LibLab public funding deal a ‘financial gerrymander’: Tony Fitzgerald.

By Tony Fitzgerald,

2 June, 2013

The recent proposal to pay extra public money to political parties was widely seen as another misuse of public money for private benefit. However, the scheme was even more objectionable because of the impact that it would have had on future elections.

Australian democracy is more than a contest between the major political parties, which are merely private organisations – small groups of people who have banded together to advance their own opinions and interests and those of like-minded people – with no formal status beyond registration under the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

However, elections are heavily weighted in favour of the major parties. Each has parliamentary representation considerably in excess of its electoral support, with each parliamentarian receiving entitlements which facilitate party political campaigning.

In addition, Division 3 of Part XX of the Commonwealth Electoral Act gives the major parties a considerable advantage over other political parties and independent candidates. Public funding based on past election results, especially when subject to an eligibility threshold, disadvantages minor parties and most independent candidates. It also tends to deter new parties and individuals from contesting elections because of the cost.

An election is inherently unfair when some candidates are at least indirectly supported by public funding, some receive less public funding than others and some receive no public funding at all. Like gerrymanders, that is to say disproportionate electorates, disproportionate payments of public funds distort the electoral process, affect election results and entrench and perpetuate the status quo. Additional payments which benefit some but not others and some more than others increase the unfairness.

When major political parties exploit their dominance to obstruct dissent and handicap challengers, they abuse their power and diminish and weaken our democracy. Unfortunately, it’s increasingly obvious that that doesn’t concern today’s professional politicians whose ethics are summed up in their slogan “whatever it takes”.


Read more:

@oakeymp on the dirty LibLab deal to grab our cash

No limits on political donations, but more and more public funding

More Fitzgerald in @NoFibs:

Democracy, ethics, tolerance and public civility

To perform our democratic functions we need and are entitled to the truth

Support an independent media voice. Support No Fibs Citizen Journalism.
Monthly Donation


  1. Financial gerrymandering: Follow the money via @NoFibs The unfairness of political funding – byTony Fitzgerald

  2. Tony Fitzgerald – Financial gerrymandering: Follow the money

  3. Financial gerrymandering Follow the money by @NoFibs disproportionate payments of public funds distort electoral expt

  4. EXACTLY! Public funding of Candidates I don’t have such an issue with, would rather that then have corporations owning parties, though if that was to happen I would also prefer there is a ‘cap’ on that. BUT what was being proposed was unfair to smaller parties & Independents. Imagine if the funding went directly to candidates? This would mean that even in the big parties they would have to allow more actual representation or the candidate would not hand over any of that funding to the party?

    We need representation so badly in this country and the 2 big boys are representing their parties, not us, in the electorate.

  5. LibLab public funding deal a ‘financial gerrymande… ALSO wish Qld LNP were not stomping on Mr Fitzgeralds efforts :(

  6. LibLab public funding deal a ‘financial gerrymande…

  7. #auspol “An election is inherently unfair when some candidates are at least indirectly supported by public funding”