Australia: Electoral bill blocks registration of new parties : Melbourne Indymedia

Australia: Electoral bill blocks registration of new parties
A new assault on democratic rights
By Mike Head
21 August 2006

Behind the backs of the Australian population—without any mention in the mass media or serious opposition in parliament—the Howard government has introduced sweeping new electoral laws that aim to suppress any electoral challenge to the mainstream political parties.

The cynically titled Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2006 automatically de-registers all non-parliamentary parties and blocks the registration of new ones, while systematically disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of ordinary voters. At the same time, it shields the rich and powerful from scrutiny as they dominate the finances and dictate the policies of the major parliamentary parties.

Over the past two decades, millions of people have become increasingly dissatisfied with, and alienated from, the Labor, Liberal and National parties, as well as from the Democrats and Greens, which have all collaborated in imposing the “free market” agenda dictated by the corporate elite. Now these parties have come together to try to shore up their parliamentary positions by blocking the registration of alternative parties.

The new laws were pushed through in June without any publicity, public discussion or debate. In one fell swoop, they will remove 20 parties from the official register. All parties not currently represented in parliament will be automatically deregistered at the end of this year, six months after the legislation commenced. The only exemption will be for parties, such as the right-wing One Nation and the anti-communist Democratic Labor Party, that have previously had representation in federal parliament. In the meantime, the register has been frozen, stopping any new registrations before January 2007.

Moreover, if the next federal election is called before June 2007, the register will revert to what it was in June 2006, preventing any new party from registering for that election. In other words, were Prime Minister John Howard to call an early snap election—an increasingly likely event given the deteriorating economy and the growing crisis of his government—all new challengers would be disqualified.

Without official registration, parties are denied the basic right to stand candidates in their name. Their members can nominate, but only as “Independents” or with no affiliation next to their names on the ballot paper. This deprives voters of the elementary right to identify the political allegiance and platform of the various candidates. Non-registered parties are also barred from running “above the line” on the Senate voting ticket—an option available to registered parties that eliminates the confusing task of putting consecutive numbers beside the names of every state-wide candidate in order to cast a valid ballot.

The entire parliamentary establishment—the Coalition government, Labor, the Democrats and Greens—backed the purging of the party register. While certain other features of the electoral bill attracted criticism during the perfunctory parliamentary debates, there was no opposition whatsoever to the de-registration provisions. Democrats Senator Andrew Murray described them as “not so controversial”.

Over the past decade, the Democrats and Greens have already joined hands with Labor and the Liberals to introduce restrictive measures against new parties in many states, including in New South Wales, where 750 members must hand over their names to the electoral authorities for a non-parliamentary party to appear on the ballot.

Despite these measures, new parties and “independent” candidates have proliferated since the mid-1980s as disgust towards the old parties and their attacks on jobs, democratic rights and public services, such as health, education, housing and welfare has intensified.

The Howard government has claimed that the wholesale removal of non-parliamentary parties from the register was necessary to stop the use of misleading party names, such as Liberals for Forests. But the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) already had the power to refuse registration to a name that would confuse voters. In any case, no evidence has been produced to show that any of the other 20 or so parties to be de-registered are in any way bogus.

The party registration regime was first introduced by a federal Labor government in 1984. Its only purpose has been to bolster the position and finances of the major parties. Registered parties can apply for public funding, at a rate of about $1.80 per vote. For the 2004 election, Howard’s Liberals and the Labor opposition picked up nearly $35 million between them, with millions also going to the Greens and Democrats.

To register, parties without a representative in parliament must hand over to the electoral authorities signed membership application forms and personal details—names, addresses, telephone numbers and dates of birth—of 500 members. By requiring rank-and-file members to publicly identify their political persuasion, this requirement directly infringes their privacy and exposes them to surveillance and harassment by government agencies, including the intelligence services.

These requirements are profoundly anti-democratic. They violate the essential principle that all citizens and parties should have equal ballot access. To block parties that have not contested previous elections, or that failed to win seats when they did, makes a mockery of the electoral process, since the purpose of holding an election is to allow parties and individuals to campaign for support against the incumbents.

The highly technical membership requirements for registered parties can also become a vehicle for state provocation. This is what happened in 2003, when two leaders of One Nation, Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge, were jailed for “electoral fraud” in relation to the party’s registration. Their subsequent acquittal by the Queensland Supreme Court confirmed that they were victims of a political witchhunt, backed by a series of legal travesties.

Voting rights cut

The new electoral laws flagrantly attack the most fundamental democratic right—the right to vote. The electoral rolls will be closed on the same day that an election is called, instantaneously disenfranchising all voters—about half a million at the 2004 federal election—who have changed address or failed to enrol.

Those most affected will be the young, recently-arrived migrants, the poor and workers—those who became eligible to vote after the previous election, or moved house, often living in rental accommodation or employed in insecure or casual jobs. New voters—those turning 18 or due to be sworn in as citizens before the election—will have only three days, half the present seven-day period of grace, to enrol.

Secondly, in order to enrol, and vote at each election, voters will either have to present a form of photo-ID, such as a driver’s licence or passport, or statements from two enrolled voters. These requirements are also likely to strip voting rights from low-income and young people, particularly those who cannot afford to drive or travel overseas.

Thirdly, all prisoners will be denied the right to vote. Previously only prisoners serving sentences of more than three years were disenfranchised. This measure will again particularly target the poor and disadvantaged, because most longer-term inmates come from the ranks of the unemployed, poorly-educated, mentally-ill or indigenous.

The new legislation represents a major reversal of the steady expansion of the franchise that developed before World War I—beginning with secret ballots, then votes for women and postal voting—as a result of significant political struggles. In 1967 Aboriginal people finally won voting rights after an overwhelming “yes” vote in a national referendum and in 1973, the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18, largely in response to the mass movement against conscription and the Vietnam War.

The government claimed the new restrictions were needed to stop enrolment fraud. Electoral statistics, however, show that since 1990 more than 66 million votes have been cast for the House of Representatives, yet just 71 attempts at multiple voting have been detected. This negligible rate—about one in a million—could not possibly have affected any election outcome. When the Australian National Audit Office conducted a review of the electoral roll in 2001, it described it as being of “high integrity”.

The government also asserted that the electoral commission could not adequately check all enrolment forms to guard against fraud. But the AEC opposed the proposal, describing it as a “backward step” that would reduce the accuracy of the electoral rolls. In one survey, the AEC found that 11 percent of electors were enrolled at an old address. They could now all be barred from voting under the new rule.

The Act also makes it more difficult for working people to stand for election, by increasing election candidates’ deposits by almost 50 percent, from $350 to $500 for the House of Representatives and from $700 to $1,000 for the Senate.

At the same time, the legislation has made it easier for corporations and rich individuals to keep their political patronage secret. It increased the disclosure threshold for political donations from $1,500 to $10,000, with an annual upward adjustment in line with the cost of living index. In effect, donors can contribute $90,000 a year without public disclosure, if they donate $10,000 to each of their preferred party’s eight state and territory branches, as well as to a federal division.

The tax deductibility level for political donations has also increased 15-fold from $100 to $1,500 per year, and the tax breaks have been extended to companies as well as individuals.

Just months before the legislation passed, AEC statistics confirmed that both major parties were heavily reliant on huge sums from wealthy donors in the 2004 election. Officially-recorded donations for 2004-05 showed that $48.6 million flowed into Liberal Party coffers and $48.1 million into Labor’s, a total of almost $100 million. No doubt other contributions remained camouflaged by a complex array of trusts and foundations.

In another provision aimed at stifling dissent, the bill forces anyone who spends more than $10,000 a year on a “political purpose,” which includes expressing views on political parties, to lodge an annual financial disclosure form. Previously, this requirement was confined to election campaign spending. Any group that actively engages in political commentary and activity, whether it is contesting an election or not, can now be subjected to highly-intrusive and widely-publicised financial investigations by the electoral authorities and federal police.

The new legislation is part of a sustained onslaught by the Howard government, with full support from the Labor opposition, on political and civil rights over the past five years. This includes the introduction of indefinite detention without trial for asylum seekers, draconian “anti-terrorist” laws and powers to call out the military on domestic soil.

The virtual silence in the political and media establishment underscores the advanced state of decay of Australian democracy. The most elementary legal and political rights are being repudiated, and vicious anti-democratic measures introduced, with hardly a murmur of dissent.

See Also:
Australia: Howard's backflips highlight growing government crisis
[16 August 2006]
Australia: Government MPs defy Howard over refugee law
[11 August 2006]
Australia: Prime Minister Howard facing pressure to quit
[13 July 2006]

*Stop voting. Stop supporting pseudo-democracies. Where voting is compulsory, vote informal. Reduce the numerical mandate of the OWO to legitimately govern states and federations of states (by creating a scarcity of voter support).

Actions WE Can Take [140]

There are many actions that we can take to help the transition to a Level 4 Civilization. Some actions that are well within our power are suggested below, you can undoubtedly think of more.

*Turn off TV, to reject the propaganda of the OWO.
Become a 2nd Renaissance resident by choosing to describe your address in terms that exclude national identity.

*Establish and support the new category of Freeright, as a foil to Copyright.

*Rediscover kinship principles and establish support mechanisms that are independent of government programs.

*Widen civil scepticism and challenge the official truth - everywhere, every time.

*Expect high-level corruption and help to identify and publicise it.
See the War on Terror in context. Spread the understanding widely.

*Reject military solutions to terrorism. Spread understanding that wars cannot prevail against non-state opponents. Work to stop support for the War on Terror, on the grounds of its poor cost-benefits potential.

*Challenge restrictions of civil freedoms. Support secessions from federal systems and democracies that are spiralling into decline.

*Learn about new science and share your understanding widely. Do the same in respect of ancient knowledge and suppressed inventions.

*Seek to understand new technologies and their impact on scarcity. Spread information about new social and economic choices that arise from abundance.

*Confront the doctrines and practices of economic scarcity. Understand and spread awareness of the flawed nature of taker philosophies, and the growing opportunity to live differently - as leaver-givers.

*Move house. Congregate in new centres of 2nd Renaissance thought.
Help to develop the 2R centres. Help them break free of federalism.

*Stop voting. Stop supporting pseudo-democracies. Where voting is compulsory, vote informal. Reduce the numerical mandate of the OWO to legitimately govern states and federations of states (by creating a scarcity of voter support).

*Become involved in highlighting the failures of capitalism, federalism and nationalism. Use Freenet and whatever other channels that are available to send the messages out; across the world.

*Maintain resolve and hope, no matter what the OWO might do or say. Remain non-violent but always focused and insistent on rapid change - towards a Level 4 Civilization by 2014.

Turn Off TV [141]
The acclaimed linguist and author, Noam Chomsky, reminds us that most of our communications technologies are exclusive to the West. He says, "The Internet is an elite organisation; most of the world has never made a phone call." People who don't have television or access to the WWW, are both winning and losing. They are being spared the deluge of propaganda that comes from the major TV channels, but they are also missing the wealth of valid information that is available on the Internet. We are more fortunate. If we so choose, we can keep the Internet but stop tuning into the TV propaganda of the Old World Order.

Keep your TV set for viewing rented movies if you like, continue to use the print media for sporting and other information of a non-propaganda nature, but disconnect the TV broadcast feed from the antenna or fibre-optic cable. Your children will be better off growing up without an ever-present propaganda medium in the living room.

In due course, there will be global TV broadcasts emanating from various free cities and regions, that will be unencumbered by federalist, nationalist, and capitalist doctrines. Such transmissions will come to your home through the earth, without using existing communication cables and channels. In the meantime your family can be spared the intrusion of the OWO into the home, by the simple action of disconnecting the conventional signal feed to your TV set.

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/106816.php

Some interesting thoughts there Lothar.
Have you read 'Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television' by Jerry Mander?
He makes a very profound case against TV

See a review of his book:
http://www.netreach.net/~kaufman/Jerry.Mander.html
or his summation of the 4 arguments:
http://www.eco-action.org/dt/elimtv.html

radio is less of an elitist medium... in Bougainville during the war a radio transmitter was put together with old parts from the defunct mine, powered initially with a coconut derivative.

A substantial proportion of the world's population has access to radio. And it's a powerful medium, although most demonstrations of its power have been to the bad.

On a different tack, though, I'm not sure it's advisable to try to shore up a fundamentally flawed democratic system. This said, the critique is absolutely valid, and the proposals put here excellent...

But to play devil's advocate, doesn't it have to run its course? Democracy is clearly becoming autocracy and tyranny in accordance with the old, familiar pattern... the gloves are coming off, the syrupy rhetoric being replaced with austere missives to the citizenry and stern rebukes for those that dare cross the authorities.

This is how it happens... reading about Athens and Rome when I was younger I couldn't imagine how it was that things got so bad - that such hideous institutions could evolve from somewhat well-meant constitutions.

Now I'm beginning to understand it better. But many still feel things are fine. Those of us who are troubled talk to one another, but we're not of such a significant number that the Government need feel threatened.

My point is maybe things have to get worse before they'll get better, at least in terms of the rehabilitation of Democracy and Parliament. And they seem to be worsening rapidly. It's not enough to have a few legislative reforms - we need a more serious rejuvenation - a new constitution, for example, and radical changes to the way that people are elected, and the political uses of the media. For this kind of reform, we need consensus. And to achieve a consensus, nothing will serve so well as the increasingly oppressive exercise of power by LibLab governments in coming years.

In the meantime, as suggested in the comment above, best to focus efforts elsewhere.

Many of the issues discussed here are quite disturbing, and the analysis seems reasonable enough, except for one thing. I fail to see how requiring Party members to publicly disclose their membership is "anti-democratic". It's not as if secret ballots have been abolished. If you are ashamed to be a member of a particular party, perhaps you should review your membership. Name, address and date of birth? Woopee. You give more information when you join the public library.

The real problem with this Bill (which, interestingly, I'd never heard of until now) is the de-registering of parties which have not succeeded in breaking through the gerimander yet, and the failure to give mobile and young people a chance to actually register properly. The massive padlock, rather than the surveillance camera, should be the major concern here.