I'm not sure Scott is aware of how angry most people are about all the perks. And no they are not unaware of the public funding at all. To some it sounds fair as otherwise the rich always win. Well they do anyway don't they?

The problem is most people have just given up and are thankful that government's don't last forever. They don't know how to fight against a system where those running the system vote themselves as much as they want, and more.

How do you fight this? Well first you don't vote for them. Even if you have to make Labor and the Coalition last and second last at least they won't get your $2+ per vote. Yes that money is of course indexed although none of your entitlements are.

Vote for anyone but these two and give the money to the small parties. Even if the big two do get back in they will have far less money.

Which I suppose just means they will cheat us elsewhere.

I'm with Bernie on this. Cut ALL perks and just give them a salary. I'd suggest that salary is negotiated with their electorates as an AWA which is what Howard expects you and me to do. Have the electorate pay them and audit them.

But first you have to break the Party system down. Any ideas?

I want to know why nobody in South Australia is jumping up and down about the South Australian government's $3m taxpayer funded contribution to the Labor Party's federal election campaign. It does not matter which party or person you vote for this is a blatant misuse of taxpayer funds.
Oh it was done very neatly. The money was given to the union movement ostensibly to run courses on occupational health and safety in the workplace - courses more about the union movement than OHS. What it has done of course is free up the money that the unions should have used so that they could contribute that money to the ALP election campaign.
OHS should be paid for by employers (and most employers will do the right thing because it saves them from expensive law suits and damages).
Mike Rann has got away with it. The media has said almost nothing (I understand that the NUJ has told their members not to make a fuss about the issue)
The public funding of election campaigns is bad enough but this is infinitely worse because it is openly party political and stinks of corruption in high places.

RobbyH well said

yes we do have a problem but until we get rid of them we can only stand in our own electorates and fight them with independents.

The Australian peoples Party not registered will come about one day and treat those who stand for their electorates with the respect they deserve, and that is represent their communities not political parties.

Reference is constitutional debates.

This is a rort and please correct me but the labor party changed this for the pay for vote.

Sounds just like centenary house pay the labor party to get them out of debt.

They are constitutionally corrupt and inept and until the people vote as if it is them standing in government and representing those within theirelectorates then we have a party dictatorship system who makes the rules,They make the policy, not the people.

By the way has anyone seen any real policies or just spin

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

Scott has missed the point.Mark Lathem was stupid.We need to pay our pollies and top cats more money.We just have too many of them.
Just look at the quality of our pollies and lazy cats at the moment particularly at a state level.It is abysmal.

Pay fewer a lot more to perform and have rewards with real consequences for bureaucratic cowardice.

Scott makes a compelling argument - however, this funding is crucial to the smaller parties who deliberately choose not to take political donations from those with dodgy links with the major two parties and with unwanted agendas (property developers, resource companies, religious nutters, etc).

As with most arguments, it is not an all or nothing outcome that should be sought, and a better argument would be to ensure that the public funding decreases as more votes are garnered. The smaller parties would not suffer, but the favoured parties would see a declining income stream that deceases to zero for, say, 1 million votes or more. Couple this with a Canadian style constraint on political donations and campaign spending, and voila, our loyal pollies would need to actually earn our votes, not buy them.

The best protest of course is to vote one for the grass roots parties with any other preferences you choose to give (if you choose to give them) then progressing to the other parties as your primary vote falls to the next party still standing. At least you can dictate who gets your money, er I mean vote. This only applies to the lower house of course. The Senate ticket is different. By the way, please enrol to vote, change your address, do what you need to do to make your voice count.

An absolutely excellent, and timely, article Scott.

Don't get too carried away with this praise, as there are many points upon which you can be picked up upon, but such criticisms or corrections are likely only to relate to the adjectives you have used, not the verbs and nouns that make the structure of your article. Allow me to begin a friendly demolition of some of the notwithstandingly necessary points you have made.

You say "Since public funding was introduced, party membership in Australia has declined by more than 50 per cent." Possibly 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' (after this, therefore because of this) reasoning, Scott. I suggest that party membership was known to be on the decline before the introduction of public funding of election campaigns; in fact I suggest public funding was introduced in order to sustain the facade of political parties representing significant numbers of real people in our community. The funding being seen to be necessary to sustain the credibility of the continued existence and activities of established political parties as legitimate organizational players in the political 'game' when real membership was all the time evaporating.

You say "Surely, in a democracy it should be for party supporters to fund their party not the general public.". Too right. Spot on. The proof of that particular pudding would be in the eating, and I suspect many in the party machine and 'professional parliamentarian' world would already know the taste it would have!

You say "Now, party policies and campaigns are developed by expensive polling, focus groups, market analysis and consultants." This quote is an assertion that carries with it the seemingly necessary implication that the EFFECTS of policies and campaigns arise from the adoption or execution thereof. The possibility exists that the governmental EFFECT desired has already been decided upon and that party policy development and campaigning is merely about packaging these results that it is already confidently believed are electorally attainable in public believability. Providing a covering explanation for an otherwise predetermined outcome, in other words.

Now how could anyone possibly predetermine an electoral outcome?