Don Farrell usually finds his way into the news cycle in relation to some or other trade issue. But Farrell, who’s special minister of state as well as trade minister, plans a throw of the dice soon that, if he can pull it off, would give him a place in the history books for driving a major reform of Australia’s federal electoral law.
The changes, long in the pipeline, would place caps on both donations and spending for federal elections, and include more timely disclosure of money flows.But the far-reaching reforms, which Senator Farrell aims to bring to parliament in the fortnight sitting starting August 12, would seem unlikely to be in place for the coming election, due by May next year.
The proposals are generally in line with the majority recommendations from the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.
It’s been a tortuous process, much longer than Farrell initially hoped. Not only have negotiations with other players dragged on, but the danger of breaching the Constitution (which could invite a successful High Court challenge over restricting the implied freedom of communication) and even a shortage of parliamentary drafters have slowed progress.
How much of the reform package can be wrangled through parliament, and how long that might take can’t be predicted.
The reforms will include a minimalist “truth in advertising” measure, based on the model operating in SA. But that might fall by the wayside in the parliament. The Australian Electoral Commission, which has resisted being the designated cop-on-the-beat to adjudicate on truth, will be relieved if it doesn’t eventuate.
And Farrell won’t even try to increase the number of ACT and NT senators (current set at two each) because there is not enough support to do so.
For Farrell, the core issue is the caps to stop the explosion of spending and politicians having to devote so much energy to fund-raising.
LIINK
the more time pollies spend on fund-raising the more beholden they are to wealth and influential power players.
the more lies are told in elections, the more we are duped by liars.
so why not remove the potential for corruption and duplicitous mendacity from elections?
