Sustaining a robust and effective democracy is a balancing act which requires both compromise and vigilance.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
We all aspire to a democratic system where citizens have a voice and equal opportunity to influence decision making through voting and other forms of political engagement.
In many ways Australia, with its system of independent and impartial electoral administration and compulsory voting, is an example to the world.
While Australia's electoral systems as a whole represent best practice, there are growing concerns that our system of campaign finance needs to be subjected to greater regulation and transparency.
Declining trust in our politicians and system of government has many causes, but central among these is a growing perception that powerful interests can capture government and exert undue influence over political decision making.
Unfortunately, federal disclosure laws on which we rely in Tasmania are extremely weak and only provide a limited and very belated summary of the money spent on political campaigning in Tasmanian or federal elections.
In recent years less than a quarter of the income received by political parties in Tasmania has been declared under federal disclosure laws.
Fortunately, the tide is turning and there is a now a broad consensus that we need greater transparency in relation to political donations and campaign spending.
Over the past decade, all Australian mainland states have recognised that federal disclosure laws are inadequate and have implemented significant reforms concerning various elements of campaign finance.
From the disclosure of political donations to imposing limits on campaign spending and the political activities of third party groups, changes are being made nationally.
The Tasmanian Government has responded to demands to improve the state's campaign finance regime by establishing a review of the Tasmanian Electoral Act 2004.
Today's report published by the Institute for the Study for Social Change is designed to contribute to the review process by outlining evidence-based reforms which will enhance the transparency and integrity of the state's electoral process.
Despite the aims of campaign finance reform being straightforward, the details are complex and require careful consideration.
Campaign finance reform should begin with a concerted effort to enhance the transparency of the relationship between powerful interests, government and political parties. The key principle is that voters should be able to determine who has funded political campaigns before they vote.
Given that federal disclosure laws fail this test there is a clear case for the introduction of a more comprehensive state-level disclosure regime for political donations and expenditure in Tasmania.
This system could draw on recent reforms in other states and would be affordable and can be designed to accommodate and preserve the distinctive features of the Tasmanian electoral system and parliament.
Reforms should preserve the independence of the Legislative Council and must apply to both candidates and parties given the rivalry between candidates from the same party in our Hare Clark system.
We have suggested following the lead of other states by reducing the threshold for reporting donations to $1000 with candidates and political parties reporting disclosures on a weekly basis during campaign periods.
Reflecting the Terms of Reference of the Government's review, we also consider the related issues of limiting political donations and campaign spending, whether public funding should be made available to support political campaigning and whether 'third parties' need to be subjected to tighter regulation?
These issues are more complex and less clear cut, but we do believe there is a case for extending a modified version of the spending cap which applies to Legislative Council elections to the House of Assembly.
The approach here would be to impose a relatively low cap on individual candidate spending with a much higher cap for party spending on state-wide campaigns in House of Assembly elections.
If effective limits on campaign spending are established the demand for private donations or public campaign funding should decline making donation caps or expensive public funding provisions unnecessary.
The most challenging aspect of campaign finance reform is developing effective measures to regulate the direct political campaigning of 'third party' businesses, unions and other interest groups.
While it is hard to enforce 'third-party' regulations in the digital age this is not an excuse for failing to establish clear expectations of organisations trying to influence our elections.
If implemented these reforms would help protect the integrity of our electoral system in an era when confidence in our democratic institutions is waning.
- Richard Eccleston is Professor of political science and director of the Institute for the Study of Social Change at the University of Tasmania and has written the latest Insight Report with Dr Zoë Jay, who is a political scientist and researcher with the Institute for the Study of Social Change.
