation.
He has been very open about his position and is keeping us informed of his progress. Excellent representation in my view.
Whilst there appears to be a correlation between the total candidate election seen and electoral success, correlation is not causation. Perhaps good candidates (and the Teals all appear to be competent and courageous) just need sufficient publicity. I reject Falinski’s petulant and hypocritical complaint that he was tipped out because of Climate 200 funding of his successful opponent. I don’t understand the Teals being criticised for the quantum and broad base of their financial support while the major parties are so corruptly influences by money from big business, gambling, major polluters and climate deniers. I have less problem with union donation to the Labor Party give Labor’s roots and history. It is business that it corrupting Labor, not the unions.
If theTeals are perceived to have had some advantage from some rich individuals and multitudes of modest individuals, how is aClive Palmer’s overfed circus explained?
The fact is that all electoral funding should be more like the Teals and less like the inherently corrupted finding of teh coalition and Labor. Michael Yabsley has proposed the best reform yet. I hope the aTeals and other independents start banging that drum, because sure as hell neither the coalition nor Labor will voluntarily deny themselves the corrupt teat of corporate donations.
Agree, BA. In fact it seems highly likely that a candidate with a lot of support in their community will both receive a lot of donations and win the seat, without the former being the actual cause of the latter.
Despite not even being in her electorate ads for Allegra Spender were inescapable at least on my YouTube during the election campaign.
I must admit the message was effective. Is this where we are going? Baltic style successful women displacing the Liberal Party Neanderthals as the Liberal electorate swings “mostly progressive” but “fiscally moderate”?