Trust in our democratic process is in sharp decline as the Uniparty rules. New donation laws are unlikely to change that; quite the contrary, Jack Ayoub argues.
In Australia, participation in the democratic process is compulsory. Our democratic process is formed and enforced by a slew of regulations, laws and constitutional conventions.
The Albanese government’s new donation laws, an attempt, purportedly, to restore trust, will come into effect in 2027. The changes will be the most substantial revision of the Commonwealth Electoral Act in forty years.
However, many of the changes will generously reward incumbents,
inspired by a desire to maintain the political status quo for Labor and the Liberals/Nationals. They were voted on by a collusion between them as the Coalition and Labor handled the baton back and forth against muted interjection from troublesome independents and minor parties.
That callow inspiration came at a time when independents were on the rise and One Nation was a mere excrescence. Revealing an arrogant operating assumption and deafness to our nation’s parliamentary history and perhaps, most of all, her people.
Electoral funding preferencing the parties
One Nation has surged in the polls, the most popular political party in the country. Data reported by The Saturday Paper suggests that the electoral law changes will see One Nation, on current polling, receive $219m in public money. This is largely due to the increase, from $3.42 to $5, paid for each first preference vote received over the 4% threshold.
This public funding is in addition to whatever private donations might be received. Further, a party has a spending cap of $90m while an independent in a single seat has a cap of $800,000.
In effect, this will allow major parties to outspend, by multiples, an independent challenger or incumbent through the overall party expenditure cap. This naked attempt to further entrench the two-party system looks set to fail. Worryingly, that failure will exacerbate and
reward the perception already eroding the public’s trust.
Undemocratic parties
The Queensland Supreme Court’s 1993 judgment in Baldwin v Everingham determined that there was a significant public interest in the judicial interpretation and enforcement of a political party’s internal rules.
Such independent oversight is a good thing, but largely irrelevant when the interpretation is confined to a document which the party itself has manufactured. The Labor Party’s national constitution prescribes a plethora of ‘rank and file’ and/or conference elections.
Slightly more restrictive, the Federal Liberal Party constitution provides for its federal executive to be an accumulation of office holders from other groupings within the party structure.
One Nation, by contrast, is an expressed dictatorship of one.
Pauline Hanson is, concurrently, the party leader and president. One Nation’s constitution vests in her the power to retain the presidency for life and personally designate her successor.
What these three parties all share is a plenary power which allows their rules to be vitiated in the ‘best interest of the party’.
Genuine democratic preselections are the exception, not the rule. Despite both major parties providing detailed means for such elections, candidate selection appears to be arranged, organised or enforced by the elusive party machine.
One Nation is at least honest about the centralised and undemocratic process by which it selects its candidates. Once the candidates are selected, the general election can become little more than a formality. The candidate, if elected MP, owes their loyalty not to their electorate or their local party unit, not even to their party’s expressed values,
but to a dictatorial party machine.
It is little wonder that so many seem determined to upend the two-party system and support an honest dictator with her orange band of equally flawed candidates.
Entrenching the uniparty
In other countries, democratic processes are enforced on political parties.
The German constitution and delegated statutory provisions prescribe that internal party ballots must be democratic. German federal election law enforces the preselection of candidates through a secret ballot by the party unit in the relevant constituency. Honouring the MPs’ role as an intermediary between the state and the people, not a subordinate to the party and its internal political requirements.
Perhaps this is a small part of the reason the German Bundestag is a kaleidoscope of five parties of distinct contest, a more representative reflection of the diversity of views held in the community.
In the face of the One Nation threat, both our major parties will likely double down on their discipline and control, at a time when the people are desperate for debate and more transparency. Debate, not just about economics, but about place and identity too, who we are as a nation beyond the platitudes.
People are removing the cardboard 3D glasses of red and blue in favour of something which appears more authentic. Even if that authenticity is sometimes odious.
The confluence of the new funding laws and the people’s wish for a new politics
will only shorten the journey towards complete disillusionment.
One Nation will disrupt the system for their dictator’s advantage, but not to the disadvantage of the real status quo; Ms Reinhardt will not sanction that.
The coming breakage to the system will not see the emergence of a new politics. Trust in democracy is likely to fall still further, and I fear, without open debate, a nascent darkness may take centre stage.
Jack has a keen interest in identity and belonging. Jack's writings have been published by the Weekend Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald. Recently, he appeared on SBS Insight discussing identity, free speech and democratic debate. Jack is also a classically trained opera singer and has performed in both recitals and operatic productions.