Renewing Democracy: can women make a difference?

That said, it is fundamental even with our circumscribed democracy that all votes should be of equal value. In broad terms this has been achieved in Australia, with universal suffrage, electorates of roughly equal size and independent electoral commissions to determine electoral boundaries and prevent gerrymandering. However, in my own state, entrenched conservative opposition in the Upper House has made it impossible to achieve one-vote-one-value and a High Court case to force the issue constitutionally did not succeed. The latest figures show that the largest metropolitan seat, Wanneroo, has 36,000 voters (42% over the quotient of 25,400) while the smallest country seat has just under 9,700.

Substantial campaign donations to the major parties by corporations and large organisations such as unions and business foundations also foster the perception (and perhaps the reality) that it is possible to buy privileged access to MPs and ministers and that this influence is in proportion to the amount of money donated. The recent disclosure that business leaders paid $10,000 per head for dinner at the Lodge indicates that not even the Prime Minister’s office is free of this practice.

Public funding of elections was supposed to reduce the parties’ reliance on private corporate and union donations: all that has happened is a blowout in both public (doubled since 1993) and private funding as parties engage in an increasingly expensive bidding war at elections. The substantive problem is the possibility that such donations can purchase influence. While I know of no comparable Australian data, surveys of major corporate donors in the U.S. (some of whom donate in Australia) show that they do so not because of charitable impulses or civic duty – they expect a return for their money.

I believe it is time to reign in the exponential growth of corporate donations and to curtail the proliferation of content-free, coercive media advertising that passes for policy debate during elections. The retention of public funding of elections should be accompanied by measures to limit the size of individual private donations to $1500, or thereabouts, and to proscribe any donations from corporations and large organisations.

Mirror or descriptive representation

Part of the growing sense of disenfranchisement about politics among Australians may lie in the obvious differences between party members and MPs and the wider community. This failure of "mirror" or "descriptive" representation is, of course, most noticeable in the relative absence of women in the senior echelons of the major parties and in the Parliament.

None of the parties in the Australian political system is a mass party with a substantial membership base: less than 1% of Australians are members of a political party. Nor are their members typical. In general, factions within the parties control the branches and manoeuvre for control of seats or regions which then become their fiefdoms – new members which they do not control are a threat. Contests for marginal and unwinnable seats are left to the naïve – or to women. This was one of the reasons we pushed to hard to change the ALP's rules to secure safe and winnable seats for women – at least up to 35%.

While I do not intend to single out my own party for criticism, it is clear that unions – honourable contributors to Labor history and policy – exercise disproportionate influence through the 60:40 rule and through their affiliated membership, many of whom have no direct connection to the party. Not only does this rob us of the active commitment and participation of union members, it also disenfranchises ordinary branch members (many of whom are women) who are active in their own right.

I believe it’s time for the ALP to embark on a massive campaign to increase active membership, particularly among young people. It is time for the party to insist on one form of membership – that of individuals who take responsibility for their own membership, including paying for it. As a first step, only individuals should be permitted to sign up as members and everyone’s vote should have the same value. I’m told that in the U.K when Thatcher moved to prohibit union affiliation fees being paid to the Labour Party, workers responded by joining in droves, providing a solid non-factional foundation for Blair’s "New Labour" as well as a surge in funds.

There is no reason why similar results couldn’t be achieved here. Members who sign up as individuals are more likely to commit energy and enthusiasm to an organisation they have chosen. Eliminating branch stacking, a process that has already begun in the ALP, may also help divert the considerable energies currently dissipated in turf wars and internal machinations to policy development, community activism and political strategy. It may also produce greater diversity of real membership.

Parliament – debates, legislation, consultation, accountability

Once elected, MPs may find that their contribution and that of the parliament is much more limited than the theories of representative government suggest. One of the more disquieting experiences in the Federal Parliament is that most speeches are delivered without an audience, into the void. Speech after carefully prepared speech disappears without a trace, having no impact on the fate of the legislation. This, in the House of Representatives, is determined in advance by the simple arithmetic of majority. Even in the Senate, where outcomes are more fluid, deals are done behind closed doors rather than fleshed out in public.