Paper for presentation to the Representation and Institutional Change Conference, Parliament House.
6th August 1999.
Cyberdemocracy and the future of the Australian Senate.
Abstract: The implementation of information and communications technology in the office has involved the fusion of social, cultural and political elements, including factors such as the organisation and dissemination of work, and the partitioning of responsibility and expertise.
Australian politics is not in the process of a revolution with respect to the use of information and communications technologies. The Internet is, however, transforming the ways in which politicians, their staff and their constituents communicate, and the method and speed of information dissemination.
There is a growing understanding of the value of technology in the Australian political landscape. The time is rapidly approaching that the Australian Federal Parliament should reassess the role of IT in simplifying work practices and examine the suitability of the US model of electronic voting to an Australian environment.
As new technologies revolutionise the way society operates, the Federal Parliament remains an anachronism in many respects. Despite the availability of information technologies that have enhanced the operations of almost every modern organisation, the Australian parliament operates in a very traditional manner.
The effective use of online technologies would greatly enhance not only the operations of parliament, but also the ability of its members to function more efficiently. More importantly, it would bring the parliament in step with changes taking place in society.
Already the Internet is enabling mass participation in the democratic process and cyber-democracy is becoming a reality politicians cannot ignore. Before long we will have a parliament dominated by new generation of computer literate politicians who will be demanding online services in the Chambers of parliament.
In democracies all around the world, online technologies are gaining increasing credibility in the political system. Political campaigners in Australia are starting to wake up to the potential of the Internet as a primary tool for electioneering, fundraising and organising.
The ALP’s Web site in the 1998 federal election campaign achieved an unprecedented 2 million hits over the five-week campaign. In a country of 18 million people, and 11 million voters, this is a remarkable achievement. An achievement that was accomplished through the use of Internet based techniques never before used during a campaign.
The ALP site established visitor loyalty through its dynamic structure and managed to attract visitors who would never before have visited a political site and who in doing so were exposed to the ALP’s political message. All of this was backed up with an e-mail based query service, which answered over 1,100 policy related queries each week of the campaign.
To provide an alternative to the media’s campaign coverage, the ALP’s 98 election website offered exclusive access to major events which received only selective coverage in the mainstream press. As an example of this is the ALP Campaign launch which was Webcast live and viewed by over 105,000 Internet viewers across Australia and around the world.
E-mail has become an entrenched form of communication between political representatives, their offices and constituents. Increasingly it is being used as a lobbying tool by those individuals or organisations who are looking for new real-time ways of engaging in the current political system.
Whilst some political offices still fail to give e-mail correspondence the same weight that a written letter receives, the effectiveness of this tool in ‘bombing’ politicians e-mail accounts and disrupting traditional office procedures during the recent debate over the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill, cannot go unnoticed.
Cyberdemocracy brings with it the opportunity for a reassessment of the methods by which Government services are provided. Through increasing departmental utilisation of the online environment, access to details of government services and initiatives could be extended to include all Australians regardless of their geographic location and with no limitation of this access to public service working hours.
Numerous opportunities exist with respect to possible new dimensions of government presence in an online environment. Programs are also needed to encourage effective participation in the Australian democracy through the use of interactive technologies.
The unrepresentative nature of Australians who are currently online provides a limited audience for a participatory democracy, and brings its own inequities involved in giving undue weight to the information ‘haves’, at the expense of the information ‘have nots’.
It must be acknowledged however that before any real change in this area can occur, government policies must redress these inequities of Internet access. Government priorities in this area must include the provision of high quality access for all Australians to information and communications technology, including programs to facilitate community based training in using the Internet and to ensure the affordability of Internet connectivity.
As the Internet and e-mail become more entrenched in the political process the pressure on our parliament to continually upgrade its technology increases. The time to embrace the concept of a cyberdemocracy with a degree of forward thinking and an acceptance of the use of technologies to enhance the running of federal parliament is upon us.
The next few months will see the final stages of Internet connectivity rolled out to Parliamentarian’s electorate offices.
The next challenge is for Parliamentarians and political parties to develop the skill base necessary to gain maximum advantage from the World Wide Web. The value in publishing a web site is as much related to providing for interactive communication within the politicians as it is a potential source of accurate and timely information.
These technologies, though reasonably new to the political domain, have been developing in the private sector for the past decade, and many of them are already utilised in electronic commerce and by research and information services.
The US Example
The US Congress is by no means a ‘technology-free zone’, even though the 104th US Congress in January 1995 amended a clause prohibiting the use of “electronic office equipment…including computers” on the floor of House. The reason for this ban: “to avoid the disruptions and distractions that can be caused by sound emitted from such equipment.”
Congress does have about 40 electronic voting stations and there is electronic equipment at the respective floor managers’ tables that is used to monitor the progress of votes. Computers are also located at the back of the Chamber which is part of a connected voting system for use by Members.
Since 1970, Electronic Voting in the Chamber has been available and “the names of Members voting or present may be recorded through the use of appropriate electronic equipment.” (In November 1971, the House installed an electronic voting system with supporting legislation enacted a year later, and on January 23, 1973, the new electronic voting system became operative with its first use being to conduct a quorum call).
Although the US Congress has experienced many changes affecting its management, structure, administration and decision-making over the years, the distribution of computers is a most significant development.
Congress initiated the CyberCongress Project aimed at providing an extensive range of information resources including e-mail, committee information, Internet access and improved links between offices. Furthermore, clerks and officers in the House have phones, fax and computer services available as part of their electronic voting operations and to assist with official business.
Unlike Australia, the US House does not have assigned seats. This factor alone is causing serious logistical problems that would not be faced in the Australian Parliamentary system. For example in the Australian Senate, rather than spending eight minutes for every division where the Whip reads out every attending Senators name to the Clerk, Senators could identify themselves and indicate their voting intentions electronically as a supplement to traditional voting systems, This would not reduce the public visibility of voters intentions.
Arguments for developing online technologies
1. Parliament would be more efficient and productive
Developments in America demonstrate that legislatures are made more effective and productive following the introduction of electronic devices. There are excellent efficiencies in delivering online information on bills, amendments and calender updates. Accessing parliamentary records (Hansard) and the Internet from the floor of parliament gives members instantaneous information at minimal costs. Access to Word applications enhances the writing of speeches, briefs or amendments and e-mail access permits the rapid exchange of information and documents between members.
Electronic voting has also sped up the passage of Bills and allowed members more time to pursue other duties.
2. Parliament has a proven record of innovative use of information technologies.
Except for the floors of the House and Senate, information technologies are already extensively used in both Parliament House and in electorate offices. Mobile phones, pagers, faxes, e-mail and the Internet are used to communicate between members, staff and constituents. The use of some, if not all, of these technologies should be available inside the Chambers.
Although members and senators can be contacted through their mobile phone and pagers, once inside a chamber the only form of communication is via a direct phone link between the seat allocated to the politician and his/her parliamentary office. In today’s world, this lack of wider communication access is anachronistic. We should actively consider the merits of politicians being able to contact their electorate office, another chamber, departmental staff or even their families electronically as this would not disrupt proceedings any more than the use of the existing phone.
Likewise, multimedia applications on a PC laptop can enhance an understanding of bills or legislation. This is certainly true with respect to complex technical or scientific legislation where ‘virtual’ displays can be both informative and instructive.
The Australian Parliament has been able to leapfrog a generation of technology In that they are preparing for live Webcasts of parliamentary proceedings hence having avoided the prospect of broadcast technologies in the model of C-span in the US. Digital video conferencing technologies could change the way Senate Committees operate both within the Parliament and through their role in taking evidence from the Australian public.
Whilst previous speakers today have identified the risk of information overload, the reality of IT service provision in the Chambers is that Members and Senators would only access what they as individuals deemed as necessary to fulfil their parliamentary duties in a coordinated and timely manner.
3. The Internet and Intranet are transforming the political landscape
The Australian Parliament has both an Intranet and a Parliamentary DataBase System available to all electorate and parliamentary offices. The Intranet comprises various online services, including Hansard, Parliamentary Directory Services (comprising of an occupant directory and listings of committee room meetings), Parlinfo (a searchable database containing information on legislation, publications, Hansard, policy papers, procedural matters, library and media resources as well as the Parliamentary handbook) and the Electronic News Service.
These services are critical to the activities of Parliamentarians and should be made available on the floor of parliament, either through in-built computers or by allowing laptop computers to be used by Members and Senators.
4. E-mail is critical to exchanging documents and information
Electronic mail has transformed modern society and facilitated the rapid exchange of documents and information. E-mail can be used to instantaneously update legislative amendments, bills in progress, Hansard and news etc. That is how a modern parliament should operate and, more importantly, that is what the public expects, given their level of cynicism at the archaic and bureaucratic nature of parliament.
During sitting periods, Senators and Members need to communicate with their staff who frequently need to provide updated information, research, diary changes or to pass on constituent or other correspondence. While it has been argued that the floor of the House should be insulated from outside interference, that notion is not necessarily valid in today’s world where the accessibility of information is paramount. In addition to contacting staff and receiving information on legislation, e-mail could be used to provide a direct communication link between the House and Senate.
Furthermore, if Members had access to e-mail this would facilitate the exchange of correspondence with electors and electorate offices. Again, there is a view that if you are exchanging e-mails then you are not giving your undivided attention to debates and speeches, however this presumes that nobody is reading newspapers, clippings, correspondence and the like – practices well known in the Australian parliament.
5. Electronic technology would not disrupt parliament
The possibility that online services would cause disruption and diversion are a factor in the US Congress’ decision to prohibit their use of the floor. It is argued that it would be ‘discourteous’ to have a politician making a speech while other members might be either glued to their computer monitors, answering e-mails or researching legislation. According to the US Subcommittee on Rules & Organization of the House (21/11/97), “If electronic devices are permitted in the chamber, lawmakers may be so engrossed in their “electronic office” that they are unlikely either to be “hearing” or “studying” the viewpoints of their colleagues”.
On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent similar ‘distractions’ of Members and Senators conducting their own work while in Chamber. Noise is not a valid argument for banning computers from Parliament as anyone familiar with the level of ‘activity’ in either the House of Representatives or the Senate would be hard-pressed to argue that either computers or electronic voting devices would disrupt proceedings any more than is the current situation. In some respects, electronic technology might result in a ‘quietening down’ of Parliament, as members would be able to work during normally inactive periods.
6. Parliament is old fashioned
Given the workload that most politicians are burdened with and the time-constrained environment they operate in, the ability of modern parliaments to deal effectively with all business is questionable. Therefore the provision of online technologies would only improve the quality and quantity of parliamentary output, particularly with respect to legislation where Bills could be better scrutinised, rather than just processed.
Furthermore, if Parliament is to effectively deal with the complexities of 21st Century it must embrace the technology of the day. It is a bizarre situation when legislators are debating digital television, conversion, encryption, electronic voting, privacy and the Internet yet we are unable to use these technologies within the legislature.
Problem Areas
The introduction of information and communications technologies in the Chambers, and their application in all aspects of parliamentary proceedings will no doubt be subject to some initial teething problems. With the provision of adequate training and support, this transition will be made a lot smoother.
It must be acknowledged that politicians, like members of the community will all chose to use the technology in a different way. Attempts to overly homogenise information systems would not surprisingly be resisted. Technology should not inadvertently be used to discriminate against those whose life experience perhaps does not engender comfort or ease with their use.
Some broader problems have also been identified with respect to the introduction of a cyberdemocracy.
Lobbyists and constituent groups would no doubt use e-mail and the Internet to flood (‘bomb’) politicians with electronic messages during consideration of legislation. It would also be possible to use these applications to arrange timely ‘bombs’ from special interest groups or sections of the community that may influence decision-making. “Electronic lobbying” in parliament would be an ever-present possibility whenever controversial legislation is being debated.
In a paper tabled by the President of the Senate in 1990, it was argued that the use of electronic voting in the Senate chamber would be of little assistance, ‘assuming that Senators would continue to vote in person in the chamber, very little time would be saved because four of the approximately seven minutes spent on each division consists of the time taken to ring the bells to summon Senators to the chamber.’ The paper also illustrates the perceived disadvantages of electronic voting, which have been summarised by Kirsty Margarey to include that:
 |
It would remove part of a pause in the proceedings which is often convenient; |
|
Activities which now take place during the count may be transferred to other components of the time spent on divisions, so that little time would in fact be saved; |
|
The current practice of Senators sitting to the right or left of the chair has some advantages which would be lost; in particular it makes the act of voting immediately visible and public; |
|
More divisions may be called. |
From a purely party political point, it may also be harder for parties to ensure that Senators and Members follow caucus decisions on voting.
Another ‘problem’ is whether the use of electronic technology would alter the way Parliament processes Bills. Would technology transform existing power arrangements or create new divisions between those who are computer literate and those who are not? Would politicians become too reliant on technology? What would happen when computer glitches occur or the server goes down? These issues would need to be fleshed out, however international experience may offer solutions to these problems.
Regardless of which direction the Australian Senate decides to take with respect to the introduction of electronic voting or the use of information and communications technologies on the floor of Parliament, new political technologies are here to stay.
Conclusion
As Dana Milbank says, whether or not that’s a good thing is still a, topic of debate. “Though it has the potential to reverse voter apathy, it might further disenfranchise the poor. Though it could limit the power of special interest groups, it might also cause presidential (or in the Australian case parliamentary) candidates to pander to more and more people, as if they were running for city council.” “A politician (could) make me one promise and you one promise, and his competitor wouldn’t even know it.”
Problems regarding privacy and democracy will no doubt become more prevalent as the use of technology in the political arena expands. Whilst the current debate circulates around the value of the technologies themselves and their merits in a participatory democracy, broader issues regarding the nature and scope of the utilisation of an online environment and its accessibility must receive the attention they deserve. Only then can we create a political culture which will truly embrace the concept of an Australian cyberdemocracy.
