Simon Holmes à Court is not a billionaire — “not even close,” he tells me.
The Climate 200 founder is often described as the son of Australia’s first billionaire, with Peter Dutton and David Littleproud recently suggesting he is one too. Labor’s electoral reforms, which the Coalition is currently helping rush through, are pitched as getting “big money” out of politics, using him and mining magnate Clive Palmer as examples of said money.
But Holmes à Court is adamant he and Palmer are “not in the same league”. The Melbourne-based businessman, who isn’t on rich lists, donated $250,000 at the 2022 election — less than 2% of what Climate 200 raised, paling in comparison to Palmer’s $120 million. He’s not “crying poor”, he says. But he’s clearly exasperated at the way he continues to be portrayed.
“The Australian has pumped me up as a billionaire Palmer-like figure,” he says. “There’s the Karl Rove playbook thing of ‘accuse your opponent of your biggest flaw’, right? Dutton’s taking Gina’s private jet around the country … Labor has taken millions from Pratt … But it suits them to paint me as being ‘big money’.”
Holmes à Court is one of many “slamming” Labor’s electoral reforms — reforms it wants passed ASAP, despite only revealing the 410-page bill on Friday. The opposition has agreed to pass it with minor tweaks, fending off crossbench attempts to hold an inquiry, in what many describe as a major party “stitch-up”.
It’s believed the spending caps — $800,000 per candidate, $90 million per party — will advantage parties, which can use the larger spend to promote their brands in tight races. Increased public funding — from $3.35 to $5 per vote — will give the majors more cash, including from safe seats, while donation caps could hurt newcomers, who rely on donors. Integrity groups warn “nominated entities” may allow donors to circumvent caps, giving directly to party-associated vehicles, while The Australia Institute warns the rushed process could weaken democracy and undermine public trust.
Holmes à Court is firmly of the belief that a deal has been done to protect the duopoly amid an existential decline in the major party vote.
“Labor wants to kill Palmer and slow down the Greens, and the Coalition wants to kill the independents and slow down One Nation. It’s like, ‘you help me kill my enemy, and I’ll help you kill yours’.”
He points to Special Minister of State Don Farrell mentioning the Westminster system in justifying his reforms. Holmes à Court reckons they will “tilt the playing field” — as happened with Victoria’s reforms. No teals succeeded at Victoria’s 2022 state election.
“The path just got harder for challengers and easier for incumbents,” the prolific fundraiser says, noting the benefits of incumbency and public funding. “There’s still a path for newcomers to be elected. It used to be a dirt road, but these changes turn it into a goat track. For the major parties, the path to victory used to be a highway, now we’re all paying to upgrade it to a freeway and giving them driverless cars.”
Holmes à Court knows a thing or two about goat tracks. Climate 200, which he founded in 2019, is now a key resource for climate-focused independents, disbursing crowdfunded donations to campaigns deemed to have the best shot of winning. He’s often at pains to clarify that Climate 200 doesn’t select or control candidates, instead boosting communities’ own efforts.
“My role is to convene a broad group of Australians working to level the playing field so that values-aligned independents have a fighting chance against the party machines — to complete the analogy, we help people traverse that goat track,” he says when asked to define his role. “I’m not part of or privy to any independent’s policy processes. That’s a red line we don’t cross. As independents, they’re accountable only to their constituents, not any donor.”
He may not be on the rich list, but he is on the power list. The AFR last month turned attempts to get him off it into a story, suggesting teal MPs were acting on his behalf — something all parties denied.
Holmes à Court also rejects the AFR’s characterisation; he states he contacted the newspaper to make the case that, in his words, “they had the wrong end of the stick — it’s the independents who are close to power”.
Wentworth MP Allegra Spender had her own reasons to oppose the puppetmaster narrative, which she later called out at the National Press Club (“women, we make up our own minds, it’s a thing”). Conservative media nevertheless continues to suggest the Climate 200 convener “funds” or “owns” the teals, turning him into a powerful caricature.
I put to Holmes à Court that objections to Labor’s rushed reforms aren’t gaining much traction because eliminating major donors sounds, on the face of it, like a good thing. Labor has been quick to accuse the teal indies of hypocrisy, saying they want big money banned — “just not theirs”.
Holmes à Court says he “gets it”, arguing he’d love to find a model where donations aren’t such a major element. But running a competitive campaign costs money, especially for newcomers, who need to be able to make sure the electorate knows who they are and what they stand for.
“I wish that Climate 200 didn’t need to exist… I’d get my life back…” he adds. “Unfortunately now that the journey facing community independents is about to get harder, our existence is even more important.”
As for the Palmer comparisons, Holmes à Court reckons Climate 200 is nothing like Clive — whose mammoth spend also troubles him.
“Clive’s like Gina, you know, and Gina’s like Murdoch,” he surmises, saying actual billionaires are “crawling all over our democracy”. “You know, Kerry Stokes is going to have a bigger impact on the next election than I will, but I haven’t seen a single person talk about curtailing his influence…”
Indeed, the uber-rich will find ways to influence our political system, even after these rushed reforms. But so too will the moderately rich Holmes à Court, who will almost certainly continue to help those who want to save the planet traverse the narrow goat track.
Have something to say about this article? Write to us at letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
