Biggest plot twist of Australian election campaign

After a rather uninspiring campaign run by the major parties, it’s almost time for the curtain call on the 2025 federal election.

Roses for some, rotten tomatoes for others.

While the politicians and their jostling understudies should have been the ones in the spotlight, it’s influencers and podcasters who have inadvertently wound up defining some of the biggest plot twists of this year’s campaign trail.

In the prologue to this election season, influencers and new media had already been positioned as the antagonists.

For the first time, influencers were invited to the hallowed halls of the budget lock-up. Inevitably, questions emerged and rumours swirled about whether they had been paid to produce favourable content for whoever had invited them.

It’s hard to ignore the sexist and sinister undertones of critiques of new media, with ‘influencer’ being one of the easiest terms to deride.

It’s intriguing, and ironic, that the engagement of new media formed a focal point of pre- election conversation.

And yet, come election time, there’s been limited chat about the political puppeteers sitting above the stage, tugging financial strings to make their marionettes dance and win votes before our eyes.

Podcaster and commentator Abbie Chatfield faced significant scrutiny after publishing content from her interviews with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Greens Leader, Adam Bandt, that hadn’t been labelled as ‘political content’.

A review by the Australian Electoral Commission found that the content did not fall foul of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. and yet it was used to continue a tirade of dissection about how parties engage with new media.

Of course, declaring electoral material as political content is essential to protecting democratic process.

But this does not negate from the fact that there’s been a big focus on new media’s influence on the election, while conveniently forgetting what really drives the campaign buses: political donations.

We’re demanding transparency and a higher standard of behaviour from those we’re not even electing into office.

Do we need this transparency? Absolutely.

But shouldn’t we be prioritising this from the very people who make electoral laws?

There are discrepancies regarding political donations between state and federal laws.

It can take up to 24 weeks following polling day for federal donations to hit the public record, therefore not reflecting in real time who is really influencing campaigns, and consequently votes.

Of course, the connection between some powerbrokers and politicians is well-known, such as unions backing the ALP and Climate 200 funding the Teals.

In early 2024, Opposition leader Peter Dutton reportedly flew to Perth to pop by Gina Rinehart’s 70th birthday shindig for an hour.

He must have put in a good appearance, as he even made it to the centre of the mural of the event, seated next to the birthday girl herself.

Hancorp Prospecting, of which Rinehart is Executive Chairman, has provided generous support to the Opposition.

Our current disclosure laws allow shields to protect the identify of significant donors until well after a politician has set up their pencil case, framed family photo and office plant in the bowels of Parliament House.

The transparency register in and of itself can still somewhat conceal the identity of major donors.

For example, donations can be listed from companies, therefore taking a paid ASIC search to reveal who controls these entities when the information isn’t freely accessible.

Writer and podcaster Hannah Ferguson was among the mass of new media invited to the budget lock-up.

“As a content creator fighting to challenge the mainstream media landscape, my partnerships are disclosed on all my posts,” Ferguson told news.com.au.

“In recent weeks, I’ve had politicians from the Coalition comment on my videos that I’m making ‘cash for comment’.”

“They will make any attempt to discredit me, a young woman with power they cannot control.

“To that I say, how many of your policies are shaped by donors that fund your campaign?

“While the ‘influencers’ are transparent in our paid advertising, the insidious part of this conversation must be centred on the people who are elected to lead our country, who can be bought by large corporations that hide behind them”.

We need to switch the house lights on and illuminate all the characters in this play.

Perhaps political advertisements need to finish with more than just the standard ‘authorised by’ message, but a ‘funded by’ one, too.

Imi Timms is a freelance writer.