Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

 

by Democratic Audit of Australia

The latest update from the Democratic Audit program at ANU on how our democracy is working.

 

 

Australian Wheat Board and the Oil for Food program

Linda Botterill, Australian National University, considers the outcome of the Cole Inquiry into the AWB Ltd’s alleged bribery in Iraq. The problem was not so much one of government culpability, she argues, but shortcomings in the way in which the original privatisation of the wheat exporting institutions were carried out.

Time to tighten the caretaker conventions?

The Canberra Times’ Paul Malone reviews the current caretaker conventions, designed to ensure that a government does not exploit its position once an election is called. The conventions are, however, interpreted very differently between departments, particularly in relation to departmental websites. New guidelines should minimise the scope for conflicting interpretations.

An upper house for Queensland?

Nicholas Aroney (University of Queensland) and Scott Prasser (University of the Sunshine Coast) look at the debate surrounding the merits of restoring an upper house to the Queensland parliament. A second chamber could contribute to far greater executive scrutiny in Queensland, but much would depend on how a restored upper house was structured

Matters of Public Importance debates cut

The government has slashed the time available in parliament for debate on Matters of Public Importance (MPI). MPI debates are held on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday during sitting weeks, and allow MPs to raise matters of the concern to their electorates and the government is halving the time available from two hours to just one. Independent MPs in particular, have used MPI debates: Independent MP Tony Windsor has said the moves are aimed to reduce the influence of Independents. Independent MP Peter Andren said 'The Howard government continues its undermining of parliament with Tony Abbott now attacking me and my Independent colleagues for speaking out in debates such as the daily matter of public importance'.

Party funding figures revealed

The Australian Electoral Commission has disclosed the donations from companies to the political parties for 2005-06. The full returns can be found on the AEC’s website but some of the largest donors to the federal parties are as follows:

Liberal Party
Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd – $200 000
Westfield Holdings Ltd – $160 000
ANZ Banking Group limited – $100 000
Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd – $100 000
Kingold Group Companies Ltd – $100 000
Walker Corporation Limited – $100 000
Westpac Banking Corporation – $65 000
Paul Ramsay Holdings Pty Ltd – $53 000
Goldman Sachs JBWere – $50 000
Gunns Ltd – $50 000
Leighton Holdings – $50 000
Resmed – $50 000
True James Erskine – $50 000
Phillip Morris – $35 000
Coca-Cola Amatil –$32 500
British American Tobacco Australia – $25 000
Adsteam Marine Services Ltd – $20 000
Wesfarmers – $10 000

Total Receipts (includes other receipts): $4 212 557

Labor Party:
CFMEU Mining & Energy Division – $100 000
Westfield Capital Corporation Ltd – $100 000
ANZ Banking Group limited – $50 000
Leighton Holdings Ltd – $50 000
Westpac Banking Corporation – $40 000
Coca Cola Amatil – $40 000
Adsteam Marine Ltd – $20 000
Profile Ray & Berndston – $15 000
Wesfarmers Limited – $10 000

Total Receipts (includes other receipts): $3 785 737

National Party:
Manildra Group of Companies - $31 000
Adsteam Marine Ltd– $20 000.00
Philip Morris Limited – $20 000.00
British American Tobacco Australia – $16 600
Wesfarmers Limited – $10 000
Leighton Holdings Limited – $10 000
Westpac Banking Corporation – $10 000

Total receipts (includes other receipts): $900 177.00

Australian Democrats:
Under official AEC definitions, the Democrats received no donations this year.
Total receipts (includes other receipts): $144 642

Crikey has a review of the disclosures that also lists the details from the States and Territories: (subscription required).

Silencing Dissent

A new book, Silencing Dissent, edited by Clive Hamilton and Sarah Maddison, and featuring a number of Audit contributors, considers the way in which the Howard Government has sought to undermine and discredit, not only independent and dissenting opinion, but also the dissenters themselves. Bullying, intimidation, personal attacks, withdrawal of funding, and manipulation of the rules have all been employed as ways of limiting public debate. The victims have included charities, academics, researchers, journalists, judges, the public service, and even parliament itself.

The SMH’s review: and The Australian’s.

Freedom of information?

The Sydney Morning Herald carried a bizarre story illustrating the shortcomings of the current FOI framework. Herald journalists were faced with a prospective bill for $13 000 by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations for making a decision on whether various papers relating to the welfare-to-work might be released. They went to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a discount on public interest grounds but were denied it on the grounds that FOI requests were part of the newspapers’ normal commercial activities. The full saga can be found here.

House of Lords reform proposals

The UK government has published a White Paper outlining proposals for a partially elected House of Lords. Reforms eliminating the right of almost all hereditary peers to sit in the second chamber were introduced in 1999, and were generally expected to be the first step in the introduction of an elected Lords. But in 2003, all the options for introducing an elected component were rejected. The government currently favours 50 per cent elected, with 50 per cent remaining appointed, though the Lords are expected to reject this. However, it has been reported that Gordon Brown, the favourite to succeed Tony Blair, will force through reform making the Lords entirely elected, once leader, if these proposals are blocked.

Read the White Paper.

Re-thinking Westminster

The Audit's Norman Abjorensen spoke on ABC Radio National's Perspective  program on 31January 2007, on the South Australian Rann Government's rewriting of the Westminister system of government by appointing non-Labor members to cabinet.

Several minutes in duration, you can read the transcript,  listen online or download the MP3  (right-click and 'save as') and listen later.

Going backwards? Women in federal politics

In the run up to International Women's Day, women's presence in the federal Cabinet has been reduced from three to two (Senator Helen Coonan and Julie Bishop). Women now make up 11 per cent of the federal Cabinet (2 out of 18) and 13 per cent of the ministry as a whole (4 out of 30). This compares poorly with countries such as Sweden, Norway, Spain and Chilé where women make up half of Cabinet.

Australia has also slid to its lowest-ever place in the league table of representation of women in national parliaments compiled by the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The latest figures (30 November 2006) show Australia to have dropped to 33rd place internationally, down from 15th in 1999. The ranking is based on representation in the lower house of the national parliament.

Women are somewhat more evident on the federal Labor front bench, making up 7 out of 31 shadow ministers (23 per cent), and with Julia Gillard as Deputy Leader. On the other hand, women's presence in the Victorian Labor Cabinet dropped from seven to four (35 per cent to 20 per cent) after the election in late 2006.

The Audit will be publishing a major new report, How Well Does Australian democracy Serve Women? in advance of International Women's Day. The report, prepared by Sarah Maddison and Emma Partridge, finds that while Australia was once a leader in the global struggle for gender equality, many of the achievements have been undone in recent years. Inquiries about advance copies should be made to the Audit project manager on daa@anu.edu.au.

End of year deregistration of 19 political parties

On 27 December 2006 19 political parties were de-registered when Schedule 3 of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2006 came into effect.

The purpose of the deregistration was to eliminate liberals for forests. In the JSCEM inquiry into the 2004 federal election it was alleged that voters were misled into believing liberals for forests had some connection to the Liberal Party. In particular, liberals for forests were blamed for the Coalition's narrow loss of the seat of Richmond.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act was promptly amended in 2004 to prevent the registration of new parties with names that might lead a reasonable person to assume a connection to an already registered party. However, liberals for forests were already registered—so the new provision for deregistration was included in the 2006 Electoral Act amendments. The deregistration of 19 parties to achieve the deregistration of one seems somewhat extreme and contrary to the encouragement of pluralistic party competition and access to the ballot paper. At least reregistration without fee can be achieved within the next six months as long as the parties still satisfy the requirement of having 500 members and comply with the new naming provisions.

The parties de-registered were:

Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)
Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
Citizens Electoral Council of Australia (NSW Division)
Help End Marijuana Prohibition
Hope Party – ethics equality ecology
liberals for forests
New Country Party
No Goods and Services Tax Party
Non-Custodial Parents Party
One Nation Queensland Division
One Nation Western Australia
People Power
Progressive Labour Party
Queensland Greens
Republican Party of Australia
Socialist Alliance
The Australian Shooters Party
The Fishing Party
The Great Australians

 * Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Parliament of Australia. The Australian Electoral Commission had initially refused the registration of liberals for forests but the decision was overturned by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 2001.

Read the Audit’s Norm Kelly’s article in The Canberra Times.

Skewing electoral competition

The Special Minister of State, Gary Nairn, announced on 11 January that all federal members of parliament would be entitled to one extra staff member: four instead of three for party backbenchers and five instead of four for Independents.

Federal members of parliament serve very large numbers of constituents by international standards. At the 2004 election the average enrolment in federal electorates was 87 323 - far higher than the number that triggered an increase in the number of seats in 1984. By contrast, the average number of registered voters in the 2005 New Zealand general election was under 43 000 and in the UK under 68 000. At the 2004 Canadian election the average number of electors was under 73 000.

All of this adds up to an argument for more politicians or perhaps more staff to assist the existing ones to service their electorates. However, in the absence of guidelines restricting the activities of parliamentary staff, the increase of staff further skews electoral competition in favour of incumbents. There cannot be political equality and fair competition where the balance is weighted so much against new contenders.

The increase in staff, taken together with the increase in allowances that can be used for campaigning, such as last year's increase in the printing allowance to $150 000 (plus allowable carryover) creates an immediate and unfair advantage for incumbent politicians in an election year. Other parliaments explicitly prevent the use of parliamentary allowances such as these for campaigning purposes. In Westminster, as well as in the Scottish Parliament, there are guidelines whereby staffers paid for out of the public purse are not allowed to canvass or campaign during working hours - they may take leave or campaign out of hours, or their salaries should be reimbursed by the parties for the relevant period.

Independent MP Peter Andren has announced  his refusal of the extra staff allocation. Australia needs to start clearly distinguishing between the use of staff and parliamentary allowances for constituency and legislative work and their use to give incumbent politicians more than a head-start in electoral competition.

The Audit's Norm Kelly has more in the Canberra Times.

________________________
Dr Phil Larkin
Democratic Audit of Australia
Political Science
Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200

 

Tel: +61 2 6125 0696 or 1600
Fax: +61 2 6125 3051