We’ve all heard a version of the famous Winston Churchill quote about democracy.

“No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried.”

Most people focus on the second part of the quote, but consider the first sentence. Some Australian politicians do pretend democracy, or rather their preferred version of it, is perfect. A democracy where the major party duopoly is protected, no matter that more people voted for independents and minor parties than for the Coalition at the 2025 election.

That is exactly what the changes to the campaign finance laws that the major parties conspired to rush through parliament are designed to do: entrench the major parties and box out challengers.

These changes aren’t just unfair, they’re likely unconstitutional.

We have one of the best democracies in the world — compulsory and preferential voting and an electoral commission beyond reproach — yet it is neither perfect nor guaranteed. Democracy erodes quietly, through rule changes that seem technical, funding models that favour incumbents, and political manoeuvring that narrows who can be heard.

That is why former federal independents Zoe Daniel and Rex Patrick’s High Court challenge to the new federal campaign finance laws matters. This case is about whether Australians will continue to enjoy genuine choice at the ballot box, or whether our elections will be engineered to protect a mediocre two-party duopoly at the expense of competition, diversity and accountability.

At its heart, the case is a full-throated defence of democracy. And it has the backing of some of the best constitutional law experts in the country.

Healthy democracies are noisy. They are plural. They are contested. Fortunately, in Australia, community-backed independents have become an important part of that ecosystem precisely because they inject those qualities back into a Parliament that had, for decades, become more polarised, less reflective of Australia and less trusted.

Independents not only increase the diversity of representation, bringing professional, gender, cultural and life experience that too often sits outside party pre-selection pipelines, they weigh evidence rather than slavishly sticking to party lines and they are accountable to their communities, not to major party factions and corporate lobbyists. For an independent, every vote is a conscience vote.

Former independent MP Zoe Daniel lost her seat in the 2025 election.

It is no surprise that more Australians are voting for independents in record numbers. The major parties’ combined vote has been in systemic decline for decades. At the last election, the number of Australians voting for independents increased by 45 per cent.

Voters are not disengaging from democracy; they are increasingly voting for candidates who reflect their values and who will put integrity and evidence ahead of party interest.

When major parties struggle to win voters, the temptation is rarely to do better, to engage in our democracy in good faith. Instead, they take the easy option: they change the rules.

Without any justification, the major parties voted in the last Parliament to massively increase funding into their campaign coffers. In the 2025 election year, taxpayers gave the major parties $57 million — under the new rules, they’re on track to receive $131 million from the public purse.

Australia’s new electoral laws have all the hallmarks of a cartel move: less competition, fewer choices, and a quieter, more compliant Parliament. Sold as “getting big money out of politics”, they are, in fact, a public funding cash grab designed to prop up parties as fewer Australians want to vote for them.

These laws entrench the “big money” that is already in politics — a series of loopholes ensure that the major party donors, who have an undue influence on policy-making, can stay in the game.

Labor and the Coalition spent almost half a billion dollars over the three years leading up to the 2022 election. Independents spent around $25 million in the same time frame. In the 2022 election year alone, the major parties spent nearly $250 million.

What they spent at the 2025 election won’t be disclosed until next month. Whatever they spend in the next election, one thing is certain, your taxpayer dollars will be paying for much of it.

These laws do absolutely nothing to prevent the major parties from continuing to spend at these levels.

In theory, donation and expenditure caps are a good idea — but only if they create a level playing field. In practice, the newly introduced caps have been designed to advantage incumbents and disadvantage challengers.

If these laws had been in place before the 2025 election, independents would have lost more than $11 million in donations. Based on available data, thanks to various loopholes, the major parties would have lost almost nothing from donors but gained enormously in public funding.

This is not reform. It is a rort. It entrenches the major party duopoly at a time when Australians are asking for something different.

That is why the constitutional challenge being brought by former Goldstein MP Daniel and former South Australian senator Patrick, supported by Climate 200, is so important. Challenging these unjust laws supports Australians’ right to real choice at the ballot box. It is about ensuring elections remain open to competition, not locked down by those already in power.

Churchill was right, democracy is not perfect. But it is at its best when power is contested, when ideas are tested, and when voters, not parties, decide outcomes. Defending that principle requires vigilance and challenge, especially when the rules of the game are being rigged.

Simon Holmes a Court is founder of the fundraising initiative Climate 200.