DOCSLIB.ORG

Contents Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Submission to the Commonwealth Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2019 Federal Election By Antony Green Election Analyst Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 2 How to Assess the Impact of the Electoral Changes ........................................................................... 2 Comparing Results in 2013 and 2019 ................................................................................................. 4 Changes to Party Nominations under the Senate's New Electoral System ........................................ 6 How Voters Reacted to the New Senate System in 2016 ................................................................... 7 The Impact of the New Senate Voting System on House Informal Voting ......................................... 8 Recommendations on the Senate's New Electoral System ................................................................ 9 Recommendation on the Registration of Political Parties ................................................................ 10 Introduction The 2019 Senate election was the second conducted under the reformed electoral system introduced in 2016. The system's first use was at the 2016 double dissolution election using the lower 7.7% state quota to elect state senators. As the first double dissolution election since 1987, it was difficult to assess the impact of the new system compared to past half-Senate results. The 2019 election was the first to be held under the new system with the higher 14.3% state quota at a half-Senate election. It is possible to compare the 2019 results with the result of the last half-senate election under group voting tickets in 2013. As the 2013 election was the high point (or maybe low point) for the manipulation of results by group voting ticket preference deals, the comparison of results is illuminating. In this submission I look at several features of the 2019 results in comparison to the 2013 results, point out how the changes met their intended objective of minimising the impact of preference deals and maximising reward for parties that campaigned and attracted first preference votes. For simplicity I will refer to the Senate system in place from 1984 to 2013 as the old Senate system, and the system used for the 2016 and 2019 elections as the new Senate system. How to Assess the Impact of the Electoral Changes The abolition of group voting tickets has radically altered the flow of between-party preferences at Senate elections. Under the old Senate system, more than 90% of voters voted above the line with a single preference for a party ticket. This meant that more than 90% of between-party preferences were directly under party control. With the abolition of group voting tickets, party control over preferences was abolished. Parties could still influence the flow of preferences by distributing how-to-vote recommendations to voters, but the choice on preferences was now entirely for the voter. To assess the impact of between-party preferences, it is best to compare Senate results with likely outcomes under a non-preferential form of proportional representation where final vacancies are filled based on party first preference vote share. Table 1 on the next page compares outcome of Senate elections since 1977 with outcomes had the same vote shares been used to allocate seats to parties using a List Proportional Representation system (List-PR). The analysis uses the same Droop quota used for the Senate, but instead of using preferences to allocate the final seats in each contest, it allocates final seats non-preferentially using a highest remainder method. The difference between Senate results and a List-PR result can be measured by the number of parties that fill seats from trailing positions. A second measure is the number of parties with higher quotas that are passed during the count by trailing parties elected on preferences. As an observation, the stronger the flow of between-party preferences, the more a Senate result will diverge from a List-PR for an election with the same party vote shares. The weaker the flows, the more PR-STV outcomes will match List-PR outcomes. 2 Antony Green – JSCEM Submission The columns in Table 1 on the next page are explained as follows. • Filled quotas – the number of Senators elected through complete quotas filled on the total of first preference votes by party; • Highest remainder – the number of Senators elected from the highest remainder or leading partial quota on first preference votes; • Trailing wins – the number of Senators elected after having trailed the party with the highest remainder on the initial counts; and • Parties passed – the number of higher polling parties passed by trailing winners. Table 1 - Senate Results Compared to List-PR with Highest Remainder Allocation Highest Election (Seats) Filled Quotas Remainder Trailing Wins Parties Passed 1977 (30) 24 5 1 1 1980 (30) 25 4 1 1 1983 (60) 54 3 3 2 1984 (42) 33 7 2 2 1987 (72) 62 6 4 6 1990 (36) 28 6 2 2 1993 (36) 30 4 2 3 1996 (36) 28 7 1 1 1998 (36) 24 7 5 5 2001 (36) 25 6 5 6 2004 (36) 29 6 1 3 2007 (36) 27 8 1 2 2010 (36) 27 7 2 4 2013 (36) 21 6 9 33 2016 (72) 52 18 2 7 2019 (26) 22 14 .. .. Source: Calculations by author. Excludes Territory Senate races. 2013 calculations based on original 2013 WA Senate result, not the 2014 Senate re-election. Under group voting tickets at the 2013 election, a quarter of the Senators elected were from trailing positions, and the ratio of parties passed to trailing wins was much higher than at any previous election. In Western Australia, Wayne Dropulich of the Australian Sports Party was elected despite the party polling just 0.23 percent or 0.016 quotas. The Sports Party finished 21st of 27 parties on first preferences, but received ticket preferences from 20 different parties to achieve a quota, 15 of those parties having polled a higher first preference vote. Preferences allowed Dropulich to leap frog parties and defeat a Labor candidate who began the count with a remainder of 0.86 quotas. In Victoria, Ricky Muir and the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party began the count with 0.51 percent or 0.035 quotas, receiving preferences from 22 other parties including nine with more votes, and passed a Liberal candidate who began the count with 0.81 quotas. Antony Green – JSCEM Submission 3 Comparing Results in 2013 and 2019 The hypothesis that the Senate's new electoral system weights the allocation of final seats in favour of highest remainders can be tested using the results of the 2013 and 2019 half-Senate elections. Table 1 looked at results since 1977. The tables below concentrate on how the new Senate system worked in 2019 compared to the old system in 2013. A summary of this comparisons is provided in Table 2. It shows that nine Senators were elected from trailing partial quotas in 2013, but no trailing parties were elected under the new system in 2019. With the new electoral system responsible for weaker party control over preferences and a greater number of exhausted preferences, the new Senate system behaved more like List-PR than the old Senate system using group voting tickets. Table 2 - Comparing the 2013 and 2019 Results with simulated List-PR results 2013 Senators Elected 2019 Senators Elected Filled Quotas 21 22 Highest Remainder 6 14 Trailing Wins 9 .. Source: Calculations by author. Excludes the four Territory Senators. 2013 calculations based on original 2013 WA Senate result, not the 2014 Senate re-election. More detail on the 14 Senators elected from leading partial quotas in 2019 is shown in Table 3. On the left are the initial partial quotas and parties for successful Senators, while on the right are the highest polling unsuccessful candidates and parties. Table 3 - 2019 election – success from partial quotas State Successful Party and Partial Quota Unsuccessful Party and Partial Quota NSW 0.70 LIB 0.61 GRN 0.35 ONP VIC 0.74 GRN 0.51 LIB 0.20 ONP 0.20 DHJP QLD 0.72 LNP 0.72 ONP 0.70 GRN 0.58 ALP WA 0.93 ALP 0.86 LIB 0.83 GRN 0.41 ONP SA 0.76 GRN 0.65 LIB 0.34 ONP TAS 0.88 GRN 0.62 JLN 0.24 ONP Source: AEC election results, calculations by author. Minor party codes are DHJP – Derryn Hinch Justice Party, JLN – Jacqui Lambie Network, ONP – Pauline Hanson's One Nation. Of the 15 parties with a partial quota above 0.5 at the start of the count, only Labor in Queensland failed to win a seat. That was a contest where four parties started with more than 0.5 partial quotas in a race for three seats. In the other five States, the partial quota for the next party in order, in each case One Nation, ranged from 0.20 quotas to 0.41 quotas, all well short of the partial quota of the successful sixth party. It was a very different pattern in 2013 where every State except Queensland saw candidates elected from trailing partial quotas, shown in Table 4 by underlined text. In Victoria the ratio of the lowest elected party to the highest defeated candidate was 0.04 quotas to 0.81, and in Western Australia 0.02 quotas to 0.86. 4 Antony Green – JSCEM Submission Table 4 - 2013 election – success from partial quotas State Successful Party and Partial Quota Highest Unsuccessful Parties and Quotas NSW 0.67 LDP 0.39 L/NP 0.55 GRN VIC 0.76 GRN 0.04 AMEP 0.81 LIB QLD 0.90 LNP 0.69 PUP 0.42 GRN WA 0.74 LIB 0.66 GRN 0.02 SPRT 0.86 ALP 0.35 PUP 0.35 NAT SA 0.92 LIB 0.50 GRN 0.26 FFP 0.74 XEN 0.59 ALP TAS 0.82 GRN 0.46 PUP 0.63 LIB Source: AEC election results, calculations by author.
Recommended publications
  • 23. Explaining the Results

    23. Explaining the Results

    23. Explaining the Results Antony Green Labor came to office in 2007 with its strongest hold on government in the nation’s history—it was, for the first time, in office nationally and in every state and territory. Six years later Labor left national office with its lowest first preference vote in a century. For only the third time since the First World War, a governing party failed to win a third term in office. From a clean sweep of governments in 2007, by mid-2014 Labor’s last bastions were minority governments in South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.1 Based on the national two-party-preferred vote, Labor’s 2013 result was less disastrous than previous post-war lows in 1966, 1975, 1977 and 1996. Labor also bettered those four elections on the proportion of House seats won. The two-party-preferred swing of 3.6 percentage points was also small for a change of government election, equal to the swing that defeated the Fraser Government in 1983 but smaller than those suffered by Whitlam in 1975, Keating in 1996 and Howard in 2007. Even over two elections from 2007 to 2013, the two-party- preferred swing of 6.2 percentage points was below that suffered by Labor previously over two elections (1961–66 and 1972–75), and smaller than the swing against the Coalition between 1977 and 1983. By the measure of first preference vote share, the 2013 election was a dreadful result for Labor, its lowest vote share since 1904.2 Labor’s vote share slid from 43.4 per cent in 2007 to 38.0 per cent in 2010 and 33.4 per cent in 2013.
  • Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry Into the Conduct of the 2013 Federal Election

    Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry Into the Conduct of the 2013 Federal Election

    11 April 2014 Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Parliament House Canberra ACT Please find attached my submission to the Committee's inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 federal election. In my submission I make suggestions for changes to political party registration under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I also suggest major changes to Senate's electoral system given the evident problems at lasty year's election as well as this year's re-run of the Western Australian Senate election. I also make modest suggestions for changes to formality rules for House of Representatives elections. I have attached a substantial appendix outlining past research on NSW Legislative Council Elections. This includes ballot paper surveys from 1999 and research on exhaustion rates under the new above the line optional preferential voting system used since 2003. I can provide the committee with further research on the NSW Legislative Council system, as well as some ballot paper research I have been carrying out on the 2013 Senate election. I am happy to discuss my submission with the Committee at a hearing. Yours, Antony Green Election Analyst Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2013 Federal Election Antony Green Contents Page 1. Political Party Registration 1 2. Changes to the Senate's Electoral System 7 2.1 Allow Optional Preferential Voting below the line 8 2.2 Above the Line Optional Preferential Voting 9 2.3 Hare Clark 10 2.4 Hybrid Group Ticket Option 10 2.5 Full Preferential Voting Above the Line 11 2.6 Threshold Quotas 11 2.7 Optional Preferential Voting with a Re-calculating Quota 12 2.8 Changes to Formula 12 2.9 My Suggested Solution 13 3.
  • Balance of Power Senate Projections, Spring 2018

    Balance of Power Senate Projections, Spring 2018

    Balance of power Senate projections, Spring 2018 The Australia Institute conducts a quarterly poll of Senate voting intention. Our analysis shows that major parties should expect the crossbench to remain large and diverse for the foreseeable future. Senate projections series, no. 2 Bill Browne November 2018 ABOUT THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE The Australia Institute is an independent public policy think tank based in Canberra. It is funded by donations from philanthropic trusts and individuals and commissioned research. We barrack for ideas, not political parties or candidates. Since its launch in 1994, the Institute has carried out highly influential research on a broad range of economic, social and environmental issues. OUR PHILOSOPHY As we begin the 21st century, new dilemmas confront our society and our planet. Unprecedented levels of consumption co-exist with extreme poverty. Through new technology we are more connected than we have ever been, yet civic engagement is declining. Environmental neglect continues despite heightened ecological awareness. A better balance is urgently needed. The Australia Institute’s directors, staff and supporters represent a broad range of views and priorities. What unites us is a belief that through a combination of research and creativity we can promote new solutions and ways of thinking. OUR PURPOSE – ‘RESEARCH THAT MATTERS’ The Institute publishes research that contributes to a more just, sustainable and peaceful society. Our goal is to gather, interpret and communicate evidence in order to both diagnose the problems we face and propose new solutions to tackle them. The Institute is wholly independent and not affiliated with any other organisation. Donations to its Research Fund are tax deductible for the donor.
  • Australia Turns to ABC for #Libspill

    Australia Turns to ABC for #Libspill

    RELEASED: Tuesday 15 September, 2015 Australia turns to ABC for #libspill Australian audiences turned to the ABC for rolling news and analysis of Malcolm Turnbull’s party room victory over Tony Abbott to become Prime Minister on Monday night, again demonstrating why the ABC is the country’s most trusted source of news. Last night’s leadership spill saw the ABC pull together resources across TV, Radio, Digital, and International divisions to provide audiences with the most comprehensive coverage of events as they unfolded. At a total network level, ABC TV reached 4.2 million metro viewers last night (between 6pm and midnight), with a primetime share of 23.3%. ABC was the number one channel from 8.30pm onwards. With continuous coverage of events in Canberra, there were 197,500 plays of the ABC News 24 live stream via the website and iview, the highest this year-to-date. ABC News recorded its highest online traffic for the year-to-date (desktop and mobile), with 1.5 million visitors, 2.1 million visits and 5.8 million page views, each up more than 80% on the same time last week. The ABC News Live Blog recorded 710,900 visits. Australian expats abroad and regional audiences were also kept informed with ABC International providing rolling multilingual coverage across platforms including Australia Plus television, online and social media sites, Radio Australia, and numerous syndication media platforms across Asia and the Pacific. ABC Radio highlighted its agility and strength, with robust coverage on ABC Local Radio, NewsRadio and RN. The Local Radio coverage was adapted to broadcast a single national evening’s program, with expert analysts and talkback callers around the country, giving the audience a strong sense of the national dialogue.
  • NT Senate Group Voting Tickets

    NT Senate Group Voting Tickets

    INDEX Group Ticket(s) Page A – PALMER UNITED PARTY 1 1 B – UNITING AUSTRALIA PARTY 1 2 C – STABLE POPULATION PARTY 3 3-5 D – A.F.N.P.P 1 6 NT E – COUNTRY LIBERALS (NT) 1 7 Senate Group Voting Tickets F – AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BRANCH 1 8 G – SEX PARTY 1 9 H – CITIZENS ELECTORAL COUNCIL 2 10-11 I – SHOOTERS AND FISHERS 1 12 This booklet sets out copies of all group voting tickets which J – RISE UP AUSTRALIA PARTY 1 13 have been lodged in NT for the 2013 Senate Election. K – AUSTRALIAN GREENS 1 14 If you place the single figure 1 in one of the boxes above the L – AUSTRALIAN INDEPENDENTS 1 15 line for the party or group of your choice, you will have voted according to the VOTING TICKET(S) lodged by your party or group as set out in this booklet. Where a party, group or candidate has lodged 2 or 3 VOTING TICKETS, the total number of group ticket votes received by that group or candidate will be distributed evenly in accordance with those voting tickets. © Commonwealth of Australia 2013 Group Voting Ticket – Election of two (2) Senators Group A – PALMER UNITED PARTY – Ticket 1 of 1 Group A – PALMER UNITED PARTY – Ticket 1 of 1 By placing the single figure 1 in the square next to the name of this group, you adopt the ticket as marked below. A B C D E F G H I J K L 1 or or or or or or or or or or or PALMER UNITED UNITING STABLE A.F.N.P.P.
  • Page 1 of 11 Inquiry Into and Report on All Aspects

    Page 1 of 11 Inquiry Into and Report on All Aspects

    The Hon Mr Tony Smith MP Chair, Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters PO Box 6021 PARLIAMENT HOUSE ACT 2600 7 April 2014 Dear Mr Smith Inquiry into and report on all aspects of the conduct of the 2013 Federal Election and matters related thereto A healthy political philosophy reflects a balanced view across many social issues. There once was a time whereby parliaments using the Westminster system consisted of progressive local representatives with a broad gamut of individual special interests. Today this type of representative is labelled as ‘single issue’ or ‘independent’ and big parties have become dominate for convenience of getting laws passed. I was a senate candidate for a micro party in the federal election on 7 September 2013. The party I represented was not a front party, not aligned with any existing political party or Member of Parliament. We were a member of the Minor Party Alliance and lodged a Group Voting Ticket. Political parties are responsible for social and national development. Misinformed and misguided choices at the ballot box can produce hazardous consequences for our society and we all then have to live with those consequences, at least for a period of time. Many millions of Australians have never been a member of any political party. The membership numbers for the major parties is said to be around 80,000 Liberal and 35,000 Labor. Yet in elections around 10 million people vote for these two parties. This situation needs to be challenged. Voters over generations have been trained to vote for one of two camps.
  • The Political Science Program in the Australian National University's

    The Political Science Program in the Australian National University's

    Democratic Audit of Australia – December 2005 The Mathematics of Democracy: Is the Senate really proportionally representative?1 Scott Brenton Australian National University Former Prime Minister Paul Keating memorably described the Senate, when the Democrats and Greens shared the ‘balance of power’, as ‘unrepresentative swill’. After the Liberal-National Coalition government won a Senate majority at the 2004 federal election that description has assumed an unintended – and at least partially accurate – meaning. Whilst most discussion has focused on the implications of the executive gaining control of the legislature for the first time in almost two-and-a-half decades, of greater concern is that the majority of voters did not vote for the Coalition in the Senate. The Coalition parties2 only received 45.09 per cent of the first preference vote in the Senate but won 21 of the 40 seats up for election, or 52.5 per cent of the seats. In Queensland – the state that delivered the Coalition its majority at the last election – the Liberal Party won half the seats with only 38.29 per cent of first preferences, whilst the National Party won only 6.61 per cent of first preferences. National Party Senator Barnaby Joyce, the self-proclaimed balance-of-power holder, won his seat with less than half a quota on first preferences, and after a 2.55 per cent swing against the Nationals from the previous election. How proportionally representative is the Senate’s electoral system? As many eminent psephologists note – including Antony Green3, Campbell Sharman4 and Malcolm Mackerras5 – the Senate’s electoral system of Proportional Representation 1 Thanks to Marian Sawer, Antony Green and John Uhr for suggesting some useful references and to Peter Brent and an anonymous reviewer for editorial advice.
  • Australia: Professor Marian Simms Head, Political Studies Department

    Australia: Professor Marian Simms Head, Political Studies Department

    Australia: Professor Marian Simms Head, Political Studies Department University of Otago Paper prepared for presentation at the joint ANU/UBA ‘John Fogarty Seminar’, Buenos Aires, Argentina 26-27 April 2007 Please note this paper is a draft version and is not for citation at this stage 1 Overview: Australian has been characterized variously as ‘The Lucky Country’ (Donald Horne), ‘A Small Rich Industrial Country’ (Heinz Arndt), and as suffering from ‘The Tyranny of Distance’ (Geoffrey Blainey). These distinguished authors have all mentioned negatives alongside positives; for example, political commentator Donald Horne’s famous comment was meant to be ironic – Australia’s affluence, and hence stability, were founded on good luck via rich mineral resources. For Blainey, the historian, geography mattered, both in terms of the vast distances from Europe and in terms of the vast size of the country.1 For economic historian Arndt, size was a double-edged sword – Australia had done well in spite of its small population. Those commentatories were all published in the 1970s. Since then much has happened globally, namely the stock market crash of the eighties, the collapse of communism in the late eighties and early nineties, the emergence of the Asian tigers in the nineties, and the attack on New York’s twin towers in 2001. All were profound events. It is the argument of this paper that in spite of these and other challenges, Australia’s institutional fabric has incorporated economic, social and political change. This is not to say that it has solved all of its social and economic problems, especially those dealing with minority groups such as the indigenous community, disaffected youth and some immigrant groups.
  • Australian Greens Victoria GPO Box 4589 MELBOURNE VIC 3001 The

    Australian Greens Victoria GPO Box 4589 MELBOURNE VIC 3001 The

    EMC Submission No. 87 Received 30 August 2019 Australian Greens Victoria GPO Box 4589 MELBOURNE VIC 3001 The Executive OFFicer Electoral Matters Committee Parliament House, Spring Street EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002 30 August 2019 Dear Members oF the Electoral Matters Committee and Executive OFFicer, Please Find attached the submission From the Australian Greens Victoria to your inquiry into the conduct of the 2018 State Election. We are willing to provide more inFormation and expand on any issues raised in this submission as the Committee desires. Kind regards, Rohan Leppert Acting State Director Australian Greens Victoria SUBMISSION By the Australian Greens Victoria To the Electoral Matters Committee’s inquiry into the conduct of the 2018 State Election 1. We welcome the opportunity to provide a submission to the Electoral Matters Committee (the Committee) on the conduct of the 2018 State Election. Our submission is divided into Five themes: 1 - The distortion oF the democratic will oF voters by Group Voting Tickets in the Legislative Council. 2 - Victoria’s two-speed population growth will require a review of the Legislative Council electoral structure. 3 - The role oF Victorian Electoral Commission staFF and Victoria Police in relation to ofFences under the Electoral Act. 4 - The counting and storage oF prepoll votes. 5 - Authorisation oF online political communications. PART ONE: The distortion of the democratic will of voters by Group Voting Tickets in the Legislative Council. 2. The Constitution (Parliamentary Reform) Act 2003 was the most comprehensive reForm of Victoria’s Parliament since its inception in 1856. It amended the Victorian Constitution and the Electoral Act to, among other things, introduce a new electoral structure and voting method For the Legislative Council.
  • Pdf (572.33Kb)

    Pdf (572.33Kb)

    Dear Mr McCusker, Please find attached Enhancing Democracy in Western Australia, my submission to the review of the Western Australian Legislative Council electoral system. I am happy for it to be made public. Yours sincerely, Chris Curtis Enhancing Democracy in Western Australia Chris Curtis May 2021 The manufactured hysteria that greeted Ricky Muir’s election to the Senate and that ultimately led to the Turnbull government’s rigging the Senate voting system to favour the Greens over the micro-parties is getting an encore performance with the election of Wilson Tucker in Western Australia, despite the unremarked-upon election in both jurisdictions of many more candidates of major parties from even lower primary votes and with the added twist that most members of the panel established to investigate the matter have already endorsed, even promoted, the hysteria (https://insidestory.org.au/an-affront-to-anyone-who- believes-in-democracy/). While it is clear from this fact that submissions in support of logic and democracy have already been ruled out of consideration, it is worthwhile putting them on the public record for future historians to refer to and so that more reasonable politicians can revisit the issue if the hysteria dies down. Enhancing Democracy in Western Australia 2 Contents Purpose - - - - - - - - - - 3 Summary - - - - - - - - - - 3 1. Principles - - - - - - - - - - 5 2. The Single Transferable Vote - - - - - - - 6 3. The Irrational Complaints - - - - - - - 11 4. Party Preferences - - - - - - - - - 15 5. Imposing a Party List System - - - - - - - 17 6. The Value of Group Voting Tickets - - - - - - 18 7. The Real Issue and the Solution - - - - - - - 20 8. Personal How-to-Vote Website - - - - - - - 22 9.
  • Electoral Regulation Research Network Newsletter December 2013 Table of Contents

    Electoral Regulation Research Network Newsletter December 2013 Table of Contents

    Electoral Regulation Research Network Newsletter December 2013 Table of Contents Message from the Director 1 News 2-4 ERRN Research Collaboration Initiative 5-6 Forthcoming Events 7 ERRN Event Reports 8-9 Recent Publications 10 ERRN Working Papers Series 11-12 Case Notes: 13-17 • AEC petition to the High Court regarding Senate election • Unions New South Wales v State of New South Wales (High Court) • Queensland Police Union of Employees v Queensland (High Court) • The Age journalists admit to illegally accessing ALP electoral database • Beswick, in the matter of an Election for an Office in the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association v Swetman [2013] FCA 642 (Federal Court, 18 June 2013) • Mylne v Return & Services League of Australia (Qld Branch) Maroochydoore Sub Branch Inc [2013] QSC 179 (Qld Supreme Court, 20 June 2013) • Horn v Australian Electoral Commission [2013] WASC 72 (WA Supreme Court, 7 March 2013) • Banerji v Bowles [2013] FCCA 1052 (Federal Circuit Court, 9 August 2013) • AA v BB (2013) 296 ALR 353 (Vic Supreme Court, 20 March 2013) • The Age Company Ltd v Liu (2013) 82 NSWLR 268 (NSW Court of Appeal, 21 February 2013, High Court, 6 September 2013) • Liberal Party of Australia (Western Australia Division) Inc v City of Armadale [2013] WASC 27 (WA Supreme Court 18 January 2013) • O’Flaherty v Sydney City Council (2013) 210 FCR 484 (Federal Court, 15 April 2013) • Muldoon v Melbourne City Council [2013] FCA 994 (Federal Court, 1 October 2013) Newsletter Team Democratic Audit Rob Hoffman & Nathaniel Reader Newsletter Editors of Australia Ben Saunders Legal Editor Jean Goh ERRN Administrator Contact Us email us: [email protected] www.law.unimelb.edu.au/errn www.law.unimelb.edu.au/errn Message from the Director The aftermath of the recent federal election has clearly illustrated the topicality of electoral issues.
  • THE AUSTRALIAN GREENS Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry Into the 2013 Federal Election

    THE AUSTRALIAN GREENS Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry Into the 2013 Federal Election

    THE AUSTRALIAN GREENS Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into the 2013 Federal Election INTRODUCTION Most of the attention for this inquiry has been centred on reforming the election of the Senate. This submission will address that, but the Australian Greens believe that there are broader issues with our electoral system that need addressing. A key policy concern of the Greens is the reform of the electoral system to increase fairness, equity, transparency and accountability. This submission includes a number of recommendations in relation to the recent federal election which address these concerns. 1. ELECTION FUNDING 1.1 Public Funding for elections The Greens believe that undue influence and problems of corruption arise from unchecked private funding of election campaigns. To that end, the Greens call for the adoption of electoral funding similar to the pre‐ 2011 Canadian system with a ban on corporate donations, a cap on individual donations and public funding for political parties which includes party administration and broadcasting time in federal elections. We maintain our view that the current laws on political donations are unfair and counterproductive to the democratic process and believe that the pre‐2011 Canadian system of electoral funding – that is primarily publicly funded elections, caps on campaign expenditure (including by third parties), capped individual donations and a ban on corporate donations ‐ is the best and more democratically fair approach. The Greens also support a rigorous regime for disclosure of electoral funding, believing that this is essential to ensure accountability and transparency in the system. The current system, which has a very high disclosure threshold currently set at $12 400, permits substantial areas of funding to avoid proper scrutiny through the disclosure requirements of the Electoral Act.