The ALP is full of legends – of which many old party folk are defiantly proud – of political skullduggery. There have been stuffed ballot boxes, and mysteriously disappearing ones, and forged minutes of branch meetings.

The “vote early, vote often” tradition and the rising of the dead on election Saturdays, running censuses of the graveyards, factional chieftains paying for party memberships (registered at local addresses) of people who do not even speak English. There’s tactical voting (also a Liberal Party speciality) whereby candidates are lulled into false senses of security by unexpectedly high initial counts, only to have hopes dashed at the next round. There have been any number of schemes by which rival parties have been morally defrauded of resources, or votes.

This fondness for distorting elections is now on display again

Some frauds involve joint enterprises. It is far from uncommon for rival parties to agree to changes of the electoral rules by which both benefit to the detriment of other parties or independents. There are frauds not on other parties but against the general public, usually by voting each other handsome sums of taxpayer cash. The alternative parties of government differ only in the degree of shamelessness by which they distribute public grants into their own electorates, or ones they hope to win. No one has screamed more loudly than opposition about the abuse of government advertising money, or rorts by which sports grants, car parking grants and others sums supposed to address need are funnelled into strategic seats; no one proclaims more piously that they would never do such a thing themselves. No one, least of all a Labor Party come into government from opposition will hesitate, even from shame, from doing the same when they are in power.

The vice of some forms of chicanery is that they are refined acts of bastardry, directed primarily against one’s own side. But others are in a different category because they are designed to frustrate a fair election, in which all of the candidates have an equal chance of winning a seat. That does not mean that each candidate must have equal resources with which to fight an election. Nor does it necessarily prevent parliament from legislating for limits on how much money can be spent on a campaign. But it should mean that restraints placed on some candidates or parties should go no further than restraints placed on others. Put another way, no candidate or group of candidates should face a handicap in running a campaign that other parties do not face.

New legislation rushed through the House of Representatives this week does not achieve this outcome, even if it pretends to meet some other desirable outcomes, not least some sort of cap on total election spending. The major political parties will find their advantage over independents, particularly the Teals improved, because only some party expenditure is calculated against expenditure limits, while independents will have little opportunity to exclude general (party) advertising not mentioning specific candidates. The Teals may be a loose grouping with some common aims, particularly about climate change action and integrity in government, but they are not a party and will find it difficult to pool their expenditure.

We have had public funding for elections for more than 40 years, without real reform of the basic law. It is overdue, and some of the proposals deserve examination. But so does the inbuilt bias. It is a furphy to pretend that Labor has any serious plan to create a higher level of transparency, for prompt reporting of donations, preferably online, for grouping sources of donations, and limits on spending.

What’s clear, however, is that the new major scale of public spending, (up more than 50 per cent, and to be indexed) and the lack of any serious accountability requirements deserve a comprehensive review of whether the expenditure is serving the purpose for which it was intended. The average spend for every seat in parliament has now reached about $2 million. That is beyond the reach of most potential candidates, and those who must receive major donations in order to be able to draw their issues to attention are vulnerable to suggestions that donations are buying influence. In fact, such allegations are being made, particularly against Teals and independents, even if they are on average spending less than the major parties.

Make political parties subject to a NACC under new leadership

I have long thought that political parties willing to share around about $180 million in election funding should have their organisational structures subject to integrity and anti-corruption legislation, and at state and Commonwealth level. For some big donors, there seem to be clear associations between their donations and their political agendas. But they are also clearly getting privileged access to ministers, and a lot of preferential attention. Such a shift might also embrace truth in advertising laws (soon, if one trusts senator Farrell, which I wouldn’t.) But it might also embrace more public and accountable disclosures of conflicts of interest (including assessments of the value of gifts and perks, including quasi-bribes such as Qantas chairman’s lounge memberships) and reports of cases in which parliamentarians had excluded themselves from decision-making because of conflicts.

It would be too much to hope that the National Anti-Corruption Commission would be up to the task of policing this, particularly under its present leadership. But a parliament which had an activist commissioner for parliamentary standards, able to launch own-motion inquiries without reference or prior complaint might make some members and some parties more alert to the ethical minefields in which they are operating. It might also provide an opportunity for investigating obvious, but unremarked “pooling” of parliamentary paper allowances. These are rorts that magnify the advantages of incumbency.

In recent decades, the number of independents and members of small parties has risen substantially. These days only about two thirds of voters are voting for the major parties, and the evidence suggests that the numbers voting for independents and minor parties will only increase. Albanese sometimes seems to think that there is a public interest, which he should institutionally support, in maintaining a two-party system. But at least one of the reasons for the declining vote for mainstream parties has been an increase in disillusion about abuse of the system by mainstream politicians, including the leaders of the parties.

As in the US and in Europe mainstream politicians do not seem to get the crisis of confidence in the institutions of government, and the institutions of society. Calls for new watchdogs and more accountability, and open cynicism about honesty and integrity of established politicians are natural responses. The word “corruption” is often used, though this may not necessarily mean criminal abuse of the system. The suspicion is about a corruption of the spirit which is undercutting old notions of public interest and public service. Minor parties and independents may be subject to questions about their common sense or their priorities but are more admired for seeming disinterested and altruistic about their political objectives (for example about acting on climate change, improving the environment and cleaning up government.)

Making life easier for professional politicians already seen as feathering their own nests ought not be on the agenda. The very history of this sleight of hand underscores why they are not to be trusted.

https://johnmenadue.com/distorting-elections-australias-professional-politicians-feather-their-own-nests/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.