Selwyn Johnston… Independent Advocate

Few Australian voters would realise that as they slip their completed ballot form into the ballot box on 24 November 2007 that they will in fact be making taxpayer-funded donation, (from consolidated revenue) to the party or person of their choice to the value of just over $2.10. [210.027c] per vote!

This taxpayer-funded electoral payment system was commenced in 1983 at the rate of 60 cents for a House of Representatives vote and 30 cents for a Senate vote. Over the years those figure have been indexed to its current value and the Senate is now on a par basis with the House. The system was originally introduced for three main purposes.

Firstly, it sought to introduce some equity into the communities ability to nominate privately or as minor parties in Federal elections with some hope of matching the funding, and so the publicity of the major parties. Secondly, it was considered that it would reduce private donations and so leave politicians better able to make the proper decisions for the public and their electorates without any perceived or real obligation outstanding. Finally, it was considered that it would reduce the costs of running elections in that the parties and particularly the major parties would be more frugal, with election spending being reduced for everyone.

None of those ends have been achieved and the system has deteriorated further as at the last Federal Election and as is presently being evidenced. Some $42 million dollars of taxpayers money was dispersed at the last Federal Election mainly to the two major parties [$21 millions to the Liberals, $17 million to the Labor Party] and with Independents and the minor parties collecting only some $4 million of the total.

It could now be reasonably said that the public funding of elections has failed on all three counts.

Firstly, as can be seen from the figures here, the two major parties have collected the lion’s share of the monies and this has tended to entrench the two-party system. Perhaps with the recent “me too” syndrome it’s worse than we think and has actually degenerated into a one party system. In any event it has failed to more equitably distribute the funds for election purposes.

In fact, it has encouraged party membership to decline since there is now such a large and guaranteed funding base that it is no longer necessary to have a large financial membership base, which could at times be awkward. This has had the additional detrimental effect of removing the party from a large internal political policy base to the point where what the people are to get [i.e. the policy] is not determined by a large and diverse party base but rather by party boffins using social engineering and design techniques. Which in a way probably explains a lot of the “me too ism” which is now so prevalent.

Secondly, the public funding of elections has had absolutely no effect on the enthusiasm with which party donations are sought. Both major parties are out there collecting cash and kind to levels never before seen. To further facilitate this situation the level of disclosure for private funding has been raised to $10,500 from its previous level of $1500.

Thirdly, the scheme has failed miserably to reduce the costs of elections. Turning on the TV, not only during this formal pre-election period but also for months before revealed a plethora of political adds, and some pseudo “Government” adds which were all worth a fortune. Since the start of the formal election campaign the intensity, and no doubt the cost has picked up enormously.

So when you go to vote on 24 November, remember that you are at the same time making a donation, generally a political party whether you are completely happy with them or not.

Perhaps it’s time to pause, and consider,  “… do either of these political parties represent me, or ultimately, do they really represent the entities that has made the largest or perhaps the most consistent private financial donations?”

It’s a fair question. After all, your compulsory donation of $2.10 per vote is automatic when you vote, but their donations are results orientated and those results, in most instances, may not be in your best interests.

I have stated on numerous occasions, I strongly object to taxpayer money being used to fund political elections and, upon a successful 2007 Leichhardt Independent campaign, I will present a ‘Private Members Bill’ to repeal this despicable misappropriation of taxpayer funds.

……………………………………………………………………………………

To send your comment on this viewpoint, simply click onto NO/COMMENTS>> at the top right corner of this post…

Recently the Sunday Mail published a Glenn Milne article headed “MP enjoys $7000 a day spree” which was referring to the retiring member for Leichhardt who took a trip, with an adviser, to a space launch in the USA in July 2005. Our local member it seems was not alone in the “big spending traveller” category also being mentioned was recently resigned Liberal Senator Santo Santoro.

The reasons given by both politicians for their trips while reading well on paper really fool no one. We all know that the matters referred to are deals done either in back rooms or as set offs at a higher level. The Labor Party is apparently auditing MP’s travel expenses with a view to causing embarrassment in key Queensland seats, a highly productive public pursuit.

But it’s all just major party political point scoring over a far more serious question. “Just what should the public is paying for its politicians”?

The matter was last addressed when the Parliamentarians awarded themselves a 6.7% pay rise while the Fair Pay Commission could only see its way clear to grant low wage earners a little over $10 a week wage rise, nowhere near 6.7%. The issue was last addressed seriously when the parliamentary pension scheme was forcibly put on the agenda by Independents with the result that Government contributions to politicians superannuation were reduced drastically to that paid by employers generally. That has of course since been watered down and no doubt will receive more attention in the future.

One of the aspects that came up in the initial parliamentary debate over superannuation was that parliamentarian’s remuneration came in a number of ways and if there was any control it was not just to be applied to one area but to the remuneration package as a whole. The major sources of income for the politicians came from three major sources, their salary, their super and their “perks” which of course includes a multitude of sins including travel allowances and committee sitting fees and the like.

It is really quite untenable that captains of commerce and industry should be paid in the millions of dollars and the Prime Minister paid nowhere near that figure, in fact merely a fraction of it. It is undignified when politicians have to pull unbelievable travel “stunts”, particularly at the end of their service to try to, I expect in their eyes, get some relativity into the pay equation.

The answer is simple if not palatable. Like everyone else in the community there is a contract between employer and employee whatever the particular arrangement happens to be called. So what should happen with politicians should be no different. Their salary, superannuation and other official income sources, should be capped to what is adjudged to be a reasonable figure generally and with a set and known electorate payment. Within certain parameters the individual member would have some flexibility to move funds but the limit would be the limit and after that funding would be stopped for the individual politician.

So then, if a retiring member wanted to go to a rocket launch he could do so. He would pay for it out of his all-up allocation. Then none of this grubby point scoring, which only serves to depreciate the public confidence would be necessary.

The question is, just what is the politician worth, and, maybe that’s a job for the Fair Pay Commission!

…………………………………………………………………………….

To send your comment on this viewpoint, simply click onto NO/COMMENTS>> at the top right corner of this post…

It was big news last weekend when no less a prominent News Corp journalist than Glenn Milne, in an exclusive story exposed Kevin Rudd’s foray into a New York down-town Club “Scores” variously described as a gentleman’s club, a strip joint and apparently anything else that came to mind. The name itself is quite intriguing.

Mr Rudd came clean on the event making differing statements about his state of intoxication, and level of comprehension on the night but, by and large, did the right thing with the appropriate level of forthrightness and mia culpa. Mr. Rudd can take some consolation from the fact he is not the only visiting dignitary that has found himself compromised in America.

He attended the club in the company of fellow Labor MP Warren Snowden and News Corp’s editor of the New York Post, a Mr. Col Allan. Neither of these gentlemen can recall any misbehaviour on the part of Mr. Rudd.

All this happened in September of 2003, so it’s becoming public by way of an obscure source in Canberra a few months before the Federal election, is something of a surprise. According to Mr. Milne the matter was a subject of discussion in diplomatic and political circles for some time but was only confirmed last week by the “Canberra” source.

There is no doubt that this type of story gains momentum by association with some other factors, in this case the Federal election. If it was a matter of discussion for “some time” surely some investigative journalist from a multitude of Australian newspapers, eager to get the scoop, would have picked up the phone and made a call to New York. That would seem to be the line of action that would be taken by any respected investigative journalist.

But that didn’t happen until Mr. Milne came along, and, why Mr. Milne failed to make inquiry of his New York ’sister’ paper at the first opportunity is something that, to date, he hasn’t explained.

The concern for Kevin Rudd here is not so much the question of propriety, morality or even hypocrisy, but rather compromise. If, as all parties to date have claimed, that any perceived indiscretion was minor, if at all, then the affair is over and the question of its release hype and prominence should be called to account.

If on the other hand the event at Scores was a little more colourful than has been presented, then the question has to be asked can it held over Mr. Rudd’s head in the future. That is the serious question and the one that Mr. Rudd and Mr. Snowden should now be challenging their alleged foggy memories on.

And that’s the rub. A night out with the boys is manifestly understandable and forgivable but at this time the public needs to know of any, as yet, untold indiscretions so as they can then decide whether it’s a storm in a teacup, or something else!

…………………………………………………………………

To send your comment on this viewpoint, simply click onto NO/COMMENTS>> at the top right corner of this post…