Red Rag

There’s been a bit of discussion lately about ending compulsory voting at federal elections. For the record, I support compulsory voting because it is a relatively insignificant imposition on people’s liberty. It’s an hour out of your weekend, once every few years, so that we know who you’d prefer to run the country.

Having worked behind the scenes at several elections, first for the AEC and subsequently as a scrutineer, I simply don’t accept that people’s right not to vote has been meaningfully removed — the volume of “colourful” submissions shows that people are well aware that they can spoil their ballot paper to voice their dissent. The fact that they have to get off the couch to have their say, the same as everyone else, does not concern me a great deal.

I’m sympathetic to the view that compulsory voting privileges the opinions of the apathetic, but I’m not quite convinced. First, there’s nothing to say that someone who follows politics closely has a better understanding of public policy than an ordinary Jill or Joe who just wants to get on with things. Second, I remember reading that a British study showed that the demographics who most strongly supported compulsory voting were also the least likely to vote if it was voluntary. This suggests that structural issues significantly affect who votes in voluntary elections, which is undemocratic. I’d rather impose a small civic obligation on people in order to level the playing field.

In an insightful post, Nick Evans picks up on something I haven’t seen elsewhere. He begins with the fact that “those groups who gain influence are the groups who can mobilise a large voting block to turn up and vote in a particular way”, and concludes that the big winners will be the Religious Right:

While the influence of the religious right has been growing under the Howard Government, this seems to have been achieved by a process of stacking out various wings of the Parliamentary Liberal Party, rather by a demonstration of their ability to capture a substantial voting block in their own right.

Under voluntary voting this will change. The major parties will have to swing their resources into ‘get out the vote’ efforts, rather than targeting issues dear to swing voters hearts — a substantial change in the political dynamic in Australia.

It is this shift which stands to empower the religious right. Their ability to deliver votes at the polling booth may only increase in relative terms, but the fact that the nature of poltical campaigning will also change to reward this stand to massively increase their influence within the conservative parties, and thus within public policy making in Australia.

On top of that, Nick argues that “get out the vote” campaigns are most effective when they are run on moral issues. The unions might benefit from that now and then — such as in response to the Government’s IR proposals — but the Religious Right will always be able to campaign against reproductive choice, no-fault divorce, and a general sense of moral decline. This gives the Conservatives a significant advantage — enough to put it on the Government’s agenda at the next election?

• The ACTU’s legal challenge to the Government’s IR propaganda was rejected by the High Court, apparently on a technicality. In a brief media statement (pdf), the Court said it was “not appropriate to answer” whether the Government’s spending was properly authorised. At this stage, it is not possible to say why the claim was rejected, or by what majority; the reasons will be published within weeks. The Government claims its legal bill for this case was over $200 000, and will try to force the ACTU to pay.

• Michelle Grattan reminds us that the Government has not been vindicated by the High Court’s decision: “Just because the Howard Government has won the legal argument does not mean it is on the right side of the real one. The taxpayer should not have to fund a multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign.” In September, Labor introduced a Private Member’s Bill that would give the Public Service Commissioner the power to audit Government advertising.

• Meanwhile, the Government has been trying to get the ACTU’s latest round of ads off the air — but it prefers the backroom to the courtroom, with the PM’s mates pulling the strings. The unions claimed “there had been efforts to stop the union movement’s ads being screened at the MCG during quarter-time breaks”, which the Government denied. But a media and politics newsletter reported to subscribers that “Crikey knows it happened. The big question is whether the PM took umbrage and personally asked the MCC to pull the ads, or whether [MCC chief Stephen] Gough took it upon himself because he was our dear leader’s host for the day?”

• Family First senator Steve Fielding is calling for a probe into overtime — he wants to know whether penalty rates effectively discourage antisocial working hours, and whether there might be other ways to achieve an eight hour day. Fielding seems to be hinting at greater regulation of working hours. He also believes the Industrial Relations Commission is the ideal body to undertake this study.

• A Melbourne labour lawyer has warned employers that workers with no real avenue to challenge their unfair sacking might turn to “self help” remedies outside the legal system. Julian told HRmonthly workers might “resort to some form of payback — perhaps arson, sabotage or physical violence against their former employers”. He also predicts an increase in occupational health and safety complaints, equal opportunity claims, and prosecutions under the Trade Practices Act, which could cost more than the low-cost unfair dismissal jurisdiction.

• A report by Four Corners on the Government’s IR plan revealed that even its backers don’t agree with the Government’s claims about its effects. The Australian Industry Group’s Heather Ridout rejected the idea that removing unfair dismissal protections would boost employment: “You’re not gonna go around putting on more people just because the unfair termination laws have changed.” Asked whether she could “cite any economic evidence that individual contracts actually boost productivity?”, Ridout said, “No.” A succession of labour market economists agreed with her, and said the economic evidence was against the Government. Another highlight was Sally Neighbour’s question to the Prime Minister: “What’s the point of scrapping the no disadvantage test if not to allow people to be disadvantaged?”

• Mark Wooden (described by The Australian as “a leading economics academic known for his past support of government policy”) turned against the Government this week. In a speech to a conference in Melbourne, he gave the plans a “C minus” and said, “If the aim of the IR reforms is to provide employees with real choices, then I am on Greg Combet’s side.” He accused the Government of “pork-barrelling or … just acquiescence to some employer interest.”

• John Howard used his speech at the WA Liberal Party’s conference to “steel his troops” for the IR battle — but even that soft audience wasn’t convinced. WA Liberal leader Matt Birney refused to back down, and continues to oppose Howard’s plans on States’ rights grounds.

• The WA conference was the platform for John Howard’s announcement that workers would be given $4000-worth of preliminary legal advice about their alleged unlawful dismissal — but “[l]awyers, unionists and politicians have branded [the plan] a hoax.” The subsidy is for preliminary advice only, and can not be put towards the $30 000-odd it costs to bring a case to the Federal Court. It will be paid to a Government-picked law firm, who will almost invariably advise the sacked worker not to bother — especially since Howard’s new laws will make it easier for employers to rebut the unlawful dismissal claim.

Update:

• A Melbourne human resources company has revealed how business will use the Government’s new IR laws. It promises to take firms “outside of the industrial regime”: to force employees to sign individual agreements against their will, to establish sham contracting arrangements, and to smash unions.