Mark Coultain has an article in the SMH on the issue of the major political parties enacting legislation to entrench themselves. The article is titled; "A short, sharp political education" . One aspect of electoral changes at the State and Federal level has been that the parties in power, with majorities, have attempted to change the electoral system to their advantage. Oddly, it is widely believed Australia is innovative in this area, but the success stories have been electoral systems that have backfired on the major parties. The NSW Legislative Council being one such example.

The article focuses on a late night amendment to the NSW Election Funding Act which essentially extorts money from taxpayers to entrench the Labor and Liberal parties as the major parties in NSW. Part 5 of the legislation enables public funding of election campaigns, supposedly to stop corruption as parties seek money from private sources.

More Public Money

In 1993, the Liberal Party, holding a minority government, made a deal with independents, of which part was fighting corruption in the electoral system. The Election Funding Act amendment in 1993 was supposed to tighten many of the loopholes that had been found and abused since the legislation's inception. Coultain continues;

But the legislation contained a section that completely changed the way state politics is funded in NSW. The legislation was put on the table one week, and brought on for debate at 1.50 one morning of the next. After three speakers it passed the Legislative Assembly by 2.03am.

The changes established what is called a "political education fund" in NSW. But the money didn't go to schools to educate children about democracy or the electoral system. It didn't go to the parliamentary library, it didn't go to the electoral commissioner, and it certainly didn't go to the various schools of government in the various universities around Sydney.

Instead, the money went to the political parties. In a single stroke, public funding of political parties was doubled. Basically, the legislation gives parties the cost of a stamp for every vote they received in the previous lower house election. And they get it every year for the four years between elections.

This section appears to be, Part 5, Division 2, Section 57 . And the offending bits;

(2) The amounts to be credited, in the aggregate, to the funds for a general election are to be determined in accordance with the following formula:

A = E * (N/12) * (M/100)

where:

A represents the aggregate amount (in dollars) to be credited to the funds.

E represents the total number of electors enrolled for all electoral districts as at 6 pm on the day of the issue of the writs for the general election.

N represents:

(a) the number of months between the day for the return of the writs for the general election and the day for the return of the writs for the previous general election (both days inclusive), any fraction of a month being treated as one month, or

(b) 48,

whichever is less.

M represents the amount (in cents) of the monetary unit.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the monetary unit for:

(a) the first general election to which this Act applies shall be 22 cents, and

(b) any subsequent general election shall be that amount as adjusted in accordance with Schedule 1, determined by the Authority as at the day of the issue of the writs for the general election or 22 cents, whichever is greater.

It appears from the article that the 22 cents remuneration has stayed constant since the amendment's approval in 1993. Coultain makes the point that this is not the only form of fund raising available to the parties. The parties still accept private donations from both domestic and international sources. Since the funding only applies to those that gain seats, it cuts out independents, again helping to entrench the major parties.

The other section that Coultain takes aim at for being abused is Part 6A, The Political Education Fund. Section 97C contains ;

97C Parties entitled to receive annual payments from the Fund for purposes of political education

(1) Following a general election, a registered party is entitled to receive annual payments from the Fund, until the polling day for the next general election, for the purposes of political education.

(2) Political education purposes can include but are not limited to the posting of written materials and information, regardless of whether the information contains material only about the party concerned.

(3) However, a registered party is not entitled to receive or spend payments from the Fund for political education purposes involving travelling or accommodation expenses.

(4) A registered party is not entitled to receive payments from the Fund unless the party:

(a) endorsed candidates for election to the Assembly at the general election, and

(b) was entitled to receive funding under Division 3 of Part 5 in respect of the general election.

Coultain collates some of the expenses against this piece of legislation as being; salaries of staff members, Labor claimed $1363 for media training, $6909 for developing managerial skills and $57 for tea, coffee and biscuits. But no lamingtons though. Also a flu shot charge of $136.76 was rejected by the Electoral Funding Authority.

The Liberals had similar claims, including partial salaries for twenty two of their staff. $47,070 for rent, $16,625 for computer services etc. The Greens claimed $157,000 in total for 2003 including $92.50 for the installation of window grilles.

The Electoral Funding Authority has the authority to deny these requests for reimbursement under the Political Education Fund. The members of this authority are described in Part 2, section 6;

The Authority shall consist of 3 members, of whom:

(a) one shall be the Commissioner,

(b) one shall be appointed by the Governor on the nomination of the Premier, and

(c) one shall be appointed by the Governor on the nomination of the Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly.

As Coultain makes the point, two members of the Authority are from the major parties and can out-number the Commissioner. I am not familiar enough with the Electoral Fund Authority to know if this is true or normal practice. However in Part 2, Section 17 the legislation requires that a majority vote in the Electoral Fund Authority be final.

cam