A major overhaul of electoral laws which will raise the barrier to entry for minor parties and limit early voting is set to pass the lower house after the Labor caucus decided to back it.
This month the Morrison government introduced four bills, including one which would require political parties to have 1500 rather than 500 members, and cracks down on party names. And it wants them passed ASAP. This morning Coalition senators moved to get them rammed through in this sitting.
But the bills have been met with outrage from both crossbench MPs and senators — and upstart parties.
What the bills mean
If passed, the laws would usher in significant changes to how elections are held — some of which have been years in the making. Late last year the Coalition-dominated joint standing committee on electoral matters produced a review into the 2019 election, with recommendations that included controversial proposals to introduce voter ID laws and make preferential voting optional.
Although those recommendations — condemned by Labor at the time — aren’t reflected in the new bills, others have been taken up by the government.
The first bill streamlines postal voting rules and reduces pre-poll to 12 days before the election. Another broadens the offence of interfering with political liberty, a response to concerns about stalking and harassment of candidates. And there are provisions to crack down on people who vote multiple times.
But most controversial are the changes for minor parties. Parties now have a membership threshold of 1500, rather than the previous 500.
The good news for Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party is that the threshold doesn’t apply where a party has a member or senator. Hughes MP Craig Kelly’s announcement on Monday that he’d joined Palmer’s rogue outfit gets them over the line. But they leave more than 40 parties scrambling.
Another controversial element includes a rule that could see parties deregistered for having a name similar to another. Assistant Minister for Electoral Matters Ben Morton says it is to avoid voter confusion.
There are two minor parties most clearly affected: one is the New Liberals, a socially progressive party whose name the Australian Electoral Commission ruled sufficiently distinct from the old Liberals, much to the government’s annoyance.
The other is the Liberal Democrats, conservative libertarians who are running former Queensland premier Campbell Newman as a Senate candidate. In 2013, the party’s former leader David Leyonhjelm ended up in the Senate, most likely because people confused the LDP with the Liberals.
Both the New Liberals and the Liberal Democrats claim the bill is an attempt to shut them down.
Crossbench attack changes
The bills are likely to pass both houses of Parliament, after Labor threw its weight behind them. This morning Liberal Senator Anne Ruston moved to get the bills exempted from cut-off, which means they can be passed this parliamentary sitting.
Both the bills, and the government’s desperation to pass them, have been met with anger on the crossbench. The Greens and senators Rex Patrick and Jacqui Lambie opposed the motion.
Lambie said she was “absolutely shattered” for minor parties, arguing the laws would lock out many regular people who weren’t represented by the main parties of ever being able to run for politics.
“No normal Australian is getting into Parliament,” she said. “There’s no chance in hell.”
Greens Senator Larissa Waters said it was an “absolute abomination” that the major parties were once again ganging up to entrench the two-party system.
“The government is proposing to ram through electoral bills … in a feeble attempt to shore up their grip on power,” she said.
The government’s attempt to push the bills through means they will be passed during a chaotic sitting period, where there are fewer MPs and senators around, and less chance of any politically distracting debate.
Lambie says it’s a sign the major parties are colluding to push these laws through and avoid any scrutiny.
“What they’re doing is disgusting, it’s undemocratic,” she said.
A ‘choice’ between a ‘dumb,& corrupt’ party hack and ‘slightly less dumb & corrupt’ party hack is no choice at all. It may end up being a spectacular ‘own goal’ for both the major parties. If the electoral support for an increasing number of ‘voices for’ independent candidates really takes hold, the two major parties are stuffed!
My thoughts exactly. And a LOT more independents could bring us a MUCH better democracy.
Err no. You’ve swallowed the independents billshiit
You’ve swallowed the Kool aid
The Coalition / Labor stranglehold on political power is far more pernicious than similar abuses by businesses, such as the Coles / Woolworths supermarket duopoly. There are a few worthwhile measures in the proposed legilsation but the rest is just another blatant and shameless abuse of power by an entrenched and corrupt ruling class. Lambie is dead right. And a fat lot of good it will do her, or anyone else.
t’s time people took off the rose coloured blinkers and realized that it is the so called minor party of the Nationals that IS controlling the Liberals and sets the agenda.
Minor parties are death for democracy, and independents are a cancer on the nation.
Think of the egomaniac deals of Lambi, Harridan, Xenophoney, best if we got rid of independents, as they are NEVER independent, but rather narcissist opportunists who in fact control the fate of the nation.
Coz duopoly works so well, Tweedledumb & Tweedledumber.
An arguable reading of the Constitution, Duties of Elected Members, which specifies that Representatives’ sole duty is to the electors, could be interpreted to mean that adherence to another ‘party’ is illegal.
That would be Lambi who votes with the Coalition more than Labor
What relevance does that have? She votes as an independent, according to her view of the interests of her constituents. Nothing wrong with that, no matter what you or I think of her decisions.
Oh please, minor parties and independents are death for democracy, it’s the reverse. Some historical reminders:
Senator Leyonhjelm announced to the media that he was not “holding the government to ransom” he only “had them by the balls and was squeezing”.
The squeeze-worthy issue is Section 18C, a watering down of the Racial Discrimination Act (the preferred outcome of the Senator) that he is desperately trying to ram through without public debate and in the face of public opposition.
You may recall, Abbott and Brandis tried this on during Abbott’s reign and the suggestion was so unpopular when polled that it left the PM retreating with his tail between his legs and was a huge blow to the Attorney General.
Nevertheless, Senator Leyonhejelm believes that the government needs his support on the ABCC legislation and presumably Pauline Hanson’s asylum seeker legislation, so he will revive the conversation about his minority and extremist agenda.
Oh please, not the old “because its not perfect all the time it must be rejected completely” crap all over again. Of course there are some independents or minor party representatives who are disgusting and obnoxious. So what?
Duopoly smopoly, it’s a bonanza for conservatives minor parties and independents.
… the Australian Senate is a proportional representation system in which senators are elected according to the proportion of votes their party receives. Senators need a “quota” of votes to get elected. In a half-senate election where six senators are elected (the normal type), a quota equals 14.3 per cent.
https://newmatilda.com/2016/02/18/49289/
This is straightforward enough. The tricky bit comes with preferencing. On the Senate ballot paper, you can vote in two ways – “above the line” or “below the line”.
If you vote “below the line” you can vote for each and every Senate candidate, in your order preference. I love doing this, because I like democracy and I’m a bit of a nerd. But it’s tedious and time-consuming. Most people don’t bother.
If you vote “above the line”, you simply vote 1 for the party of your choice. Your party then allocates its preferences wherever it likes.
And that’s where the modern plague of “preference whispering” originates. The fact that parties can allocate their own preferences means that minor parties can band together and promise to preference each other, in the hope that one of them will get elected.
If you have enough minor parties with enough cross-preferences, the upshot can be a result like 2013, when Muir was elected with just 17,122 votes.
Muir polled 0.51 per cent of the Senate primary vote in Victoria. How did he end up with a quota?
The answer, again, is preferences. The Senate count proceeds by electing everyone with a clear quota, then allocating preferences. The top Liberal and Labor candidates are elected in the first few rounds (Nick Xenophon typically gets a full quota in South Australia, too).
But then things get interesting. By definition, no party has a full quota for the final Senate seat. So the preferencing begins.
Preference counts knock out the smallest parties first, and their votes are then transferred to the party they nominate. If a large number of micro-parties all preference each other, they can end up combining all their votes and zooming past a Liberal, Labor or Greens candidate into the Senate.
And the Greens capitulated on their above and below the line beliefs in return for a DD from which they stupidly thought they would benefit.
Why are you explaining the federal election voting system to me? Have I asked for this or indicated in some way it is not known to me? If so, my apologies.
However, matters such as the consequences of exhaustive preference voting and the democratic abomination of above-the-line voting (in effect appointing a party as the voter’s proxy) are all distinct from the issues raised by the proposed electoral reform bill.
One of the problems with just rerunning ancient files (as you admit to having thousands – like Raygun’s shoebox of press clippings about welfare queens with Cadillacs) is that you might miss when they are outdated.
eg “If you vote “below the line” you can vote for each and every Senate candidate, in your order preference…” but you omit to mention that one need only number 12 boxes of individuals to be valid, not the entire beach towel ballots to which PJK’s iniquitous Line condemned us for 20+years.
(Which I did, relentlessly – the top tally was 2004 when there were over 160 boxes but I numbered everyone of them, backwards.
Oh those ancient files of mine unfortunately history repeats and ignorant novices try to convince others this is not so.
One of the problems of trying to denigrate a poster who is exposing the unsavoury undemocratic legacy of minor parties and independents is that you are in danger of being perceived as a hypocrite; as you yourself enjoy trotting out previous accounts pertaining to political parties. Never mind, I know I am on the money when the raw nerve hit results in an attempt to belittle. So what else is there about the dirty deals of minor parties and independents; doing over Australians for a moment of power broking glory!
“The Greens’ dental policy involving a cap of $1,000 per person over two years will not be anywhere near enough for people with more complex dental problems.
“The Chronic Disease Dental Scheme that closed in November 2012 has been sorely missed by people with chronic health problems. This Scheme provided patients with up to $4,250 worth of treatment services over two years. 80 per cent of people who accessed the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme were pensioners, carers and others on low incomes.
“Low income Australians have been missing out on adequate dental services, being unable to access the private dental system where 90 per cent of dentists work.
http://www.cpsa.org.au/health/health-media-releases/844-greens-dental-scheme-for-pensioners-shy-of-what-is-needed
2006:
THE Victorian Greens have promised to stop the construction of wind farms opposed by local residents, despite their policies of supporting renewable energy… like the state Liberal and Nationals, the Greens have pledged not to support wind farms in areas without residents’ backing….AusWind chief executive Dominique La Fontaine expressed surprise at the Greens’ policy, questioning how they would objectively determine the level of community support for a wind farm. “Is it a straw poll? What numbers are we talking about?” Ms La Fontaine asked.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1610250.htm
Danger Will Robinson, Ancient History Alert!
Oh come off it, that’s the best you can do to refute the facts of the Greens diabolical political posturing. Especially hypocritical as you are often the one who quotes ancient historical figures and learnings. It really is beneath you to try and belittle my accurate information as ancient history, when it is what informs our present and future destiny in this nation. You presented as a poster who was able to engage on a subject without attempting to denigrate the poster rather than the information presented, of which my information is on the political record and Hansard. Such a disgraceful reaction on your part, SAD
By all means post the historical achievements of the minor parties and independents for whom you carry a torch. List them regardless of their age, as what we are discussing is how this nation has been formed by such ‘ancient’ history which in fact is part of this topic under discussion here.
You can apologize to me when you gather the wherewithal to do so
Don’t let the fact that we are already governed by two minor parties dissuade anyone from the belief that the minor party and independents are our way to democracy.
The fact is we have had minor parties in power for longer than we have a major vote catching party in power.
By the way some may remember poor little Jacqui Lambie being dudded once again and supporting the Coalition medevac horror legislation, she had the deciding vote how good are independents and minor parties!!
And she was reassured after beinggiven some secret squirrel information by the Coalition as to why she should support them, and she did , what a win-win for minor parties and independent.
Reminds me of the Greens voting with the Coalition and Abbott to remove the debt ceiling in exchange for more transparency, another fabulous win for democracy from a minor party.
Another wining moment for a minor party to shine and bask in the light of being a power broker.
More ancient irrelevant files of mine unhappily remind us how a minor party – the Greens ‘eased’ the threshold for disclosure that had been enshrined in earlier legislation. Thanks to the minor Greens party an estimated 500 to 600 companies will continue to be shielded from disclosure because they fall below the new threshold’…thanks directly to the Greens, and Malcolm Turnbull could not have been happier, his secrets safe in the Caymans.
‘The shadow treasurer, Chris Bowen, said the government had engaged in brinkmanship and “played Richard Di Natale like a banjo on this issue”. He said the government’s threat to drop its own legislation was a negotiating tactic which the Greens “fell for hook, line and sinker”.’
“Labor’s deputy Senate leader, Stephen Conroy, said: “You have sold out because we had the numbers to make the government agree to this bill; you folded; you are spineless and when your supporters realise how spineless you are … they will know what to do about it. They will desert you in droves.”
To which we get the time honoured line whereby the Greens claim, they ‘saved’ the legislation.
GREENS SUPPORT TAX EVASION SECRECY FOR 500 TO 600 COMPANIES
Why does this remind me of the changes that American Red States are making to keep the poor and the folks of color away from the polling booths?
The two party system is a corruption of democracy. No direct representation for Oz.
Correct. Ever since the demise of the Democrats, (and the recent rollover by Labor on anything relevant), Independents are the only hope left.
……I could have mentioned the Greens, but since Scott Ludlum left, yer nah.
If ever there was a time for the Greens to step up and ‘make hay’, this is it! Get in people’s faces guys/gals. As well as social media, remember old style campaigning, markets, parks, beaches, carnivals, uni campuses – be where the people are. For gods sake DO something!
The Greens are finished, they cooked their goose when they sided once too often with the Coalition over vital legislation.
Take the passage of the backpacker tax which was about to be passed at 13% thanks to senators Jacqui Lambie, Derryn Hinch and Culleton.
The Greens originally favoured a rate of zero.
But in order to assure idiot Green voters that they’re not a spent force and to show the Fizza they are still mates, they did a deal with the government to pass the tax at 15%.
Di Natale revealed that “through this whole period, we didn’t receive a phone call from any minister from within the government – not one”.
Morrison acknowledged the Greens had approached the government to reach the compromise.
And for the ignorant, backpackers are amongst the most exploited and victims of wage theft, outstanding Greens achievements and independents achievement.
Another history lesson for the fans of minor parties and so called independents and their rise to infamy via the Greens Coalition contrived DD of Turnbull. In fact tDDhanks to the Greens and the Coalition Hanson was voted back in due to the halved quota in a
Senator Ricky Muir moved last week to suspend standing orders so that debate could be held on a bill to re-introduce the construction industry watchdog, the ABCC.
Senator Muir used his time in the chamber to highlight how important the Government had previously described this bill as, but Coalition senators and the Greens joined forces to vote down the motion.
Part of the senate reform agreement with the Greens was that they not debate or bring on debate of the ABCC bill, they couldn’t agree fast enough with their new masters the LNP.
Both houses of parliament will be dissolved and Australians will go to the polls on 2 July should the Senate fail to pass a bill restoring the construction industry watchdog, the prime minister has announced.
What a bloody appalling situation.
The last thing the LNP want is for Muir to pull this out of the bag; and that’s why the Greens agreed to disallow discussion of the ABCC when stitching up the amended senate reform bill as part of their LNP deal.
I don’t know how many readers are aware of this, but it would all come out if the election was fought on IR laws and the killing off of Unions.
Independents are conservatives capitalising on the fake notion of they’re independent, name one that’s not a conservative. As for the Greens they can only get votes if they bag Labor and run against Labor.
And rather than post a little minus sign, by all means do so, but I would prefer to see a list of the positive achievements of minor parties and independents, take your time, minus poster, and inform me as to how these mostly conservative independents and parties have determined and controlled the legislative process and law making. Plenty to choose from over the years, Harradine, Muir, Xenophon, Family First, etc etc so get to it, lets see the list of democratic reforms worked by the independents who mostly support the Coalition, and the minor parties such as the Nationals, Greens, Family First, One Nation, who over the years have determined this nation’s direction on vital matters.
Another bit of ancient memorabilia to which little Selkie objects is this; which has not led to an increase in democracy but the reverse, and again it was a conservative strategy to manipulate the vote and stop the unwashed majority Labor vote from forming government:
Politics in Australia was corrupted as far back as 1918 when the conservatives introduced it in response to the rise of the small farmers Country Party.
The Country Party split the anti-Labor vote in conservative country areas, allowing Labor candidates to win seats.
The conservative government of Billy Hughes introduced preferential voting as a means of allowing competition between the two conservative parties without putting seats at risk. It was first used at the Corangamite by-election on 14 December 1918.
In Melbourne at the 2010 Federal election, Labor polled 38.1% of the first preference vote, the Greens 36.2% and Liberals 21.0%. Four other candidates polled 4.7% between them, and after their preferences were distributed, Labor was still in the lead with 39.2% to 38.8% for Bandt and 22.0% of the Liberal candidate. Liberal preferences were then distributed, easily electing Bandt. (Antony Green)
Don’t you just hate that ‘ancient’ inconvenient truth!
We do not have a two party system at all.
We have a party that receives half the votes of the Greens gaining power and controlling another party that receives less votes than Labor but more votes than them: the National Party of Neo Naz….
The only two party system that is corrupt is the Coalition of the two parties: Liberal and National. What also needs attention is the preferential voting system, that allows those with big buckets to buy power via running sham candidates and thus using their preferences to put the recipients of brown paper bags in power
Don’t necessarily agree with the numbers move for Parties. However, it doesn’t stop anyone from running for Parliament.
There also must be some strong motivation and/or advantages in getting elected as a Party instead of Independents.
UAP is a prime example of abuse of the idea of a Party. It currently has One member in Parliament, and with the addition of Craig Kelly, will have two members at the next Election. It also has a Billionaire Donor in Clive Palmer who through his donations to his own party, basically has the unfair ability to pervert the result of an Election.