The federal parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has released an interim report from its inquiry into the 2022 federal election, addressing terms of reference including political finance regulation and truth-in-advertising. We evidently still await what the committee has to say about “proportional representation of the states and territories in the Parliament in the context of the democratic principle of ‘one vote, one value’”, which appears to be code for increasing the size of parliament.
The committee’s 14 members include representatives of the main parties plus teal independent Kate Chaney, each motivated to bring particular concerns to the table. One common point of grievance is the nine-figure electoral spending of Clive Palmer, which the report recommends addressing through caps on donations and spending that extend to third parties and associated entities. However, the Coalition dissenting report rejects these recommendations as they stand, complaining of a failure to count union affiliation fees as donations and the potential for Labor to evade spending caps through a multiplicity of union campaigns.
The section proposing spending caps gives consideration to “campaigns with a corporate financial structure”, by way of suggesting measures to prevent Clive Palmer from continuing to conduct mass advertising through his company Mineralogy. Climate 200 argues that any spending cap should be higher for new entrants or independents, reflecting its feeling that caps in New South Wales and Victoria stymied crowd-funded independents’ efforts to make themselves known at the recent state elections. A submission from teal independent MP Monique Ryan further proposed exempting new candidates from donation caps up to a certain fundraising threshold.
The report revives Labor’s position that the threshold for public disclosure of political donations should be reduced from its current level of around $15,000, to which it was hiked from $1500 when the Howard government secured a Senate majority, to $1000, which Labor never managed to give effect to when it was last in government. It further recommends parties should be required to disclose donations in “real time”, where currently the public is none the wiser as to how campaigns are funded (to the extent the disclosure threshold allows it at all) until a year after the event. However, it doesn’t say exactly how real – the Coalition’s dissenting report says within a month should be enough, and that $8000 should suffice for a disclosure threshold.
One of the report’s showpiece recommendations is for truth-in-advertising legislation “based on the principles currently in place in South Australia”. In that state’s case, the Electoral Commissioner takes advice on complaints from the Crown Solicitor’s Office and can request removal or retraction of offending items, issue fines, and – in the event of non-compliance – declare an election void if it is felt on the balance of probabilities that the result was affected. The report favours the AEC to run the scheme over ACMA and the ACCC, notwithstanding the AEC’s own reticence. The Electoral Commission of South Australia also noted that the system presents it with multiple challenges, which were exacerbated when the number of complaints shot from 38 at the 2018 election to 122 in 2022. The Liberals and Nationals are opposed, arguing Labor has no specific proposal or electoral mandate, and expressing concerns about freedom of speech and subjectivity of meaning.
A recommendation to juice up the AEC’s efforts to encourage enrolment and participation among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders is influenced by Labor’s feeling that it nearly lost its Northern Territory seat of Lingiari because the Morrison government strategically starved it of resources. The report notes shortages of interpreters and explanatory materials, deficiencies in the remote area mobile polling program and cuts at the AEC’s Darwin office, along with a claim the Indigenous Electoral Participation Program had been underfunded.
The Coalition’s dissenting report registers its displeasure with the teal independent phenomenon (or what is “now known as the Teal Party”, the veracity of which I leave to others to judge) by calling for independents “conducting their activities in a manner consistent with a registered political party” to be subject to the obligations of one. It also calls for the pre-poll voting period to be further reduced from two weeks to one, having already been cut back from three weeks in the previous term with the concurrence of Labor and the Greens. Also recommended are higher barriers for nominating candidates, given the “potential for candidates to be utilised purely for preference distribution”, and the creation of an offence of “electoral violence or intimidation”.
Can we please keep this thread relevant to the subjects covered in the post. The open thread for general discussion continues here.
Interesting how the libs call the teals the Teal Party, and the ALP keep naming “the Greens Political Party”. The two major parties think it is to the detriment of others to label them political parties! So much for do better, be better!
Fascinating article, as always.
The pettiness in pointing out that the Greens are a political party and trying to paint the teals as a party as if that is some kind of dark stain seems to be a reflection of the major parties being aware of their image problem – and trying to make it out as if it naturally applies to all political parties as well as concerns of the consequent growing third party/independent vote eating away at their voter bases.
The recommendations of the Committee seems on the face of it to go quite some way in addressing issues of transparency and probity, but suppose we’ll wait and see what legislation is passed and what loopholes are left open.
My main grievance is Sally Sitou is my Federal MP.
This report offers no recourse on how to deal with invisible MPs who disappear for 3 years and then re-apparate 2 weeks before an election at my local train station.
I was struck by the reason given for opposing a recommendation as not having a political mandate. That’s a focus on the messenger, not the message.
Truth-in-advertising was also opposed because Labor are hypocrites.
I think that one more effective way for providing a more level playing field come election time is for our state and federal elections to be publicly funded – including a definite amount of campaign funds for EACH nominated candidate – all party candidates and also independent candidates. I understand that this is how Canada conducts their federal/national elections. This would get rid of the likes of Clive Palmer. All donations to political parties should be made transparent and clearly linked to the particular political party – and do away with the “mysterious” entities that are set up to channel money to a particular party in an anonymous manner. I agree that a one week pre-polling period would be more satisfactory. Also the major political parties should NOT be allowed to mass circulate very ambiguous postal vote applications to voters. The Australian Electoral Commission should be the only organisation mailing/delivering postal vote applications to those seeking to vote in that manner.
There seem to be multiple reasons why the “truth in advertising” rules seem a good idea for our elections.
At present do we have any rules that would disqualify an Australian equivalent of George Santos being elected after misrepresenting themselves as a candidate?
William did you misspeak there and mean the Liberals? The ALP, at least publicly, supports the introduction of truth in political advertising laws and has for a few years.
There’s always concerns with these kind of laws being weaponized to censor stuff the party currently in charge (and able to stack whoever regulates truth in advertising) doesn’t like, but it seems like a worthy kind of thing to try.
So a candidate runs adverts saying climate change is nonsense? Is that contrary to truth in advertising?.
And who decides, a judge? What if the candidate is actually elected by the people in their constituency. For example a climate denier in Central Queensland.
”
mjsays:
Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 10:45 am
The pettiness in pointing out that the Greens are a political party and trying to paint the teals as a party as if that is some kind of dark stain seems to be a reflection of the major parties being aware of their image problem – and trying to make it out as if it naturally applies to all political parties as well as concerns of the consequent growing third party/independent vote eating away at their voter bases.
”
There is a huge difference between Greens political party and Greens voters. If you think that Greens political party doesn’t have any stains and it is pure as a Lily after what is happening in Victoria and happened in NSW and especially after Greens political leadership are trying to cover it up and not answer any legitimate questions, then you are behaving like a member of a political party. Greens political party behaves like a political party. A lot of Greens voters are under the impression that Greens political party is an Environmental movement. It is no longer that and it is a political party. So PM Albanese is pointing that in a subtle way.
It is pretty obvious Greens political party don’t like being called that.
You know the expansions of the 2 major parties are, don’t you?
ALP- Australian Labor party
LP- Liberal party
They are not hiding their affiliations under some fancy misnomers.
Arky, I was relating a thing asserted by the Liberals in the dissenting report.
Ah. That did not come across in text.
Is the Liberal push to only have one week for pre-poll because they have very few volunteers left to staff pre-poll booths
The various electoral commissions need to incr4ease the number of pre-poll booths now as the waits are very long and one week is not really enough with the changing nature of work patterns
”…the potential for Labor to evade spending caps through a multiplicity of union campaigns.”
What about the Coalition’s propaganda wing a.k.a. NewsCorp. Maybe it should be declared an associated entity of the Liberals, Nationals and LNP.
EDIT: I can see why the Coalition object to “Truth in Advertising” – it would destroy their business model.
P.S. “The Airing of Grievances” – Festivus in June.
Thanks @Ven for your political mansplaining what Greens voters mistakenly thinks about as the PM says the Greens political party.
For a rusted on Laborite you seem to spend a lot of time in the heads of Greens voters. If only they saw the light and voted like you tell them.
A cynic could say the interests of the labouring classes and any pretence to liberalism were both long abandoned by those hiding behind those party names.
@rufus 1:08pm
Not sure what you’re on about as Sally has only been an MP for a year. Had to disappear for 3?
On that, I’ve seen Sally outside my local station more in the past year than I saw Fiona Martin in the 3 years prior. In fact I only ever saw Fiona when I went to poll both times.
Perhaps it’s cause Fiona lives in East Ryde whereas Sally is in Homebush.
However, the Coalition dissenting report rejects these recommendations as they stand, complaining of a failure to count union affiliation fees as donations and the potential for Labor to evade spending caps through a multiplicity of union campaigns.
As noted above, the Coalition hypocrisy is breathtaking – given that there is $millions of contra donations from Murdoch through his organs, and other Coalition friendly media outlets like shoutback radio and Kerry Stokes interests.
And then we have the rent seekers in the business and mining industries who swamp the unions in financial heft – and use it during election campaigns and between. Like the current campaign to neuter the Same Job, Same Pay initiative.
And previous campaigns, and lobbying of the Coalition, by fossil fuel interests to cripple action on Climate Change.
And for every Clive Palmer we have a Simon Holmes a Court. For every Big Gina we have a Graeme Wood. Or at least potentially.
There’s a similarity in saying “Greens Political Party”, or “Teal Party” to how the Republicans in the US habitually say “Democrat Party” rather than “Democratic Party”. It’s childish but someone must think it is effective language. I wonder if the implication/intention is that both Greens and Teals sound less like agents for change when you boil them down to that most detested of things, an actual political party (or attempt to, given that the teal independents are not one).
FWIW.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/21/labor-wont-let-elections-be-held-hostage-by-rich-people-but-signals-it-could-soften-donation-caps-for-charities
The Teals are clearly not a political party. They are not registered as a political party. There is no common membership. There is no party organization. There is no shared policy platform.
The Greens have all these attributes and are clearly a political party.
The Teals and the Greens both try to pretend that they are anti-politicians. They both put themselves forward as above party politics.
The Teals have genuine grounds for so doing.
The Greens? Political Bazzball. They are a political party. They are party politicians.
Use of the phrase “Greens Political Party” is just reflexive ALP jargon. It stems from the first years that Greens were being elected and arguably had a bit of a hippie, Wilderness Society, activist group vibe. ALP strategists were worried that the party was coming across as authentic and independent.
At the time ALP spokespeople used to cram “Greens Political Party” into any sentence they could, no matter how grammatically awkward, sometimes twice in a sentence, to try to influence that narrative.
Since The Greens have become a more permanent feature of the Australian political landscape I very much doubt that anyone with any degree of interest in the topic needs any kind of reminder. Adding “Political Party” is habitual empty sentence padding for ALP figures at this point, like “please be advised that”, or umm and ahh.
“Is the Liberal push to only have one week for pre-poll because they have very few volunteers left to staff pre-poll booths.”
It’ll be because anything that reduces the ability of people to vote is a net boost to conservative movements.
One week pre-poll is insane, it should be a full month for both pre-poll and postals.
William Bowe @ #12 Tuesday, June 20th, 2023 – 8:09 pm
Arky @ #13 Tuesday, June 20th, 2023 – 9:21 pm
Late Ah. I couldn’t decipher it, eventually scrolled on. Thanks for clearing that up.
The Liberals have no trouble covering prepoll shifts. Half their members have retired and have plenty of time on their hands.
The ALP has no trouble covering prepoll either, at least in competitive and safe seats, as there are more than enough union and electorate staffers willing to take annual leave, if necessary, around election time.
The Greens and other minor parties tend to be the ones left worst off by extended prepoll periods as their members typically have real jobs.
@AngoraFish: Is it really? I had only noticed “the Greens Political Party” being used in high rotation in the last 2 years or so, and my understanding was that it was being used to differentiate Greens MPs from people in the community who think of themselves as Greens – in a “we are attacking the Greens Political Party, not you greeny voters there” kind of way, like the way the ALP have been much more careful than the Coalition to criticise the Chinese Communist Party / Chinese government and not just “the Chinese”, with rather noticeable political results.
“The Greens and other minor parties tend to be the ones left worst off by extended prepoll periods as their members typically have real jobs.”
I think you may be taking the piss there. Anyway, the Greens usually have any number of students with time on their hands and a shining belief that standing at pre-poll will change the world, never noticed them having a problem having at least as many people as Labor at prepolls and polling day in seats where the Greens are competitive.
AngoraFish:
Yeah, from my experiences being outnumbered roughly 4-1 by the Greens at prepolls, I’d dispute that one.
”
AngoraFishsays:
Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 12:45 pm
Use of the phrase “Greens Political Party” is just reflexive ALP jargon. It stems from the first years that Greens were being elected and arguably had a bit of a hippie, Wilderness Society, activist group vibe. ALP strategists were worried that the party was coming across as authentic and independent.
At the time ALP spokespeople used to cram “Greens Political Party” into any sentence they could, no matter how grammatically awkward, sometimes twice in a sentence, to try to influence that narrative.
Since The Greens have become a more permanent feature of the Australian political landscape I very much doubt that anyone with any degree of interest in the topic needs any kind of reminder. Adding “Political Party” is habitual empty sentence padding for ALP figures at this point, like “please be advised that”, or umm and ahh.
”
From the reaction of members of Greens political party, it looks like that phrase is irritating Greens political party. 🙂
Can anyone enlighten me on the reasons given for shortening pre-polling?
One upside of the longer periods and the embrace by almost half the electorate sometimes seems to be to encourage political parties to stop that terrible habit of revealing all their policies at the last minute just before polling day.
Not sure if that benefit makes up for 2 weeks of having to listen to the whole lolly packet of anti-vax pro-freedom HTV vollies explaining how they are really just normal people interested in freedumb. But when the Libs and Labor agree on anything it should make one nervous.
Who decides what counts as “truth”?
Alarming slippery slope if that gets up.
“Can anyone enlighten me on the reasons given for shortening pre-polling?”
Having pre-polling open for longer costs more for everybody involved (AEC, the parties having to anchor their candidates and volunteers to the pre-polling booths) and from a democracy point of view it may not be ideal that a lot of people end up voting before much of the campaign has occurred – especially for minor parties and independents where the campaign is often their chance to get known.
In the Coalition’s case, seeking to reduce pre-polling to just 1 week is (I say cynically) more about trying to disenfranchise working people who might struggle to get to a booth on polling day but whom unlike the elderly and rural are not targeted as much by organised postal vote campaigns.
@June: “Who decides what counts as “truth”?
Alarming slippery slope if that gets up.”
It’s a genuine concern and one that the committee was obviously alive to. It’s an area to move carefully in.
The committee’s bit here I think points the way:
“However, as some witnesses pointed out, there is a distinction between arbitrating what is truth and taking action on what is untrue:
We start by asking the question, what is the problem such laws are trying to solve? We don’t believe it is the need for greater truth in political advertising. Rather, it is the prohibition of lies. Truth will inherently have a subjective quality which makes the compulsion of it difficult to monitor and regulate. But lies or misleading conduct can typically be assessed and objectively tested. This occurs regularly in the context of defamation and consumer protection legislation.”
You separate fact from opinion first. People are entitled to their opinions however wrong.
Then the point is not to gotcha people for getting things wrong, but prohibit clear, unambiguous lies in political advertising.
Ultimately, the courts will decide if it is a lie if it has to go that far. I agree with the submissions to the JSCEM that it is not appropriate for existing impartial agencies like AEC or the ACCC to be doing political work.