If you haven't seen the discussion paper you can find it here.
Also of interest was an article from Antony Green, which covers both the history of Optional Preferential Voting and the effects a move to that system might have federally.
It is important that we have free and fair elections, and that political parties don't take advantage of their time in government to rig the system and tighten their grip on power. That is why it is important that as many people as possible send submissions to the Qld Attorney General to voice their opinion on how our democracy should operate
Neal Sellars has sent us a copy of his submission. We have reprinted his concerns in relation to non-compulsory voting. Feel free to comment on what Neal has to say, or to send us your own thoughts on the Newman Govt discussion paper.
I have lived and worked overseas for several years and seen the impact of non-compulsory voting on the democratic process. The impact is that the less well-educated members of the community and the marginalised are less likely to vote and vulnerable to political manoeuvring/manipulation. In extreme cases obstacles are put in the way of them voting (such as requiring them to have forms of identification that cost money and even the spreading of misinformation about their eligibility to vote). This obviously disadvantages people in these groups and makes the system less democratic.
The fundamental concept of a democracy is that everyone has a say – in other words, everyone votes. We should be looking for ways to increase the number of people voting and improve their political literacy, rather than introducing a system by which fewer people will vote. A system of non-compulsory voting will favour the more affluent and better educated segments of society and disadvantage those from socially or economically marginalised groups – exactly those groups that a progressive society should seek to protect.
Our Federal Elections have had compulsory voting since 1924 and I believe that this has served Australia well. Compare the system in the United States of America where large sections of the community do not vote and, therefore, are not represented. The turnout for Presidential elections in the USA is generally less than 60 percent of the voting age population. Most would agree that compulsory voting ensures more equitable representation. Without representation, how do you propose that those who do not vote express their concerns and put forward their interests?
Yours sincerely
Neal Sellars
Following Neal's post, we received a response from Mark Enders, his key concern is for the fair funding of political parties and their campaigns.
An excerpt from his submission is below.
Feel free to comment on Mark's ideas, or to provide ideas of your own. Any part of your submission to the Attorney General can be posted here... just send it to us for consideration.
On issues relating to the financing of political parties and campaign expenditure, I believe that whatever arrangements are in place, they should ensure that success is based more on the veracity of the political ideas being promoted than on a party’s level of resources. Of equal importance is the source of that funding. Donations from individuals, corporations, or interest groups should not buy influence, even if the only evidence of influence is a reasonable public perception of influence or concern that a fair and open political process has been undermined.
Based on those principles I believe an cap should apply to donations which are provided at any time, and need not be restricted to individuals on the roll provide the influence (or perceived influence) gained by the donation remains small. The requirement of member/shareholder endorsement in relation to political donations should not be mandated, but instead left to the individual organisation and their own governance arrangements. Fees for attendance at functions should reflect reasonable or accepted market value and if a higher fee is to be charged this should be treated as a donation and be subjected to limits placed on donation amounts. I don’t believe additional disclosure arrangements are required, but believe administrative arrangements should maintain a level of accountability and transparency into how political parties spend the funds they have collected.
Public funding should take into account a party’s ability to raise its own funding and should be structured so that it does not artificially advantage one political party over another. It should not be dependent in any way on actual election results. But it should allow for any administrative streamlining as long as this does not impact on accountability or transparency.
Election expenditure should be regulated to ensure the maintenance of a level playing field. And Volunteer labour should be exempted from any assessment of expenditure or any right to access public funding.
Mark Enders
Be sure to check back to see some of the other opinions that people are expressing on this issue