A disturbing prophecy today from Australia's prescient pollster, Antony Green, who suggests that Howard might (and even should) overhaul the way the Senate is elected and represented.
"There may now be a push by the Government to change the electoral system, perhaps electing senators from electorates or by introducing minimum electoral quotas to keep minor parties out."
Normally I'd praise Green for his unique insight and depth of knowledge, but on this issue I'm remaining wary. This concept is fraught with danger for Australia's internationally respected version of the Westminster system.
The Australian Constitution protects the States' House only in so much as ensuring that each original state has an equal number of Senators elected for a period of 6 years each. The details of how the Senate is elected is predominantly left up to the Federal Parliament. Any power the States may hold is generally thought to be overshadowed by the power of the Commonwealth.
This potentially gives the Howard Government the opportunity to do as they please, even going so far as to replicate Queensland's infamous gerrymander. I doubt Howard would be that audacious, but who can predict what the Coalition might do with their new-found power.
Certainly, removing the strong system of proportional representation would eliminate the annoyance of minor parties ever holding the balance of power, but as Green rightly addresses, it could equally give the opposition a stronger foothold, thus forcing the Senate to be more obstructionist than it has ever been.
Antony Green strongly suggests reform is needed to eliminate the bizarre results that have occurred through the preference deals between ideological strangers. In his opening statement he states that:
"Preference voting deals are starting to distort rather than reflect the will of the electorate"
The importance of this conclusion is not revealed until further into his article and is overshadowed by the perceived threat of Howard making the Senate less representative and subsequently far less democratic. However, he does eventually state that the real problem is "above-the-line" (ATL) voting and related party voting tickets.
The problems associated with ATL voting are numerous. Of most importance is the disenfranchisement of the uneducated voter. A vote ATL for one's party of choice can equate to that vote ending with the least preferred party. This is a lazy vote that defers democracy to the party machine and its backroom deals. The majority of voters are unaware of where these preferences go, let alone how the system works.
The real issue, and thus the real solution, is to improve the voting system, rather than reform the representation, electorates or quotas. Simply eliminating party voting tickets would give full democracy back to the people.
This is not to say that we should eliminate ATL voting. The reality is that the growing number of candidates and groups appearing at each election makes it increasingly more difficult to number all squares in a sensible fashion without risking the validity of the vote.
Above the line voting can remain, but instead by making the entire Senate vote optional preferential we can ensure that only those groups (above the line) or individual candiates (below the line) that are deserving of a voter's preference actually enjoy the receipt of such. If an elector were to mark three groups (as an example) above the line it would indicate that the preferences would flow in the order of candidates marked under each grouping with the remaining groups unworthy of that elector's vote.
Arguably this would mean fewer preference flows to the final places, however a more accurate reflection of voter intention would only serve to enhance democracy.
It is undeniably a simple solution to an increasingly troublesome problem. But is it in the best interests of the Government or opposition of the day? Hardly! However, it is in the best interests of a more representative Senate, the constituency, voter sanity and ultimately the security of Australian democracy.
One caveat ... any changes to the Senate must be viewed with extreme caution. Our forebears were well-advised to establish such a unique house of review. We would be poorer for its loss or any weakening of its structure. We can only benefit from strengthening its representation and simplifying the process for the electors.
[+/-] show/hide this post
No comments:
Post a Comment