 |
|
Each week the MRC will suggest a different policy topic for discussion. We are interested in your views please feel free to leave a comment.
|
|
Neal case prompts consideration of better preselection methods
15 July 2008 post by Julian Leeser
|
This is an extract based on a speech I gave to the recent Australian Liberal Students Federation Conference. To read the whole speech, click here
|
The Iguana bar controversy not only reflects badly on Belinda Neal but on the preselection systems adopted by our major parties. Belinda Neal was never tested by an ordinary rank and file preselection. She was chosen by a cabal of around 20 people on the ALP’s National Executive. Ten NSW ALP federal candidates were chosen this way, or by the NSW Administrative Committee under the N40 rule. The large number of candidates selected by an elite cadre demonstrates that what Mark Latham described as “six union secretaries sitting around a Chinese restaurant table planning the future for everyone else”, has become the standard for preselecting Labor candidates.
|
Elite decision making in the ALP is a far cry from the US Democratic Party, whose presidential primaries attracted 35 million voters (or around 11% of the total US population). The world got to know the candidates. Barack Obama’s preacher Jeremiah Wright and Hillary Clinton’s Bosnian sniper fire memory became matters of note. By comparison, what sort of scrutiny was Belinda Neal put under? In the US, her equivalent would have been preselected via a primary.
|
Quality candidate selection is not just an issue for Labor. Liberal Party preselection systems do not always throw up the best candidates or the most just results either. Perhaps Liberal Party structures are preventing quality candidates from putting their names forward. Status and pay alone do not explain why it has been almost two decades since the Party that at one time boasted four QCs in its Federal Parliamentary ranks has not selected a practising silk for fifteen years.
|
Criticism of preselection processes in both major parties is not to deny that the contest for parliamentary seats should be competitive, but the processes need to be more fair and transparent and allow all candidates to compete on a level playing field. There is a trend towards greater participation in preselections in both parties through member plebiscites. While this is a step in the right direction, there is more that can be done including considering US style primaries for Lower House seats.
|
A primary is a method of preselecting candidates via a ballot of party members and supporters similar to a general election. Primaries were introduced in the US as a way of removing control of candidate selection from party bosses. Most major US elected officials are selected by a primary. The British Conservative Party has also begun using primaries, resulting in the selection of Boris Johnson as a candidate in the London Mayoral elections. In that primary around 20,000 Londoners voted.
|
In Australia we could adapt a primary system to our own circumstances. Here is how it might work.
|
In order for a candidate to be considered for selection in a primary he or she should be nominated by a prescribed number of branch members in the contested electorate. Candidates would then be scrutinised by the State Executive/ Administrative Committee of the relevant party. There should be very few reasons for not allowing a candidate to contest a primary. Those reasons might include that the candidate’s candidacy would bring the reputation of the party into disrepute or that the candidate was not a genuine party supporter.
|
A primary election campaign would be conducted much like a general election campaign. Candidates would engage in grass roots political activity and fundraising.
|
On primary election day electors would arrive at the polling station, state their name and address. The elector’s name would be checked against the electoral role and the party membership lists. If the elector is a party member they would be given their ballot paper and sent to vote. If the elector is not a party member they would be issued a ballot paper after having paid a fee. The fee would be necessary to act as a disincentive to members of other parties voting strategically and selecting the weakest candidate, to ensure the Party membership is not depleted and to recoup the cost of running the primary (in the absence of electoral commission involvement). The candidate who received the largest number of votes would be declared the party’s candidate for the general election.
|
Primaries have many advantages. They are open and transparent. Increased transparency removes the mystery of preselections and would reduce the number of media stories about internal party issues, misinformed by aggrieved parties’ selective and strategic leaking. In a primary the media can observe the working of the selection campaigns first hand.
|
A primary system also indicates to the general public that the party is prepared to be outward-looking. It provides potential outreach for the party to the broader community. If individuals can have a direct say in choosing the candidate they may take a greater interest in the activities of the party.
|
Primaries create a level playing field. They treat the conscientious campaign worker, the community stalwart and the successful businessperson equally. All three types of candidates have a real contribution to make to our parliament and our national life. Primaries give each the same chance at becoming a parliamentary representative. Primaries simulate electoral conditions and allow parties to more properly test candidates.
|
Primaries increase the community’s awareness of a candidate. A primary may help a candidate achieve a deeper connection with, and higher profile in, the community.
|
Primaries represent a significant cultural change in Australian voting practices. Therefore they might take a couple of elections to catch on. Perhaps the best way to evaluate primaries is to establish a primary pilot - trialled over three elections in the same geographic area - say for two federal elections and a state election. The pilot could be attempted in an open seat: (ie a newly created seat, the result of a redistribution, a seat which the party does NOT currently hold or a seat where the sitting member is retiring). The seat would need to be one that the party has a good chance of winning.
|
As in the US, primaries may have a transformative effect on our body politic and could help to strengthen our civil society. By opening itself to community and public scrutiny, the party which trials them first may have a significant advantage. If successful, a primary system should lead to better candidates, better parliaments and a stronger Australia.
|
|
|
|
|
Your Comments
|
Suggest you note that our Compulsory voting system that the left likes, is bad for democratic preselections and for politics of the right, because it favors the unions that are self-perpetuating organisations. (They still enforce sitting together in their unions in their Conferences, to stop people getting out of line from their block
votes.)
The voluntary voting system encouraged the Parties to focus on getting more members or voters enrolled.
The Menzies Model based on the Liberal associations of the UK, got people mobilised, by using the system of plebiscites by a democratic representative system in areas, with representation directly proportional to membership.
Put simply, if you wanted to be the MP, you got 10 friends to join the Party, each one of those got ten more friends to join, and so on, so if you had more Charisma or family connections or organising ability, you won the preselection. This model kept the Party full of members and kept the system reinvigorating itself at every preselection. The problem was not too few members as we have now, but too many. The problem of the death of the Liberal Party in UK was that Lloyd George did unpopular things and it was the time of world war one.
In our time the problem was compulsory voting, weak leadership and a defensive clique mentality from some large business organisations, that was contrary to our origins as representing small business & the otherwise forgotten or disenfranchised people. The big business people could accommodate the Unions and the compliance costs of bureaucratic nonsense. It centralised power and destroyed the democratic institution of the Menzies Liberal Party.
The plebiscite system of preselects gets more people involved. We have to go to plebiscites for that reason and totally remove the central H/Q block vote. It is not just about removing it from self-sufficient electorates. It has to be across the board. In todays terms, the forgotten or disenfranchised people includes the information poor people. V
|
|
Dear Julian,
I think your speach on U.S.-style pre-selection methods is commendable, though I do think there are also some concerns. In my opinion, the U.S. selection process has become too "celebrity-like".
There is so much hype and tinsel that I feel the people are voting for the wrong things. People need to vote for qualities such as: good policy, strong character, integrity and statesmanship. I feel that U.S. voters often overlook these qualities in search of a 'larger than life' 'political hero'. The selection process then becomes, "selection by media" which I don't think is healthy when it comes to running a country.
No matter what our method of selecting candidates, there will always be 'some' risk of selecting the 'wrong person'. It may be as simple as having more presence at the judgement table and having 2 levels of screening before the candidate is approved.
I would like to see Australian politics remain 'down to earth' and 'humble' and continue to have 'substance'. John Howard was a great example of this and of all the qualities I have mentioned above.
Faithfully
Matt Rackemann
|
|
Very interesting, and I mostly agree. One disadvantage of primaries, however, is the tendency towards staged campaigns. I noticed this at a primary campaign event for John Edwards (last round) that I attended out of sheer curiousity. It was more about uplifting music, regular applause and good staging than a conversation about policy. We are at less risk of this culturally, and also preselection for a seat in parliament is less glamourous than becoming a nominee for president. Nevertheless, the benefits of a primary system would largely depend on how much of the campaigning was about substance.
Lyria Bennett Moses
|
|
These ideas have merit and should be debated further. The advantages I see in selecting candidates this way are that it gives the punters a chance to see candidates perform under 'live fire' prior to the real event, and an opportunity to make a case for why people need to join the Liberal Party. BANSON
|
|
The present Liberal Party pre-selection system is based on single electorates, with the purpose of choosing a candidate for a specific electorate.
The US primary system is essentially designed to pre-select presidential candidates from potential contenders involving the voting of potentially the entire nation.
Comparing the two systems is a senseless exercise that probably indicates a lack of common sense or vision by some within our Party.
The issue of quality candidates is perennial and will always be so...good candidates are quintessentially good...not because of their qualifications, wealth or influence..but most importantly because of their capacity to communicate, politic and achieve success.
As a Party we wrongly spend inordinate quantities of political energy contesting pre-selections for our own safe seats and far too little, master minding the winning of seats from our opponents.
We should stop looking for good doctors, good lawyers and good businessmen as good candidates..and in preference strategically recruit excellent communicators, brilliant thinkers and dedicated political prodigies.
T.M.M.QUINN - Liberal, Gippsland
|
|
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I realize that many will regard my opinion of the health situation as backward and not fit for the 21st century, though I will express it anyway in the hope it may provide some worthwhile points.
I do believe that private health is good for Australia as it does take the pressure off the public system. It would also be a very positive move for the public system to take a more pro-active approach to healthy living. It is all common sense healthwise not to smoke, to drink alcohol in moderation, to drink filtered water, to eat un-processed foods as much as possible and to live in a clean environment and take daily exercise. Most people know this but many defy it. Those who live such un-healthy lives put a great deal of pressure on the health system whether it is public or private.
Visiting the doctor becomes a habit and a substitute for the degrading way they treat their precious bodies'. I'm sure the doctors become frustrated too when such illnesses can often be reversed through a simple change in lifestyle.
Private health does give great rewards for members to look after their bodies' through rebates for chiropractic, acupuncture, remedial massage, naturopathy and many more which often takes the pressure off the medical profession all together.
So, I believe we need to nurture private health and also provide the public system with a more pro-active approach to looking after one's body.
Faithfully
Matt Rackemann
|
|
The suggestion that the Party hold primaries has a lot of merit.
The ALP won the 2007 election for a variety of reasons, one of which was the excessive focus placed on their Parliamentary Leader, Kevin Rudd. The electorate are called to vote not for the Parliamentary Leader, but rather a representative Member of Parliament.
Most ordinary people probably didn't even know who their electoral candidates were, e.g. Belinda Neal and voted for the ALP based on their Parliamentary Leader, i.e. it became more of a Presidential-style election.
As such, primaries will increase the profile of the Party and its candidates which will be advantageous.
However, the logistics of it all needs to be thought through very carefully with strict Party discipline to avoid non-Party members rigging the system, i.e. is the fee enough of a disincentive?
Furthermore, if primary candidates engage in campaigning, the system wouldn't be very equitable. If not carefully thought through, it might end up that the elected will be the most well-resourced candidate which would severely disadvantage younger members or members from less well-off backgrounds. Ultimately, while the Party wants a high standard of candidates contesting elections, it ought to be careful not to create a culture which excludes particular groups of members, unable to garner the resources for contesting primaries.
On a totally different note, what of engaging with ethnic communities
- an area which the Party has been traditionally weaker in?
Thanks. Adam Ch'ng
|
|
The Australian Democrats have rank-and-file voting for their candidates. For their winnable seats (ie senate seats) in times gone past, this system was very effective and discouraged "time wasters". In fact, rank-and-file preselection gave Democrat senators a legitimacy with their members and the public that many members of Labor and Liberals were quite envious of!
However the author's proposal above has one large flaw .. he suggests a minimum number of endorsements from (local?) party members before they are considered for nomination. This would only entrench party-insiders nominating for seats. To get external candidates (such as the aforementioned QC), the party needs to get the person into the pre-selection race as easily as possible.
Liberals would be much better served by allocating say, half of their winnable seats to candidates who are not serving position holders or staffers in the party. Luke
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
