16 July 2010
The round-up
Election speculation has now reached fever pitch. But in the absence of a definite date to look forward to, we start The National Interest round up with a look back to Australia's most recent election in Tasmania and evidence now emerging of the pre-poll spending that flowed from a special account in the Premier's office called the Sundry Grants fund.
According to the government, the fund allows the Premier to provide relatively small but much-needed support to important community organisations, 'relatively small' in this context may be amounts of up to $30,000. There are no formal criteria for allocating the money, the fund is not advertised and requests for cash do not have to be made in writing. In other words the fund is administered entirely at the discretion of the Premier.
Last year the total amount doled out from the slush fund, sorry sundry fund, was $840,000. And according to The Hobart Mercury the fund did such brisk business during the lead-up to to the March election that it had to be topped up twice.
Treasury kicked $200,000 in to the fund in early February just before the election campaign began and added another $185,000 after the poll to balance the books.
The Australian Electoral Commission has been doing its best to get the missing one point four million voters signed up to the federal electoral rolls before the issuing of the writs so that as many people as possible can exercise their democratic rights, or duties, on polling day.
The political lobby group GetUp! thought it would lend a hand. GetUp! devised a system to enable citizens to enroll entirely online, without having to resort to all that old fashioned business of signing a piece of paper.
The group launched a website, OzEnrol.com, which offers the option of signing your enrolment form electronically, using a computer mouse or trackpad. GetUp! then sends the completed form to the Australian Electoral Commission on the voters behalf so their names can be added to the roll.
But there's a bit of a hick-up. A whiz bang techno enrolment like that would be invalid, because it breaches section 101 (1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which requires people to 'fill in and sign a claim' to enrol.
An Electoral Commission spokesman told The Age that 'a digitally constructed signature would not be valid'. So you still need to grab a pen and wave it over a real piece of paper.
Very 20th century. But at least you don't have to walk all the way to the post box. The Commission says you can fax in the signed form -- not much help really since who uses a fax these days? Or you can scan the form and send it as an email attachment.
And if you really are the old-fashioned type, there's always hand delivery.
Comments (1)
-
Emir :
18 Jul 2010 12:18:38pm
I'm never re-enrolling to vote ever again. As I have mentioned in other topics with inter-related political issues, Anyone who still truly believes we actually have a real choice in our beloved "superior" democracy is dead wrong. As time progresses the major parties are converging towards each other and lurching to the left and right, hijacking each others policies when it suits another "vote grab". It's a complete and utter joke. A prominent example is the immigration debate.
As Peter Boyle of the Greenleft Weekly stated 'What a difference a month and a change of leadership makes. In late May this year Julia Gillard said that Liberal-National opposition leader Tony Abbott's call for a return to the "Pacific solution" on refugees was just a "slogan not a solution" but now she's PM (with the blessing of mining giants BHP, Rio Tinto and Xstrata), it has once again become a "solution".'
I'm sick of all the rodomontades that are now a hallmark of western democratic systems come election time, where in our contemporary voting environment the margins are closer than ever historically, necessitating the strategists to scrape the bottom of the barrell as our immigration debate so plainly demonstrates.
It's intrinsically incorrect to force citizens by way of penalty, to vote in a system that is basically representative of probably a 10% cross section of actual Australian society. The 2 major parties share power on a rotational basis and there is no need for direct collusion as when one is not in power, the other is. That's some real choice.
So much for my freedom of choice to not participate in something I neither respect nor believe in anymore. Our politicians are ALL bottom feeders. The Greens are the lesser of all the evils but the 2 major parties seem rather ambivalent, almost malevolent in their dealings with them.
Presenter
Peter Mares
Producer
Erica Vowles

