IN 2022, I put my hand up to run as a teal independent for the Victorian state seat of Caulfield. I didn’t win, but the experience was eye-opening. Running as an independent parliamentary candidate is like building a plane while flying it – there’s no party machine, no head office, no ready-made team. Everything rests on your shoulders, and more often than not, it comes down to one thing: money.

Electoral funding is crucial for independent candidates – it’s how you pay for staff, advertisements and mailouts. During my campaign, I personally reached out to friends and acquaintances for donations. Some gave $20, others a few hundred dollars, and every cent was carefully allocated. I was lucky that Climate 200 backed me, circulating my campaign to potential donors.

I meticulously tracked every expense, from the number of T-shirts printed to the cost of ads in newspapers and online. My main challenge was getting my name out there without the support of a well-funded party machine. I had to comply with Victoria’s strict maximum $4,320 donation cap and to disclose my donations over $1,100 within thirty days to a publicly searchable database with my donor’s name.

I depended on community support. Friends in graphic design helped create my posters and T-shirts, while a photographer volunteered his time for my campaign photos. I asked neighbours to display posters and sent two mailouts, compared to the mountains of paper that other candidates distributed.

My campaign was a labour of love. Meanwhile, my opponents from the major partieshad a loophole to circumvent the strict $4,320 donation cap, didn’t have to disclose their donations in real time and had large teams to rely on. They also enjoyed the benefit of millions in party funds – money from their nominated entities – giving them a financial advantage I could only dream of.

What’s a ‘nominated entity’? Think of it as a financial lifeline set up by political parties before Victoria’s strict 2018 electoral funding laws came into play – one that conveniently sidesteps the newer rules. These entities can funnel unlimited funds to candidates or parties without facing caps or disclosure requirements. They hold a distinct advantage, often generating steady income through investments such as shares and property.

In Victoria, Labor’s nominated entity, Labor Services & Holdings, poured $3.1 million into the party’s successful 2022 campaign. Not to be outdone, the Liberal Party’s Cormack Foundation – valued at an eye-popping $118 million, according to the ASX – chipped in at least $2.5 million to boost the Victorian Liberals.

It wasn’t surprising when I lost my race. The major parties had an unfair advantage.

EVER SINCE I ran for parliament, I’ve been annoyed that the major parties created loopholes for themselves in Victoria.

In September 2024, I, along with a small group of independents who ran in the 2022 Victorian elections, wrote to Jacinta Allan, the Victorian premier. We raised our concerns about how these laws unfairly benefit major parties at the expense of independent candidates. We didn’t get a satisfactory response nor commitment to close these loopholes.

When I saw that just a few weeks ago, the federal parliament rushed through legislation capping political donations in a late-night deal between the Labor and Liberal parties, in a similar vein to the Victorian legislation, I was furious. Due to take effect in 2028 and taking inspiration from Victoria’s 2018 election funding reforms, the legislation introduces caps on individual donations of $50,000 per year and requires public disclosure for any contribution over $5,000. The recently passed law also puts spending limits for campaigns at $800,000 per electorate and $90 million nationally.

Like the 2018 Victorian laws, at first glance, the federal laws seem like a positive step – after all, who wants unlimited money in politics? Think back to the 2019 election, when Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party (UAP) splashed out an estimated $60 million on advertising – one of the most expensive campaigns in Australian political history. While the UAP failed to secure any lower-house seats, the sheer scale of its advertising blitz was widely credited with helping keep Labor out of government.

However, as with the laws in Victoria, these federal regulations also fail to remove contributions from the major parties’ nominated entities. These new funding caps also conveniently exclude political party advertising, effectively giving major parties such as Labor and the Liberals the ability to outspend independents twofold.

What’s even more concerning is how these limits ignore the inherent advantages enjoyed by incumbents. Sitting MPs benefit from taxpayer-funded offices, staff and vehicles, while independents and new challengers have no such head start. The law’s administrative allowances – $30,000 annually for each MP and $15,000 for each senator – only reinforce the dominance of major parties, with Labor and the Coalition receiving the bulk of them.

 To add insult to injury, these new laws increase the amount that the major parties get per first preference vote from $3.35 to $5, netting them millions of extra dollars in election funding per year.

While I appreciate the intent behind these reforms – especially the goal of preventing wealthy individuals like Clive Palmer from distorting election outcomes – the loopholes are hard to ignore.

The major parties have a lot to be worried about. In the last forty years,the primary vote for Liberal and Labor has gone down each election; Australians are a bit sick of them. Recent polling shows that across Australia, the primary vote for both parties has collapsed while the share of votes going to minor parties and independents has risen significantly. The major parties are worried, so in the name of electoral fairness, they have stitched up the game to lock out smaller parties and independents who are not part of their two-party system. I think that’s un-Australian and the opposite of a fair go.

IF A GROUP of my friends, fellow former independent candidates and I get our way, these laws will soon be struck down as unconstitutional. Australia does not have a bill of rights, but constitutionally it has been recognised that Australians have an implied right to freedom of political communication.

In February 2025, two independents lodged a High Court challenge to the Victorian laws, which, if successful, has the chance to also strike down the federal laws. The case alleges that the nominated entities and exemptions for parties have created an impediment to freedom of political communication.

I could have joined the case as a plaintiff. I was offered the chance and I would love nothing more than to be part of a movement that is trying to strike out these laws. But to have legal standing, I had to announce myself as a candidate in the 2026 election. I may run, but I am not sure yet, having given birth recently to my fifth child, so, for now, I am the case’s biggest cheerleader rather than a direct plaintiff.  

But despite not being formally part of it, I am watching closely. If the court finds that these laws unfairly burden independent candidates while allowing major parties to continue benefiting from loopholes, it could mark the beginning of a fairer and more democratic electoral system in Australia. I think we can all agree that this is in the interest of all Australians.

Image by pixelshot via Canva