Greens become the very thing they rebelled against

Greens become the very thing they rebelled against

Have the Greens become part of the establishment? It would appear so, judging by their push to deny micro parties the use of preference harvesting to get elected to the Senate.

The Greens, along with the major parties and Senator Nick Xenophon, have recommended in a parliamentary review of the 2013 federal electionthat party registration and Senate voting rules be changed. These changes will make it more difficult for micro parties to run and almost impossible for their candidates to be elected.

Reform of Senate voting has been on the Greens’ agenda for a while, with former party leader Bob Brown unsuccessfully calling for such changes in 2010. Brown advocated the scrapping of group voting tickets, the mechanism used for preference harvesting, because allowing “parties to lodge … their choice of preference flow has led to the dark art of manipulation of preferences for unwarranted electoral advantage”.

But what is “unwarranted electoral advantage” exactly? Is it an election result that is not truly reflective of voters’ intentions, such as being elected with only a small amount of the primary vote?

At the last federal election Motoring Enthusiasts’ Ricky Muir was elected with 17,122 votes, or 0.51 per cent of the state’s vote. In 1996 Bob Brown was elected to the Senate having secured 26,830 votes, or 8.68 per cent*, of the less populous state’s Senate vote. Both MPs made a start that fell considerably short of the 14.3 per cent quota. Obviously other parties’ preferences helped Brown get over the line, yet he describes the current system that allows parties to dictate preferences as “corrupting”.

Perhaps the issue is more that while the Greens rely on leaching the disenfranchised progressive vote from Labor, they are unhappy that a similar splintering of the right-wing vote away from the Coalition has delivered the balance of power to arch conservatives on a number of occasions.

One such conservative, Family First’s Steve Fielding, beat the Greens’ candidate for Victoria in 2004 after benefiting from a preference deal with Labor. Bob Day, the current representative of Family First in the Senate, was elected in 2013 as the direct result of a preference deal personally negotiated by Brown with representatives of the micro parties, Palmer United Party and Nick Xenophon.

Senator Day is only one of the eight crossbenchers who have made the Greens almost redundant in the current parliament – unless the progressive party chooses to vote with the Coalition Government on legislation, which is usually unlikely. Of that eight, only Muir and Day were elected predominantly through preference harvesting.

Other than risking the wrath of their constituency by doing deals with the Government, the only other way the Greens can be relevant in the current parliament is to make allegiances with Labor and at least three members of the crossbench to block Government legislation.

This is a long way from the power-broking position the party held during the Gillard era. Nevertheless, such allegiances can be achieved, as the Labor-initiated but Xenophon-led “coalition of common sense”demonstrated last year.

It’s all very well for the Greens, and the major parties for that matter, to claim the proposed reforms would make Senate voting more “democratic” by returning power over preferences to the voters. In reality, the changes merely strengthen the position of the established parties, including the Greens.

The only voters who seemingly demonstrate independence in allocating their preferences are Greens voters. Labor and Coalition voters are more likely to follow their party’s how-to-vote instructions, and these instructions have increasingly directed preferences away from the Greens (especially after the Greens first lower house MP Adam Bandt was elected on Liberal preferences in 2010).

The Greens are hopeful that if Senate voting was changed to optional preferential voting, Labor and Coalition voters might be more inclined to allocate their preference to the Greens – even if it was against the major parties’ wishes. Perhaps that would occur.

However, the ABC’s resident psephologist Antony Green has calculated that under such an optional preferential voting system, the last federal election would have produced two more Senate seats for the Coalition, two more for Labor, one more for Xenophon and one less for the Greens, leaving only three independents/others. So it’s easy to see why the major parties and Xenophon are keen on the changes too.

The proposed Senate voting changes are less about democracy than they are about keeping our democracy politically “tidy”. It would be fair to say established political interests wouldn’t have advocated these changes if non-establishment senators hadn’t used their balance of power to hold governments to ransom or thwart parliamentary opposition in recent years.

The calculation would undoubtedly be that the less micro party and independent MPs there are in parliament, the less chance there is for marginal interests to have a say. It’s only when such a marginal voice is that of an honourable and thoughtful Senator like Ricky Muir, that the calculation becomes nonsensical and transparently about protecting vested interests.

The Greens like to differentiate themselves by describing the major parties as old and obsolescent, but they too have become part of the mouldering establishment. By resisting the pathways for fresh talent to enter the parliament with protestations about “improving” democracy, they are doing little more than defending the status quo.

Lock up the war chest for fairer elections

It seems every pet shop parrot has been squawking about electoral reform since a motley collection of micro and minor party candidates audaciously gamed the Senate preference system in 2013 to ensure at least one of them was elected.

Ricky Muir prevailed with his Australian Motoring Enthusiast’s Party attracting 0.51 per cent of the primary vote, while Family First’s Bob Day was elected with 3.76 per cent.

Since then the major parties, some minors and even independents have been calling for the system to be changed so that Senate candidates can no longer be elected with such a small proportion of the vote.

But these proposals are about to become overwhelmed by demands for a different kind of electoral reform. The manner by which political parties raise – and by implication, spend – their funds, has become a much more pressing political problem.

Most adages were coined for good reason, and the one about exercising caution before launching a political inquiry continues to hold weight. Perhaps the then NSW Premier Nick Greiner truly believed the Liberal Party had its own house in order when he established the Independent Commission Against Corruption in 1988. Or the thought of exposing Labor’s underbelly was simply more tempting than any perceived risk to the Liberals.

Yet it didn’t take too long for Greiner to learn that justice is blind, even to its progenitors, and now his political descendants are facing the counter-swing of the ICAC pendulum.

The lure of grubby money also appears to defy the boundaries that ostensibly separate Labor from Liberal.

Money is the lifeblood that keeps politics flourishing. Without cash, even the most prospective candidate is unable to compete with those who can afford to print letterbox flyers and posters, set up phone banks, and run advertisements on radio, TV and online. It’s no surprise then that potential political dominance is measured by the girth of one’s campaign war chest.

ICAC has revealed it’s not necessarily the money itself that is corrupting, but the means by which it is acquired. The Royal Commission into union corruption is anticipated to produce a similar result.

As the cost of running campaigns has skyrocketed over successive elections, individual MPs and political parties have become increasingly dependent on the benevolence of big corporates and unions. Such reliance is only a small step away from being beholden to political donors, and corruption is merely another small step from there.

ICAC has laid this bare, and the parties that have been deeply embarrassed, not to mention politically nobbled, by the exposure of venality in their ranks are now belatedly proffering a cacophony of solutions.

On the weekend Liberal Party doyen, Michael Kroger, called for all of parties’ campaign costs to be met with public funding, or at the very least for individual donations to be capped at $1000. Candidates already receive an indexed amount ($2.49 at the 2013 federal election) from the government for every vote received, as long as they obtain at least 4 per cent of first preferences.

This is a sub-optimal solution for democracy as it disadvantages any new entrants to the political circus. They must find the funds to run a campaign and meet the minimum threshold of votes before getting access to any public funds.

Limiting donations as well as campaign expenditure would force parties to be creative in finding inexpensive ways of getting their message to voters.

The Coalition’s Leader of the House, Christopher Pyne, has alternatively suggested that all political donations from corporates and unions be banned, leaving only those from individuals. Even if such a proposal survived a likely constitutional challenge from the unions, it wouldn’t prevent wealthy individualsfrom bestowing largesse on their party of choice unless a $1000 cap such as that suggested by Kroger was imposed.

It wouldn’t stop another self-funded multi-millionaire candidate like Clive Palmer, either.

Labor has only tentatively stepped into the field so far, recommending to the parliamentary inquiry that occurs after each federal election that public funding be increased and reforms made to “remove the distorting influence of vested interests and big money politics”. It’s not yet known whether “big money” includes funding from the unions.

The Liberals’ submission to the post-election inquiry is even less forthcoming, particularly in light of the interventions made by Kroger and Pyne. The party claims to be strongly committed to “appropriate disclosure of significant donations to political parties” but wants the requirement for political donors to declare their contributions to be dropped as it duplicates similar disclosures required of the parties.

Finally, considering they have so much less to spend, the Greens’ proposed reforms for electoral funding unsurprisingly aim to “ban corporation donations, place limits on the amount of money individuals can spend on campaigning, lower the threshold for disclosure of donations, rely more on public money and put an overall cap on parties’ election spending.”

A limit on election spending is clearly in the interests of smaller parties, which cannot afford the advertising blitzes bankrolled by the major parties. It could, however, have a broader benefit, removing the need for parties to source ever-increasing funds that ultimately line the pockets of advertising agencies and the commercial television broadcasting networks.

Limiting donations as well as campaign expenditure would force parties to be creative in finding inexpensive ways of getting their message to voters. This would likely involve more grassroots campaigns such as that deployed by Scott Ludlam in the recent WA Senate election re-run and Cathy McGowan’s successful campaign for Indi.

Before their current inquiries are over, ICAC and the Royal Commission into union corruption will cause a world of pain for the Liberals and Labor. It’s impossible to tell the extent of the upheavals that are yet to come, but there is a strong chance that good could come from the disruption.

Reform of electoral funding is the key. An authentic effort to remove the distractions and temptations of big-dollar elections could provide a pathway to refreshed democratic processes involving grassroots campaigns and candidates who genuinely engage with their constituents.