Electoral Reform Green Paper
Strengthening Australia’s Democracy (9-27 November)
The Electoral Reform Green Paper – Strengthening Australia’s Democracy discusses a wide range of potential changes to our electoral laws and systems, in areas including:
- the franchise (who is entitled to vote in Australia);
- voting systems for the House of Representatives and the Senate;
- arrangements for enrolling to vote and for maintaining the electoral roll;
- arrangements for the registration of political parties and nomination of candidates for election;
- campaigning for elections;
- arrangements for casting votes; and
- the counting of votes and determination of election results.
The Green Paper argues that the main challenge for governments is to preserve the key strengths and stability of Australia’s electoral systems, while striving for greater improvements to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of contemporary Australia. The paper outlines a number of possible changes that may have implications for our electoral systems, including:
- changes in methods of voting, with a greater number of postal and pre-poll votes being lodged;
- technological developments, with an increasing trend towards electronic transactions and interactions with government;
- demographic changes, with the Australian community drawn from an increasingly diverse range of places, a highly mobile Australian population, and an ageing population; and
- increased opportunities for harmonisation between the Commonwealth, states and territories.
The Green Paper also examines a number of options that could achieve increased participation in elections. More than 2.3 million Australians who were entitled to vote for the 2007 federal election did not fully exercise their right to vote, either by failing to enrol to vote, failing to cast a vote, or casting a vote that was informal and therefore not counted. Strategies for maximising participation in elections could include:
- improving enrolment processes;
- improving civic education;
- amending and harmonising rules for voting, or for accepting votes as formal; and
- improving and harmonising the accessibility of voting services.
In light of these issues, the Government is interested in your views on what changes should be made to our electoral laws and processes. In addition to this online discussion forum, written submissions have been invited by 27 November 2009. A list of specific issues for discussion and comment is set out in Chapter 15 - (PDF 71KB) of the Green Paper. Some starting questions that you might wish to consider are:
Which area, or areas, of our electoral laws should be the highest priority for reform?
What strategies do you think should be adopted to improve electoral participation rates?
Which area, or areas, should be a priority for harmonisation between the Commonwealth, states and territories?
Thank you for this green paper and the forum extension, more publicity next time please.
Having read the green paper it is clear that the agenda is to 'harmonise' electoral processes of the various jurisdictions.Seem appropriate in an administrative sense. Consistency of regulation, well it is the Labor party behind this green paper.
The one item of harmonisation that I would be greatly opposed too is the synchronisation of federal, state and local elections on the one day.
Politics is a moving feast and swinging voters could change their voting intentions at anytime. Regular elections accomadate a responsiveness of the will of the people. Waiting three years to 'turf out' a government we do not want would be an even more daunting prospect than it already is.
Personally an election in any one of the jurisdictions each year, particularly with electronic voting. has much appeal.
The total of pre-poll votes issued for each Division was not published in the Virtual Tally Room prior to the start of counting for the 2007 Federal elections. It should have been a set-in-concrete matter of public record, one of the very first inputs to the VTR, like the number of electors enrolled for each Division.
A narrative as to the confusion caused, and concerns raised, by this omission can be viewed via a post made on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 at 11:45:30 AM, to a current Onlineopinion Forum General Discussion topic, 'An Apology to Klaas Woldring'. Google it. That post contains a link to a now archived OLO topic 'One in five Australians failed to vote ...'. The narrative referred to is that of the 20 posts by Forrest Gumpp to that topic.
For transparency' sake, it really is essential that each and every update to the VTR be accessible, and remain accessible, online, to the general public.
There are cached pages of every update to the VTR held by the AEC, aren't there? Those for the 2007 Federal elections now need to be looked at to allay concerns raised in what was thought to be seen by various members of the public viewing the VTR at the time.
One thing thought to be seen was this:
"Taking all the declaration vote claims at face value, you can assess the maximum turnout possible for each Division by adding their total to that of the ordinary vote cast, and then dividing by the total enrolments shown for the Division. Multiplying that result by 100 will give you the turnout percentage.
When I did this for my little study, apparent (maximum) turnout for Charlton was 96.33%, Dobell 99.83%, Lyne 102.25%, Newcastle 93.94%, Paterson 102.42%, Robertson 88.62%, and Shortland 100.68%!
For the first time anywhere in Australia, to my knowledge, more vote claims have been made than there are names enrolled in an electoral Division! ...."
Was something not quite right in the ballot accountancy for the 2007 Federal elections?
Sorry yes the number of enrollment is published,. What is not published is the number of prepolling. absentee , postal and section votes issued before the close of the poll,. This information should be available and published on line. We are left with the undesirable option of trusting that votes have not gone missing or been added into the system. It should be possible within 24 hours to know to what ballot papers have been issued and from where. This should allow us to better monitor the recording of votes. In Victoria votes went missing between count A and count B in Western Metropolitan legislative council electorate. The total number of votes should never have changed between counts, The total number of votes did not correspond with the lower house of the palling place returns, In my early days as a scrutineer when recorded all this information which was then used as a cross check to ensure that all ballot papers where accounted for. This is not the case in Victoria anymore where short cuts and random sampling is used as a means of quality control. The Western metro result changed between count A and Count B. 250 votes were not accounted for in the data provided. They went Missing between the two counts. Data files were destroyed, no backups made and as a result there was no way of verifiy the quaiity of the second count. If the result changes between count a and Count B then a third count should be mandatory on request.
With the increase in pre-poll voting, an issue arises with respect to one of the 11 General Principles, that of 'transparency in electoral administration'. The Green Paper asks, under the heading 'Chapter 11 Polling', "11(a) Should any actions be taken in response to the rise in early voting?". The JSCEM recommends both freer access to this form of voting, and that the 'home Division' vote cast be counted as would that of any ordinary polling place on election night.
It is disturbing to see any pre-poll votes being issued outside of the Division to which they relate.
Surely the whole point of pre-poll voting is that an elector foresees absence from the Division in which they live, or inconvenience in attending a polling place to vote, on polling day. If the several weeks during which application can be made isn't sufficient for the elector, then it would seem that the elector should be expected to vote postally.
With this course adopted, the workload of the preliminary scrutiny now sought under the JSCEM recommendation to be undertaken progressively prior to polling day, with all of its attendant intensified difficulty in maintenance of polling place scrutiny on behalf of candidates, would be confined to that required for the vote issue. The ballot papers would go into a sealed ballot box unenveloped, just as in any other polling place. The only issues would be those of security and scrutiny for this extended period.
Of course, with this increased access to pre-poll voting adopted, Australia would progressively move from an election DAY, a prescription of the CEA, to a defacto election PERIOD. This would all be achieved at the cost of transparency as to how ballot papers are handled and secured before the count, loss of public confidence in the integrity of the count, and the slow demise of a national institution, election day.
Whatever, the number of pre-poll votes issued must be unalterably published before the count commences.
In his Supplementary remarks to the JSCEM Report on the conduct of the 2007 Federal election, the Committee Chair, Daryl Melham MP, asks, as a leading question, "Should British subjects who are not Australian citizens continue to exercise the franchise?".
He goes on to say, in paragraph 5 on p. 338, "By including these supplementary remarks, I seek to foster genuine and considered debate around this issue. ...".
It may be necessary to consider whether Gaudron J., in commenting on the effect of the Australia Acts and the extent to which Australia became disconnected from the UK after 1986, fully covered all of the legislative and Constitutional ground. The provisions of Section 34 of the Constitution, under the provisions of which the making of citizenship law has been placed within the competence of the Parliament, were clearly transitional provisions.
The provisions of Section 44 are not transitional provisions.
It is a necessary implication of the second paragraph of Section 44 that equivalent status, with respect to fitness for being chosen or sitting as a senator or member of the House of Representatives, was intended under the Constitution to be enjoyed by both the native born, and overseas born British subjects. It goes without saying that that equivalent status was to continue until and unless Section 44 was altered in accordance with the provisions of Section 128 of the Constitution.
It should also go without saying that any ordinary legislation of the Commonwealth touching upon eligibility to be chosen for, or sit in, the Parliament must be consistent with those necessary implications of Section 44 of the Constitution. This requirement has every appearance of having been consistently overlooked by legislators and the High Court alike.
There has never been any proposal for alteration of Section 44 submitted to referendum since Federation.
It also appears the Australia Act 1986 may never have been validly proclaimed.
Answer: Yes.
Full Enrolment?
The official figures in Figure 7.1 on page 92 of the Electoral Reform Green Paper PDF, covering the years 1999 to 2009, show enrolment level estimates fluctuating around 92% of the estimated eligible. The Foreword to Submission 123 to the Inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 Federal elections, titled "Australia: Aggregate Enrolment Levels 1947-1987" indicates that by the AEC's own admission there had been little or no such analysis of enrolment levels prior to 1988. I have already observed that there are no official assessments of enrolment levels backwards from 1999 to overlap any part of the time covered by that study, one that was contending that virtually all eligible were seemingly on the rolls.
That is a potentially huge disparity in positions.
It is clear that in the 1947-1987 study an estimate of the number of persons likely to have been conditionally disenfranchised because of their British, but not Australian, citizenship, was made and allowed for in calculating eligibility levels. It is not clear as to how the estimate of the more than 1.1 million eligible but not enrolled referred to by the Special Minister of State has been arrived at, and, in the light of the remarks of Mr Daryl Melham MP as chair of the JSCEM (p. 338, para. 2, of the Report on 2007 Federal election) that "The effect of this change [the 2002 legislation permitting dual citizenship] is that large numbers of British subjects are now eligible to become citizens of Australia whilst retaining their former citizenship.", whether the more than 1.1 million apparently unenrolled are in fact the permanently resident British citizens.
And if it is the British citizens that are the bulk of the unenrolled (which is arithmetically consistent given there was in excess of 1.2 million persons having a birthplace of UK or Ireland as at 1999) that the Australian electoral rolls must be otherwise apparently already (still?) fully, or indeed, over, subscribed!
CHANGE THAT COUNTS
PART C
VICTORIA SENATE
Analysis of the 2007 Victorian senate election has highlighted a problem in the way in which the Australian government calculates the "Surplus Transfer Value".
Currently the "Surplus Transfer Value" is calculated by dividing the value of the surplus vote (Total vote minus quota) by the number of ballot papers. The problem with this formula is that not all ballot papers attributed to a candidates surplus votes are of equal value. some votes have full value and other a fraction value. When the current formula is applied votes at a fraction of value increase in value disproportionally at the expense of full value votes.
In hypothetical analysis of the Victorian senate count had One Nation preference the Liberal Party ahead of the ALP the Greens candidate would have secured a bonus value of 7,000 votes which would have elected the Greens ahead of the Australian Labor Party's third candidate "David Feeney". These "bonus votes" and the outcome of the election do not reflect the voters intention or comply with the principle of one vote one value.
The formula based on the number of ballot papers as opposed to the value of the vote was again designed to facilitate a manual count at a time when computers technology was not available.
Electoral Analyst Antony Green had independently confirmed our analysis of the Victorian Senate count.
Western Australia concerned at this distortion in the count adopted what is known as the "weighted Gregory transfer method" where the Surplus transfer value is calculated by diving the total value of the vote by the value of the surplus and then multiplying the value of each vote to be redistributed. The Victorian State Parliament has also considered this option and has recommended that the "weighted Gregory transfer method" be adopted.
CHANGE THAT COUNTS
PART B
QUEENSLAND THE STOLEN ELECTION
Analysis of the 2007 Senate Election of Queensland and Victoria has highlighted a number of errors in the way in which the senate vote is counted.
If you count the Queensland senate vote excluding all candidates except the last seven standing (3 ALP, 3 Lib/NP and 1 Grn) and distribute the vote according to existing rules the Greens candidate, Larisa Waters, would have been elected. The reason she was not is in the distortion of the counting system which is in need of serious review.
The system was designed to facilitate a manual count and in the process there are a number of distortions and inbuilt errors,
1. The calculation of the surplus transfer value
2. The segmentation and distribution of preferences from excluded candidates
3. minor issue with remainders.
THE QUEENSLAND ERROR
The error identified with the Queensland Senate count relates to the method of segmentation and distribution of preferences from excluded candidates. There should be one transaction per candidate either a distribution of surplus or distribution of preferences on exclusion - without segmentation. This can be achieved by either introducing the Meek method of counting the vote or adopting a re-iterative counting process where the count is reset and restarted on every exclusion with the process repeating itself until all vacant positions are elected in a single iteration.
With the use of computerised counting system the reiterative count can be readily undertaken with the results known in hours. The use of the Meek method within minutes.
Note: Political censorship appears to be at work on this forum.
CHANGE THAT COUNTS
PART A
"Changing the way in which we count the Australian senate vote".
The method of calculating the Surplus Transfer value and the
method used in distributing excluded candidates' preferences need to be reviewed to ensure that the system adopted best
reflects the voters' intention and the following guiding
principles:.
• Principle 1. The value of a vote should never increase in value
disproportionally in the calculation and distribution of preferences. Each vote's
value must be treated equally in the calculation of the Surplus Transfer Value.
• Principle 2. If a candidate is excluded, all ballots should be redistributed and counted treated as if that
candidate had never stood.
• Principle 3. Each ballot paper must be treated equally and in the same way.
QUEENSLAND THE STOLEN ELECTION
Analysis of the 2007 Senate Election of Queensland and Victoria has highlighted a number of errors in the way in which the senate vote is counted.
If you count the Queensland senate vote excluding all candidates except the last seven standing (3 ALP, 3 Lib/NP and 1 Grn) and distribute the vote according to existing rules the Greens candidate, Larisa Waters, would have been elected. The reason she was not is in the distortion of the counting system which is in need of serious review.
The system was designed to facilitate a manual count and in the process there are a number of distortions and inbuilt errors,
1. The calculation of the surplus transfer value
2. The segmentation and distribution of preferences from excluded candidates
3. minor issue with remainders.
Hello DemocracyATwork,
Re Part A Queensland and the Stolen Election:
Do you think you might expand on the point you are making here. I'm not quite sure I understand what you are getting at. Are you saying that the excluded candidates votes are counted as more than one each as compared to the votes by candidates still standing?
Unfortunately the powers that be do not allow hot links and you are limited in your response. Take a look at the JSCEM submission of August 2008 and google the wright system.
A potentially serious inconsistency exists between the provisions of Section 154 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, with respect to the issue of writs for elections to the House of Representatives, and those of Sections 180 and 181 with respect to the death of a candidate between closure of nominations and polling day.
As the Act stands, should just one candidate die during this period between closure of nominations and polling day, the whole election for all Divisions within any given State fails, as there is presently provision for the issue of only one writ covering all Divisions within a State. Should it be that there occur several such deaths, in each of several States, the prospect exists of a House of Representatives for a period significantly longer than otherwise intended not having a quorum.
In the context of the sorts of terrorist-style acts that have been seen to be perpetrated around the world in recent years, it would seem to be but common prudence to preclude the possiblity of such ever hamstringing the function of an Australian Parliament, however temporarily that might be. Short as may be any time for which there might be no quorum, the meeting of Constitutional deadlines for the sitting of a new Parliament may nevertheless be threatened.
This potential problem can be obviated by returning to the provisions of the Act as they were before the 1983 amaendments, whereby a separate writ for election of a member of the House of Representatives is issued to each Divisional Returning Officer, the statutorily appointed officer, in terms of Sections 7 and 32 of the Act as they inter-relate, responsible for the conduct of elections.
The existence of the 'eight writs provision' in the Act as it stands has smokescreened a long-standing improper usurpation by the Electoral Commission itself of the statutorily appointed function and status of Divisional Returning Officers in the electoral apparatus of Australia.
This should be rectified ASP.
I am an Australian married to an Australian and have 3 adult Australian children(in school). We all live in the US. We are disenfranchised and feel that to be a huge problem conceptually.
Our intention has always been to remain active in the affairs of Australia while being good ambassadors for Australia while living outside Australia. We have lived outside Australia for 25 years for a variety of academic reasons. Information exchange and electronic communication was primitive then so we lapsed our voting ability without ever realizing it and had no recourse to reinstate it. This has always been perceived by me as most unfair. We are proud Australian citizens with Australian passports who paid Australian taxes, who never thought we would be away for this long and who will return, yet we are not permitted to vote in any Australian elections. This is felt as a bitter blow. We have always had a stake in the welfare of the Australian nation, regardless of our absence.
Please devise a way to enable all citizens of Australia, who are overseas regardless of how long we have been away, to vote.
Could Australia learn anything from British electoral practice for those living overseas? The UK allows its citizens who have left their country for good a timespan of 15 years in which they can still register to vote in UK general elections and European elections. They may do so, either in person if they happen to be in the UK on voting day, by post (though there may be a rather short time in which to return the ballot paper to the UK) or by proxy, i.e. getting someone to vote on their behalf. Have these models been considered by the Committee, for overseas Australians?
15 years seems a generous amount of time to allow an expatriate to vote. In that time, some expats may decide to return to the UK, whereas others will not do so. In which case one could ask whether they still have enough of a stake in their former homeland to be allowed to continue voting in its elections.
I have been living in the USA for some years, hope to return finally, and do wish to vote in the Local,State and Federal elections. The local Hobart City Council are the only body that send me info. and ballot papers. Could it be arranged that Federal and State do the same? (They do on request only). With my wife, I have a house in Hobart and return every year, so have kept my enrollement in Hobart. Surely all Australians living overseas should have a vote in their nominated electorate, possibly their birthplace if they do not have a residential address. In some cases, a new enrollment would be necessary.
Des Sainsbury.
"FRANCHISE
4.6 In addition, certain restrictions apply to the voting rights of Australian citizens living overseas,
who may vote as ‘eligible overseas electors’ if they intend to resume residing in Australia
within six years of leaving Australia. Applications must be lodged within three years of leaving
Australia; from six years after leaving Australia, citizens who ‘intend to resume residing in
Australia at some time’ may apply to remain on the electoral roll on an annual basis.69"
These are the voting restrictions AUSTRALIANS are subject to because they are living/working oversea. I am a disenfranchised Australian.
I was born in Australia to Australian parents. I do not hold a passport for any other country nor do I have actual residency in any other country. I have been working in Saudi Arabia for 9 years since 2000. I do not own property here and, of course, cannot vote in any elections.
I own property in Australia; I file tax returns each year as required; I bring/will bring much of my hard earned money into the country as I am sure many expatriates do.
I am a disenfranchised Australia insofar as voting is concernd. I will return to Australia permanently next year so my forced disenfranchised status will end. However, this situation must be addressed and ended. Some of the best and brightest Australians are working overseas for a many number of reasons - sometimes because the same opportunities do not exist in Australia. Most are still closely connected to Australia in so many ways (financially, family, spiritually). We read the newspapers and access information on the internet. We discuss issues and have opinions on all the issues. We may not be there physically but the Australia expatriates I have met and know all greatly love our country of birth and want to continue to have a say in the way it is managed by the elected governments of the day.
Michelle James
I have been disenfranchised for nearly 20 years; during this time I have lived in three countries, and have been given the right to vote in two of these countries, yet I cannot participate in the elections in my own country. This has been the biggest disappointment I have experienced, my own country not allowing me to vote.
My family has been active in Australian politics and one family member was an advisor to one of the Prime Ministers.
I have never been contacted by the Consulate or High Commission in any of the countries where I have resided even though I have registered. A census of ex pats overseas would be a fantastic idea.
Information for Forum Participants
We are pleased to advise that in response to a number of requests, this forum has been extended and will remain open for comment until 5pm (Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time) on Friday 27 November 2009.
We have received a few queries about the reasons why some submitted comments have not been published. All submitted comments are moderated against the Protocols for Participation before they are published. If you have submitted a comment and it does not appear on the forum site within 24 hours of submission, please check your email: if a comment does not comply with the Protocols for Participation, we will email you outlining the reasons why your comment has been rejected and inviting you to resubmit a comment that complies with the Protocols for Participation, which can be reviewed by clicking the “Forum Protocols” link at the bottom of this screen.
Comments are limited to 2000 characters (approximately 350 words). To assist you to comply with these limits, yesterday we added a mechanism to warn you, at the time of submitting a comment, if it exceeds the character limit. As a result, our system will no longer accept comments of greater than 2000 characters.
We welcome your views on what changes should be made to our electoral laws and processes, and look forward to receiving your contributions over the coming fortnight.
I find the New Zealand system inspiring, where a proven continued connection to Australia gives one the right to stay on the electoral roll.
I also agree that a system that allowed one to vote without having to travel miles to the capital city would also be a big plus.
There must also be a way in which one can return to the electoral roll without having a residential address in Australia.
It would also be beneficial for Australians moving overseas to be given more information about their electoral rights. Presently one has to seek information and more often than not still feels confused.
I also find Aussie expats suggestion of a census of Australians living overseas a brilliant idea. this could be beneficial for a whole number of reasons, not least electoral reform.
Aussie expat makes many great points garding voting for Australian living overseas. I have been living overseas for a five years now, and although I am still able to vote many fellow expats are not. This is despite many of them having maintained extremely close ties to Australia and following Australian political developments more closely than many Australians living onshore. Many Australians lose their right to vote soon after leaving Australia, merely due to beauracratical obstacles and are automatically disenfranchised. This is made perhaps all the more unfair when one considers that as Australians living in other countries we usually do not have the right to vote in the countries in which reside, and are thus completely disenfranchised as global citizens. As an Australian living in Switzerland it would be another 25 years before I would have the right to vote there. This is however completely beside the point that although we may not currently reside in Australia, this is no indication of our ongoing commitment to, identification with, and interest in Australia and Australian affairs. A few years years living in another country does not erase our identity as Australians nor our right to have input into the shaping of Australia for the future. I feel there is a general disregard for Australian expats, and rectifying this electoral inequality would be a first step in achieving a more general respect for Australians living overseas. Opinions of Australian expats are often put down or dismissed in the media, as we are portrayed as unqualified to comment on Australia and what it is to be Australian. The irony is that living overseas gives one a new perspective that allows one often for the first time to truly see what Australia really is defined by, and what it truly means to be Australian. Living overseas often only strengths our identification with Australia. To deny these people a voice is a tragedy.
As someone who contributed a submission to the inquiry, I've been invited to join this forum.
Firstly, I agree with Anne Jones's call to ban political donations. An incidental benefit is that it would rein in the extraordinary amount that is spent on election campaigns. Public meetings with candidates debating the issues, reported accurately and fairly in the media, are all that's necessary for voters to form an opinion.
Regarding the expat vote, it seems undemocratic that someone who chooses to make their home outside Australia should have a say in how the country is administered for those of us who actually live here.
On electronic voting, I suggest that any move towards reliance on electronic voting or vote counting is a move in the wrong direction. The present system of hand counting and scrutineering has evolved over a long time and has served the country well. It has the essential element of transparency; later, if there are discrepancies, there is a paper trail to follow. Technology is useful only when it offers some improvement on an existing system, and this is clearly not the case.
On voting by incarcerated criminals, natural law would hold that no individual or government has the authority to take away anyone's citizenship. Restricting citizenship, eg from women, dates from more primitive times, and would be a step backwards. Moreover, penalties are set by statute and common law, and do not include extra-judicial punishments like loss of voting rights. The proposal, by politicians, is nothing but a shabby bid to look tough on crime.
In response to Mairi's points:
1) I would also support banning political donations. We can afford to fund political parties without distorting political donations, often made with the expectation of favoritism should the party ultimately win government.
2) Undemocratic for expats to vote ? What a shamefaced nonsense !! Firstly, many people are now global citizens and "live" in more than one country. Increased international mobility in the workforce requires many people to follow their jobs offshore. Travel is cheap and easy. Why shouldn't we Aussies explore the world and expand our horizons ?? What is undemocratic about these Australians wishing to continue to exercise their right to vote ? It's in fact undemocratic to disenfrachise them based on an antiquated idea of where they live and an arbitrary time period for cutting expats off the electoral role. We expats hold the same passport as you Mairi ! And many of us make terrific contributions to Australia, albeit from a little further away than you from Canberra !!
3) Why is a paper trail any more transparent than an eletronic one ? Clearly electronic voting can be made transparent too. In fact, it can be made more widely transparent than paper based voting by the very nature of it being digitized ! The technology is clearly here, now. What is lacking is will power. To ignore the possibilities allowed by e-voting is to bury our heads in the sand. Where there is a will, there is a way !
4) Great point Mairi about the shameful dienfrachising of prisoners. I completely agree - cheap point scoring by politicians and in no way democratic.
Part 1
In response to point (1) about banning all political donations (and I know that the second green paper didn’t cover campaign finance, but we were encouraged to think holistically):
Banning of all donations, and creating an entirely public funded system, has a number of problems that will need to be considered. Firstly, how does a candidate become entitled to public funding for an election campaign? And, are all nominated candidates entitled to equal funding?
Consider the possible criteria for public funding:
(1) All candidates are entitled to an equal amount upon nominating. This would put extra pressure on the criteria for candidate nomination. The current requirements (a petition with 50 signatures or nomination by a registered political party) might allow too many candidates to run. But a criterion of say 10%of the electorate—which would reflect a genuine candidacy—might be too high and tend to favour the established political parties who would be entitled to the funding by virtue or being registered.
Contined
Continued (part 2)
(2) Candidates are entitled to an funding amount based on the number of signatures on their nominating petition. At first glance, this would seem to be a more democratic method of determining the amount of funding, since those candidates who could demonstrate wide community support would get the most funds. This would then require consideration of how one funds a campaign to acquire signatures on the nominating petition. Essentially it would move the private money to the nomination petition stage rather than the campaigning stage.
(3) A criterion similar to that of the current public funding arrangements: All candidates and all candidates of political parties who received more than 4% IN THE PREVIOUS ELECTION are entitled to public funding based upon the number of votes received in said previous election. But of course this has a tendency to favour established parties and perpetuate the current order into the future by preventing new and emerging voices from ever gaining strength.
Secondly, banning all political donations would likely be unconstitutional, if other nations' experience is instructive. Although we only have an implied right to political communication in this country, the banning of all private monetary expression in politics is likely to contravene this right. Several US states (eg Maine) have gotten around this problem by making entrance into the public funding scheme voluntary – a candidate may choose to accept full public funding of their campaign in return for rejecting ALL private donations.
Continued (part 3)
Thirdly, in any case the impact of banning political donations of small amounts from individuals has the impact of reducing the scope of political participation by individuals. Australians already exhibit low levels of voluntary political participation (such as party membership, political donating, rally attendance, letter writing to parliamentarians, petition signing, public enquiry submitting etc etc) and we should be very cautious about closing down another voluntary isle of participation in favour of another essentially compulsory form of participation (ie all taxpayers being required to fund political parties). As is the case with compulsory voting, compulsory donation (and oxymoron perhaps?) runs the risk of further isolating people from their politics.
Fourthly, why would we as Australians want to fund political parties without making them more accountable to Australians (eg. in their nomination procedures, leadership selection, finances, policy decisions in caucus and platforms)? If the state, on behalf of all Australians, begins fully funding political parties (which is essentially what would happen if private donations were banned – membership fees are a small source of income to parties these days), then they can no longer claim to be private associations in any sense of the term. We would need to think clearly about the implications of this for political parties—we should then come to expect political parties to be democratic, open and accountable to the public at large, and this is the complete opposite of the current conceptualisation of political parties in Australia. In essence, we would have to be comfortable with the idea that we are "Americanising" our political parties so that they are public agencies rather than private associations. Needless to say, parties would not like this very much.
Continued
The point of this is to show that banning private donations is not that simple. Even if it is desirable (and I’m not convinced that it is), banning all private donations is wrought with different manifestations of the same problems that plague allowing private donations, namely:
(1) How do we deal with the reality of economic inequalities, which might be converted into political inequalities, when democracy presupposes political equality?
(2) How do we ensure that incumbent parties and candidates aren’t favoured at the expense of new and emerging political voices?
(3) How do we ensure that opinions and voices that have wide community support are heard the loudest whilst also ensuring that minority opinions are heard?
To me it seems that limiting donations to private individuals, who are Australian citizens, up to a certain ceiling amount (say $1000 or something similar) each year would have be a desirable start. Firstly, parties and candidates would be limited to spending an amount that roughly corresponds to their support in the community. Secondly, the overall cost of campaigning would be limited (the conceptual maximum would be the citizen population of Australia times $1000, but this would never be reached). Thirdly, people would still be able to participate in politics in a financial way (and participation, not just voting but many different forms of participation, is desirable in a democracy). To be sure, enforcement would be difficult. But that will always bee the case.
3. The remedy: PR - Open Party List system - Klaas Woldring.
Proportional Representation voting is the main rival to the single-member district system. In Europe, 21 of 28 countries use proportional representation, including Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. Where new constitutions were introduced PR was mostly adopted and often enshrined in the constitutions. E.g. in Portugal (1974), most countries behind the former Iron curtain in Eastern Europe (after 1991), the South Africa (1996) and also in New Zealand. 80% of the PR systems are "Party List". This means that the political parties present a list of candidates and the voters place ONE mark next to the party AND a particular candidate (at the same time) to indicate the preference for their party AND the candidate (in the German and NZ systems, two votes are used to provide opportunity for a geographical/local candidate)
Senate - different problems
The Australian Senate is elected on the basis of Proportional Representation - Hare-Clarke system. However, in the Senate around 96% of voters use the easy way out: they vote "above the line" and do not enter a long list of preferences, "under the line". As a result a great deal of obscure horse-trading between the parties and some Independent groups take place.
As to socalled "state representation": it stopped in 1910. The numerical distortion in this respect is grotesque.
Senate remedies.
The PR - Open Party List system should also be introduced for the Senate - that is if the Senate is to continue to formally represent the states on an equal basis in the federal Parliament. If federation is replaced with a superior system of decentralisation the Senate could be merged with the House of Representatives.
2. Single-member district problems in House of Representatives.
a. Serious lack of diversity in representation in the Australian Parliament. New parties are not able to gain representation. This is hardly reflected in the House of Representatives.
b. The single-member district system has resulted in frequent boundary changes, a costly and often controversial process; pork-barreling, resulting in election campaigns concentrating on a limited number of marginal seats; little economic development and government assistance, or none at all, in "safe" seats. By- elections are a by-product of this system.
c. An undesirable system dominance of the two major parties. In spite of the adversarial culture the major parties have become look-alikes. Debates in Parliament are unreal and reflect political point scoring often on minor issues.
d. Lack of democracy in representation through single-member districts as often candidates are elected on the basis of around 40% of first preference votes. The idea of geographical representation by a single-district MP is nonsense.
e. Compulsory voting combined with the existing voting system reinforces further the undesirable two-party dominance. It also forces the major parties to concentrate their platforms on capturing the "middle ground"
f. The single-member district system has definitely not been in the interest of furthering women representation.
g. The single-member district system is also biased against NESB candidates and Indigenous people.
h. Finally, there is another very detrimental drawback. The two-party dominance has thwarted many efforts to amend the Constitution, now an archaic and inflexible document.
I completely agree with your criticisms. Combined with the electoralist politics pursued by both major parties, it now seems that come election time one doesn't really have a significant choice to make between the two.
Brief comments on line dated 11th November - from Klaas Woldring
1. I have made submissions to the Inquiry, both to the First and Second Green Papers. I am referring readers to these submissions but will make some comments on the second paper separately.
We need to remember (1) This is not an independent Inquiry. Objectively, it is an Inquiry launched by a major party, the one that is in Government (2) The notion (expressed in the Green paper) that the electoral system is democratic, has served Australia well etc., but IS in need of some improvements, is establishment talk. The position in my submissions is that (1) funding and the electoral system arrangements grossly favour the major parties and that this is most undesirable (2) that the electoral system is undemocratic, unrepresentative and largely responsible for a political system and constitution that is archaic and has long failed to deliver good representation and good government. The status of politicians is extremely low in Australia. That is the reality! The people have to live with them, and with the system, because they don't know how they can change it. As many competent commentators have argued the governance system in Australia is frozen. Knowledge about alternatives is inadequate. Opportunities for effecting change are almost non-existent without sustained media input. For that reason alone massive publicity about these inquiries is urgently required.
The remedy to solve these problems are: Introduce proportional representation - party list system - in the House of Representatives. For the Senate ditto. The present Hare-Clarke PR system is costly, cumbersome, not really proportional and undermined. Alternatively, abolish the Senate, it hasn't been a state house since 1910 and federation has become dysfunctional anyway.