A party of Independents will only succeed if it is transparent

The success of any party of Independents will depend not on its branding but on whether it can deliver the transparency and accountability voters demand, writes David Higginbottom.

INDEPENDENT A.USTRALIA is right to ask whether a party proposed by the Independents will become just another party.

This is not a trivial semantic objection. If independence is the selling point, structure is the test. A movement that began as a rebellion against party discipline, opaque primaries, and donor outreach could very easily become just another machine if it adopted the same habits in the name of electoral efficiency.

The deeper problem is Zali Steggall, Allegra Spender, David Pocock or any other crossbench figure should cooperate. The question is whether any new organization will make power more visible, accountable and contestable, or will it merely create a more fashionable version of the political culture that Australians currently reject.

This culture has a familiar pattern. Candidates speak of their conscience before entering Parliament, then discover that progress depends on loyalty, access and survival. Party rooms are becoming more important than voters. Primaries are narrowed by internal factions. Lobbyists arrive long before the public knows an issue is on the air.

Freedom of Information It becomes a race for delays and exemptions. integrity bodies They are expected to repair systemic problems after damage has occurred; but these seem designed to fail.

This is why the debate over the party of independents cannot be separated from the wider crisis of transparency. Old parties do not only have branding problems. They benefit from institutional arrangements that reward privacy, authority, and access. If a new centrist formation wants to claim democratic renewal, it must prove that it is different not only in tone but also in structure.

As I discussed before Pearls and IrritationsCorruption is not just the moral failing of individuals; this is a predictable consequence of political structures that reward loyalty, access, and survival rather than accountability, transparency, and the public interest.

Library of Parliament notes Money in politics can corrupt democratic processes because donors can expect favors or policy decisions, while big spending can stifle smaller players and new entrants.

A party composed of independents will face its own contradiction. The more centralized the fundraising, branding and campaign infrastructure, the greater the risk of centralization of power. The more he speaks with a single voice, the greater the risk of disciplining dissenters. The more he encourages big donors to compete with major parties, the greater the risk of becoming dependent on the exclusive access economy he once criticized.

The word “Independent” should mean more than not being Labour, Liberal, National or Green. This should mean independence from undisclosed money, internal factions, consultant-written policies and lobbyist capture.

This should also mean decision-making independence for elected representatives after election day. The voter who elects an Independent should not later discover that their local MP has retreated to the party room under another name.

This doesn’t mean Independents should remain isolated. Shared principles, shared administrative support, and coordinated reform agendas can help communities overcome the advantages enjoyed by the major parties. The key distinction is between coordination and control. Coordination helps representatives do their jobs. Control tells them what their job is.

The reform agenda is not very radical. Australian Institute It suggested monthly ministerial diary disclosures, including the purpose of meetings, links between diary entries and lobbyist records, fairer access to Parliament House, expansion of records for in-house lobbyists and stronger sanctions. These are not revolutionary demands. These are basic democratic hygiene.

This is where a party of independents can either raise the issue or become part of it. If he just says “trust us, we are better people” he will fail the test of democracy. The problem is not personal morality, but system design. Good people operating within transparent structures eventually face the same dilemmas as everyone else. The task of reform is to create guardrails strong enough to restrain even those whose good intentions cannot come into contact with the government.

A credible new party must publish its democratic architecture before seeking registration, donations, or candidates. It must tell voters who governs it, how candidates are selected, who can veto confirmation, what donors can get through outreach, whether elected representatives can dissent, how policy positions are formed, and how local communities can leverage support for a representative who stops representing them.

What a true Independent formation should do:

Post all donations above a modest voluntary threshold, including cumulative totals and donor-affiliated organizations, within seven days.
Post meetings with lobbyists, corporate representatives, top institutions, consultants, and major donors, including topics and participants.
Prohibit corporate entertainment and disclose any gifts, trips, tickets or invitations to sponsored events accepted or rejected.
Enforce local community election processes, publish rules, and prohibit central override except for clearly defined integrity violations.
Deputies and senators must be guaranteed to reserve the right to vote in line with the commitments and conscience of the voters.
Maintain public conflict of interest records for officers, nominees, senior staff and management committee members.
Publish policy consultation input, commissioned research funding sources, and any external drafting assistance.
Publish bylaws, board minutes, audited accounts and internal dispute processes in an accessible format.

These commitments do not make politics pure. No amount of institutional design can eliminate ambition, factionalism, or self-interest. But they would make capture more difficult and treason easier to detect. They would also shift democratic renewal from rhetoric to practice.

The broader lesson here is that Australia’s democratic crisis cannot be solved by replacing one set of political actors with another. It is solved by changing what political actors are allowed to hide. The party label is less important than the underlying rules. A major party could become more democratic if it opened primaries, flexed its influence, and relaxed discipline. An Independent can become less democratic if they centralize power, hide donors and treat voters like a brand audience rather than a real community.

The rise of independents and minor parties reflects public judgment. Voters aren’t just shopping for moderates. They are protesting a system that seems more sensitive to concentrated power than to citizens. The project of democratic renewal must therefore be greater than any teal, centrist or anti-party vehicle. It should include real-time transparency, stronger FOI, lobbying reform, adequately funded observers, open candidate selection and citizen participation between elections.

So, will the Independents’ party be another party? If he asks voters to accept independence as a marketing claim, it will happen. This will not happen if it becomes the first federal political organization to introduce transparency into its operating system from day one.

Aussies don’t need another indoor party room with better lighting.

The doors need to be opened.

David Higginbottom is a member of the coordinating committee. Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) and coordinator of the Make Peace Our Priority campaign (mpap.au).

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.