Liberal MPs are calling for an end to the charity status of the organisation behind They Vote for You, a website which tracks politicians’ voting records.
NSW Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg and MP Dave Sharma have written to the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission and the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), arguing that a website listing their voting history in fact distorts their stances on issues.
Huh?
It’s the latest reporting mechanism federal MPs have taken issue with, with many politicians decrying the fact that what they say and how they vote is being put out into the public realm.
What is They Vote for You?
They Vote for You is run by the OpenAustralia Foundation (OAF), a not-for-profit charity that states it is “a strictly non-partisan organisation” unaffiliated with any political party. The organisation also runs the websites Right to Know, which assists journalists and members of the public with freedom of information requests, as well as Planning Alerts, which emails subscribers about what’s being built and knocked down in their communities.
OAF doesn’t donate to political parties, has an annual income of less than $200,000 — most of which is spent on a handful of employees — and uses donations and volunteers to function. Most of its founders are software engineers, while employees are developers and researchers.
In short, it’s not a big operation — nor one with huge influence. The AEC said it wouldn’t investigate Sharma’s complaint, stating the site’s communications weren’t designed to influence elections.
OAF co-founder Matthew Landauer called the attack “confusing and bemusing”.
“It’s obviously an attempt to shut us down,” he told Crikey.
While politicians have taken issue with information released through Right to Know, Landauer says this was the first time the organisation had been so publicly targeted.
The website lists a politician’s voting history, but also summarises the intent of a political division by looking at the context of their votes. Landauer said this was done by a political researcher, and he invited politicians to reach out to them to rectify their stance if they feel they have been misrepresented.
Why is this an issue?
Senator Bragg said the site is biased, presenting curated content in a “highly partial, polemical and partisan light”. He has been listed on the site as voting against protections for LGBTIQ Australians and a constitutional Indigenous Voice to Parliament — both of which are true.
But Bragg also led a campaign in the Coalition to legalise gay marriage, and has written a book supporting Indigenous voices in Parliament.
Sharma has taken issue with the fact Coalition MPs voted “very strongly against a fast transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy”, arguing that vote was a symbolic Labor notion that didn’t make legislative changes.
There are plenty of votes in Parliament that are designed to not change the law but stir the pot. Think Pauline Hanson’s “It’s okay to be white” Senate motion — which was accidentally voted for by Christian Porter and Mathias Cormann — or Hanson and Cory Bernardi’s motion to get Australia out of the UN Refugee Convention.
Politicians do sometimes vote against things they might stand for, forging agreements and preference deals with independents or opponents to get other bills passed, or simply to wield political muscle. In 2019, independent Senator Jacqui Lambie threatened to vote for the Ensuring Integrity Bill in Parliament if union leader John Setka didn’t resign as Victorian leader of the CFMMEU. In 2013 Clive Palmer threatened to block every piece of government legislation in the Senate if the Electoral Act wasn’t reformed. More recently, One Nation has said it will block all government legislation unless vaccine mandates are dropped.
Monash University law resources associate professor Yee-Fui Ng told Crikey that Australia was unique in its strong party-line system, leading to issues around voting.
“Certainly there is some prostrating involved where politicians position themselves or their party to achieve certain aims but they might trade off some policies for others,” she said.
“That’s not what our democratic system was intended for.”
A key concern is breaking the line — voting against the party or its leader’s preference.
“That skews the outcome based on what the leaders of the parties decided,” she said, adding that it leads to fewer independent voices and policies.
Secrecy is on the rise
While voting isn’t always representative of a politicians’ individual stance, the Coalition has taken issue with anything that improves transparency.
The national cabinet’s rules and processes are still shrouded in secrecy, with documents exempt from freedom on information laws. The Coalition is against establishing a federal anti-corruption body with teeth, and federal ministerial diaries aren’t publicly available.
Even things that are already on the public record have been brought into question. Finance Minister Simon Birmingham recently blamed journalists for reporting what French President Emmanuel Macron said about Australia’s botched submarine deal. Birmingham questioned whether an interview with the French president was in the “national interest”, blaming the media — not Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s actions — for the deepening rift between the two countries.
Landauer says the attack on They Vote for You and other transparency organisations was an attack on democracy.
“When politicians attack non-partisan, impartial organisations, the whole democratic process suffers,” he said.
Let’s not forget that Dave Sharma was Alexander Downer’s legal advisor when the Howard government bugged East Timor for Woodside.
Paid off with this sinecure? …. doG I’d love to see the Jolly Green Giant’s have their wicked way with his seat.
NSW Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg … Isn’t he the senator who single-handedly set up a review of the ABC’s complaints procedures, despite the fact that there is already a review under way?
Perhaps he believes you cannot have too much of a good thing. The more inquiries, the better his the chances of getting the results he wants.
Perhaps he will keep on having Senate Inquiries until he gets the result he wants.
Yes, he is a dog with a bone.
Yeah the same guy who writes books about how to dismantle the superannuation system, an IPA apparatchik nothing more.
Pimp for dud super funds
I thought the class of Abbott and hockey was a low point
Crikey – Bragg and Tudge and Porter and Sukkar etc get onboard short list
Obviously anyone who might hold members of a coalition government accountable in any way is biased and should be shut down. We are following the American right’s shift away from representative democracy even quicker than I expected, in spite of starting with a fairer, and I believe better, framework for our democratic system.
aren’t the coalition and their media cohorts supposedly against ‘cancel culture’?
once again, like free speech and the rest, only when it suits them….thanks for the article
This from a senator who wants to take your superannuation away and a MHR who allegedly was involved in insider trading.
Why has the charitable status of the IPA not been successfully challenged?
Do you really need to ask?
The rules were ‘eased’ recently and charities to now allow ‘charities’ to advocate and lobby. Ouch.
edit ..now allowed to advocate etc