protest vote

Its obvious why John Howard is targeting the Indigenous vote with his latest foray into reconciliation. But just how organized is the Indigenous protest vote? What alternate party is being put forward by this fresh approach, to what is an obvious understanding by this community of the rampant degradation of any differing major party political choice (Democracy) that has come about over time in Australia elections? Perhaps this community needs to show some leadership,come out and tell the population who they intend to vote for and why, perhaps a swell of protest voting by the electorate could cause a major shift of politics within this country.


Indigenous protest vote urged against major parties
Posted Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:45am AEST

Ray Robinson says neither the Coalition nor Labor deserve Indigenous votes.

Related Story: Govt to amend NT Indigenous tenancy agreements Former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) deputy chairman Ray Robinson says the major political parties in Australia do not deserve a single vote from Aboriginal people.

Mr Robinson says with a federal election looming, Indigenous people must now consider who to vote for.

He says the Federal Government scrapped ATSIC - the peak body representing Indigenous people - while the Labor Party stood by and let it happen.

Mr Robinson says the major political parties have committed so many violations against Aboriginal people that they do not deserve any support.

"There is no comfort from the Rudd Opposition of what the Federal Government is doing to Aboriginal people, so why vote for them when their policies are exactly the same as the present Government?" he said.

Mr Robinson says Aboriginal people around the country must put aside their differences and unite against the major political parties in the coming election.

"I think there is only one way of action for the Indigenous people of this country and that is to vote for the smaller minor parties and not let their preferences go to any major political party," he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/20/2038198.htm


Research Paper no. 21 2001-2002
Australia's Political Parties: More Regulation?
Scott Bennett
Politics and Public Administration Group
25 June 2002

Major Issues
For much of their history, Australia's parties have been private bodies, effectively acting free from any type of redress from their members.

The private aspect of parties has provided no means for aggrieved party members to challenge their parties' actions in court. A pivotal 1934 High Court case reinforced the view that their rules did not form a contract that was enforceable, and as a matter of law it was held that party members had no personal interest in a party's assets. The parties therefore asserted their freedom to act without any type of external oversight.

Today, however, various factors suggest that they should have a greater level of accountability to the Australian people. It is now much harder to sustain the case that parties are private bodies, in some way beyond the law:


of great importance is the fact that several recent courts cases have thrown doubt on the extra-legal nature of parties


parties now have a constitutional presence, as well as a presence in legislation


in addition, the establishment of public electoral funding has produced legislative changes which have seen the first serious parliamentary 'interference' in party operations


some observers believe parties' own tough internal behaviour has helped produce a loss of support in the wider community, and


there has been a shift in society towards expecting more accountability and transparency in our institutions.

Not all political systems have allowed the same degree of freedom to their political parties, and many Western democracies moved to adopt regulatory arrangements well before it became an issue in Australia. Such nations:


have seen parties as public organisations which have not only a responsibility to their members for their actions, but also to the wider community


have placed close-checking requirements on parties if they received public funding


believe parties have a role to preserve the democratic nature of the state within which they operate, and


see parties as having a responsibility to implement democratic practices within their own internal operations.

The question therefore arises: does more need to be done to make parties accountable to the Australian public, let alone to their own members?

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2001-02/02rp21.htm#major