The Editor, Sir:

Your editorial writer may be too young to remember and appreciate the foundation on which our progress in electoral reform has been built over the past 27 years. That must explain the short-sightedness of your editorial in today's issue criticising the Opposition for refusing to participate in the enactment of a bill proposed by Mr. Abe Dabdoub, MP, to regulate the financing of political parties.

Prior to the establishment of the Electoral Advisory Committee (EAC) in November 1979, the electoral system was subject to manipulation by whichever party formed the government. Malpractices were rampant and the conduct and outcome of elections were always the subject of bitter controversy between the two major political parties. With the setting up in 1979 of the EAC with independent members and equal representation from both parties, the process of electoral reform began and the electoral system was gradually removed from the arena of partisan conflict. Today, it enjoys a much higher level of public confidence than it did in the past.

Both parties agreed

What enabled this transformation was an agreement between the Government and Opposition in 1979 that Parliament would accept without change and implement any recommendations made by the EAC. This was crucial because any government would have the constitutional power to ignore or reject the recommendations of the EAC. It would also have the power to pursue any initiative that may affect electoral practices without reference to the EAC. This has never been done. Administrations of both parties have honoured the convention that we must abide by the recommendations of the EAC and that any change in the electoral system must be guided by the EAC.

In 2003 both parties agreed on the need for a regulatory framework for the financing of political parties. It was further agreed that this should be placed within the purview of the EAC. That authority is enshrined in the bill to establish the Electoral Commission to replace the EAC which was passed in the House of Representatives on September 26 and is now awaiting the approval of the Senate. In anticipation of this, the EAC has completed a framework for regulating political party financing and the new Electoral Commission is expected to make submissions to Parliament for the appropriate legislation to be enacted.

How can we therefore proceed to enact legislation proposed by Mr. Dabdoub when the Electoral Commission is about to submit proposals for similar action? Greater than this absurdity is the fact that it would violate the 27-year-old convention that has girded the electoral reform process. If Parliament in which the governing party has a majority now decides to pass laws affecting the electoral system outside of this convention, what will prevent any government from unilaterally passing laws that reverse many of the critical advances that have cleaned up the malpractices of the past? This would take us back into the past where governing parties were able to use their majority to manipulate the electoral process.

Your insistence that the matter should be debated ignores the fact that what Mr. Dabdoub placed before the House is not a resolution to affirm the will of the House but a bill to enact legislation.

In Parliament I commended Mr. Dabdoub for the considerable work which had gone into the preparation of his bill but made it clear that the Opposition will not participate in an endeavour that would undermine the foundation on which the reform of our electoral process has been built.

I am, etc.,

BRUCE GOLDING

Leader of the Opposition