We're usually a distrustful lot.
When it was revealed Andrew Wilkie had asked for federal funds to redevelop the Royal Hobart Hospital, everybody was quick to accuse him of pork-barrelling. And quick to accuse the Coalition, which was apparently happy to meet Wilkie's request, of vote-buying.
No disagreement here.
But why does this cynicism seem to fall away when we talk about parliamentary and electoral reform?
Rob Oakeshott released his final list of agreed reforms yesterday. They're a mixed bag.
Some, like a Parliamentary Budget Office, are long overdue.
Others are just cosmetic. Take time limits for questions and answers during question time.
Oppositions seem to find this idea intrinsically appealing. When Julia Gillard was a shadow minister during the Howard years she proposed to limit question time answers to four minutes. Of course, once Labor won government, her eagerness to crack down on parliamentary waffle and showmanship suddenly evaporated.
But no reform proposal can compel the Prime Minister to answer questions they do not want to. Whether question time is a circus with long answers, or a circus with short answers, won't make it less of a circus.
Not that it really matters. Let politicians have their fun.
It's unlikely time limits -- or another Oakeshott reform, ''Questioners and ministers to use best endeavours not to use notes'' -- will do much to encourage better government.
Many of the parliamentary reforms are specifically designed to boost the power and influence of independents -- greater involvement in determining the business of the House of Representatives, and a rule to ensure private members' bills actually get dealt with.
They've played a smart game, trying to cement their power beyond the life of the hung parliament.
No surprise they wanted parliamentary processes changed to be more independent-friendly.
The last few weeks have provided a clear illustration of how seemingly well-meaning reforms to improve parliament and electioneering can go awry.
The controversy surrounding the Charter of Budget Honesty should be a reminder no reform is politically neutral. The provision of the Charter which allows Treasury to cost the oppositions' policies overwhelmingly favours incumbents. Nick Minchin admitted as much on ABC's Q&A on Monday night.
That's why incumbent governments claim any failure by the opposition to submit policies to Treasury is an affront to the dignity of Australian democracy.
The Charter is a charade designed to make the opposition look immature and unfit to govern. John Howard and Peter Costello used the Charter against Labor for a decade. Labor loves the opportunity to use it against the Coalition.
It's a cynical game, politics.
The Oakeshott reforms indicate electoral funding ''improvements'' will be a priority for the independents in the next parliament.
There are few areas of political reform infused with more cynicism than campaign finance reform.
Centre-right parties have been traditionally sceptical of calls to get money out of politics. Yet campaign finance reform has an unlikely champion in Malcolm Turnbull.
No doubt, Turnbull's desire for reform is heartfelt. But that doesn't mean it is devoid of self-interest.
Recent support within the Liberal Party for donation reform is motivated by one big thing: the party is struggling to fundraise.
Back in 2008, while shadow treasurer, Turnbull noted that between 1997 and 2002, state and federal Labor had raised $82.6 million. In the same period, the Liberal Party had only managed $54 million.
The party has been gasping for money for a long time now.
This is because corporate donors tend to donate to the Liberal and Labor Party equivalently. Neither party has an advantage in the corporate donor market.
Yet the Labor Party can draw upon the substantial largesse of the trade union movement.
Just after this latest election was called, the Liberal Party's federal treasurer, Alan Stockdale, was publicly worrying his party would be outspent ten-to-one by the unions.
Liberal support for donation reform is as much an attempt to block the flow of union money to the ALP as it is to ''clean up'' Australia's political system.
This strategy is a calculated risk.
Bans on political donations tend to favour incumbent governments, not oppositions. Oppositions need donors' money more than governments do.
Cash-strapped oppositions can never broadcast their political message as effectively as incumbent governments can. The public information advertising so common in modern Australia is as much about advertising the party in power as advertising government policies.
So campaign finance reform may create more problems for the Liberal Party than it solves.
But have no doubt: most politicians who propose campaign finance reform consult with their parties' treasurers before they do so.
The same goes for any parliamentary reform. Uppermost in their mind is how these reforms will change the political mathematics.
Self-interest is never far away.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment