Democracy FOR SALE

Radical changes required to repair our fragile democracy.

By Salvatore Scevola

12 Sept 2014

There is much being revealed at the ICAC in Sydney theses days and for many of us who genuinely care about the health and well being of our fragile democracy it disturbs us to no end. This is what prompted me to attend Q & A on Monday night (8/9/2014) to ask the following question:

"The ICAC in NSW has shown us with clarity the amount of corruption that has besot this State & beyond at the hands of corrupt former & serving politicians. If electoral funding laws in NSW & the Commonwealth repay political parties & individuals that can muster the 4% threshold, why should there be any need for private or corporate donations at all, other than to buy influence? Shouldn't we be learning something from this rotten saga & ban ALL donations over say $100 to restore some credibility to democracy in Australia?"

The whole panel agreed that there should be changes and a move to a full publicly funded model. But many overlooked the point that we already publicly fund electoral campaigns through differing schemes of reimbursement for those who achieve the 4% threshold. The most recent public data on the 2010 federal election indicate that this cost over $53M resulting in each of the Liberal/Labor parties receiving about $21M.

Clearly the Australian taxpayer is already paying a considerable amount of money towards running the campaigns of many. The other problem with this current system is; I can stand as an independent, legitimately raise money for a campaign, raise say $50,000, not get elected, but, if I secured the necessary 4% threshold in the electorate in which I ran, I'm entitled to seek reimbursement from the Electoral Funding Authority through an Agent and pocket the repayment of 99% of my expenses calculated to a maximum of $2.31 (2010) per vote received. This scheme has netted the likes of Pauline Hanson hundreds of thousands of dollars at almost each election in which she stands but does not get elected. This is a major loophole in and of itself and requires serious attention. The major parties each have their own systems of slush funds, Labor (through Unions), Liberal (through the Corporate sector), Greens (through Wilderness & conservation NFP sector) Christian Democrats/Family First (through Church Organizations) What is being revealed at the ICAC via the Liberal Free Enterprise Foundation (F.E.F) is one of many reasons why our PM rushed to call the Royal Commission into the Unions. They were fully aware that the business of using the F.E.F as a front to wash developer donations which became illegal in 2009 would be exposed and embroil so many of their current MP's, do you really think Mr. O'Farrell resigned over a bottle of wine? This is one way they can point the finger at each other... to what end?

The bigger problem we have is that the ICAC whilst exposing this blatant corruption and that of former Labor ministers Obeid, Macdonald, Tripodi, Roosendaal, Kelly and others is left lingering with no action being taken against them at all. This represents a critical failure on the part of the current system that needs changing immediately. The ICAC must be given (retrospective) prosecutorial powers immediately. Any finding or decision of a revamped ICAC would always be open to further judicial challenge but it must have the powers to prosecute if a Commissioner has made a finding of corruption. Any proposed sanctions to politicians or public servants contained in any future amendments also need to meet community standards of fairness.

In 2006 a well known former Justice of the Federal Court Marcus Einfeld made one foolish mistake and was struck off the roll of lawyers in 2009 by the NSW Supreme Court finding that he had "knowingly made a false statement under oath." He was stripped of his QC (awarded in 1977) his AM, his Legal Certificate, & jailed for three years. The benefit that he was trying to procure from this false statement was his NSW drivers license and a $77 fine. Compare that with what has been exposed from the ICAC involving coal licenses, government leases of prime property, cash political donations, Builddev, Brickworks, Australian Water Holdings etc etc. To this day not one of these later corruption findings have been acted on via the NSW DPP, many of these individuals involved still use their titles Hon, and are drawing pensions from the NSW Parliament. This is simply not good enough. It demonstrates one thing clearly, that there is a 'Political Class' in Australia that conducts itself with reptilian impunity unless changes are enacted and enacted fast. Even the corporate sector has insider trading penalties that carry heavy sanctions including jail, if proven (ss1043A of Corp Law). These serving and former politicians have used knowledge of which "they only could be privy" by virtue of their position in government to materially enrich themselves and their political donors. This behavior cannot go un-sanctioned as this makes a mockery of the oaths these minister's took when they accepted office as a minister of the Crown. It is literally an affront to the democratic process.

My question on Q & A and recommendation that we reduce the amount any one person can donate to $100 is an important one. This will have the effect of leveling the playing field considerably whilst still providing individuals and collective groups the ability to raise necessary funds to run campaigns.

Politics MUST be a competition of ideas concepts and policies. It CANNOT be a competition of who spends the most money or who "looks the best". That is the preferred system of those who run MEGA media companies. It suits their agenda very well as they get richer and we don't get the BEST representatives. My experience (having run campaigns of my own as an independent & Agent) tells me that voters actually have a great disliking for the plethora of electoral paraphernalia that seems to bombard every election anyway. They want to hear people's policies not look at huge billboards of "photoshopped" candidates offering slogans. Up until fairly recently it was illegal to produce a sign for electoral purposes any larger than about one square metre, but as usual changes were made without any community consultation and we've ended up with this "lollypop shop" version of democracy.

If we genuinely want to root out any possibility of corrupt conduct I propose the following changes must be adopted:

• The 4% threshold should be reduced to .5 or 1% to enable and encourage more people to run for office. The 4% is set at that level to suit the major parties only. Any reimbursement must only be used to reimburse actual expenses. Not used as a vehicle to "make money" as demonstrated by others at the current rate of $2.31 per vote.

• Federal elections for the lower house must be optional preferential as in NSW. This gives the power of that one vote back to the individual who lodges it. People are sick of selecting their preferred candidate and seeing their vote whittle down to a party or individual it most certainly did not want, this is the effect of the compulsory system and the result of "back room deals" it must be amended.

• Donations should be made by individuals only (no corporations, unions or NFP organizations) and a maximum of $100.00 per election or electorate.

• Full retrospective prosecutorial powers for the NSW ICAC including punitive powers to act swiftly and in concert with other agencies eg. ATO, OSR etc.

• The establishment of a federal ICAC with the same powers as a revamped NSW ICAC. This federal body will also have standing powers of a Royal Commission and be able to investigate any instances of corruption or impropriety within the federal sphere including all government agencies. Because so much of what government does today is done through third party agencies under government contract, such new powers should include any organization or individual that receives government funds.

• All MP's must swear an oath of office that carries disclosed penalties including jail if they have been found to have acted corruptly as defined in the laws, with mandatory penalties including the stripping of Super Entitlements. This WILL make them think twice about feathering their own nest at the expense of the taxpayer.

I have looked at very carefully at this situation to make these recommendations as I believe they will significantly increase the safeguards we need to apply to stop the proliferation of this cancer. Democracy is very fragile, why? Because it's a system that is rooted in equality before the law. If our current law makers are unwilling to amend the necessary laws to raise the bar on what we expect of them it will further disenfranchise more and more voters and this WILL create a vacuum.

This is not a good situation for us to remain in and although Plato shared his wisdom long ago that "Good people don't need laws to act responsibly, and bad people will, always find ways around the laws" we must be forever vigilant to catch those bad people out and prosecute them with the full force of the law... if such laws exist, at the moment they do not and hence why the system is subject to exploitation.