Morrison has been right, at times, to dismiss “gossip” and get his interviews back to more substantial subjects like the fall in the unemployment rate to 5 per cent, the cut in the small business tax rate to 25 per cent and the passage of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal. But a Prime Minister who wants to talk about his cap, his Spotify playlist, his bus tour and his football team can hardly complain if he gets a question he thinks is trivial. One thing neither of the major parties is eager to talk about is the way they fund their campaigns. Current laws only require them to reveal a fraction of the money they raise. Lindy Edwards, of the University of NSW, estimates that up to 20 per cent is disclosed transparently and another 35 per cent (at the most) is in a “grey area” while the rest is secret. The release of hard information about political funding is patchy and slow. In a world where it is easier than ever to transfer and publish information, the Australian Electoral Commission collects forms on paper, scans them and publishes them months afterwards as PDFs. Some of the paperwork is barely legible. It is stone-age secrecy. The next phase in the debate over disclosure is likely to come next week when the Senate considers an electoral funding and disclosure reform bill that is meant to stop foreign donations and tighten the rules on political campaigning. The complexity of the new regime is best summed up by the fact that the bill will cost $70 million over four years just to implement.

The fall of Sam Dastyari highlighted the way politicians can come to depend on donors linked to foreign governments. Even so, the new law will not stop donors like Chau Chak Wing (an Australian citizen) or Huang Xian Mo (an Australian resident) or companies based in Australia with connections to Beijing or any other foreign capital. The new bill goes beyond the main political parties to apply new rules on any group that engages in political campaigning, an intensely controversial plan for GetUp and other not-for-profit organisations that want to influence elections. GetUp dislikes the way the bill imposes tougher disclosure requirements on non-profit groups that engage in political advocacy around elections. In a sense, GetUp is arguing like any other vested interest facing a new federal law: seeking tougher regulation of others, resisting red tape for itself. The political system is changing with the rise of political movements that have all the power of a political party on the ground without candidates running for office. To exclude them from the new law would put a structural flaw in the regime. It might even shift power over the long term, with activist groups amassing more money and members than the parties themselves. Melbourne Law School professor Joo-Cheong Tham, one of the country’s best authorities on donation law, rejects blanket exemptions for “third-party spending” but says the regulations should only apply to those with significant political expenditure of $100,000 a year.