The Liberals actually outpolled the Nationals at every State election before 1977, and nearly did so in 1989. However, in each case, they finished up with fewer seats. Most Liberals have blamed this on the zonal system, but the anomalies of single-member seats [61] are such that the Nationals, with their concentrated strongholds of rural support, could well continue to win more seats with fewer votes even if electorates were equal.
The distortions inherent in single-member electorates could make this three-party system highly unpredictable and unstable. If Liberals had lost a few hundred votes to the Nationals in a few Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast seats, the party could have been reduced to nearly zero representation. By contrast, with a slightly higher vote it could in some future election win an absolute majority in its own right. The Liberals could change from an impotent "six-pack" on the cross-benches to an outright majority in a very short time; the Nationals could be wiped out, if their vote continues to fall at its current rate. Either way, the result is highly unpredictable. The "windscreen-wiper" effect of the single-member system could well defeat the system's supposed purpose of ensuring stable government.
As our suggested plan* of multi-member electorates shows, Hare-Clark would ensure fair representation for each major party, which the single-member system cannot. More importantly, the contest between the Liberal and National parties for the conservative leadership would be decided fairly.
* The suggested plan of electorates has been deleted, because it was based on the electoral boundaries as they existed in 1990, and would not mean much to those more familiar with the current boundaries.
By contrast, under Hare-Clark a government's majority would hardly ever be large. (However, it would be secure; with vacancies filled by recount as we have recommended, no party would suffer haphazard depletion of its numbers through by-elections). [62]
Every other State (except Victoria, though the Cain Government has attempted reform) has at least one house elected by proportional representation. In all but Tasmania, this is the Upper House; some then argue that this must rule out proportional representation for the Lower House:
"...we have the best of both worlds in Australia because what we allow is one chamber - unfortunately, with full powers - to be elected under proportional representation. We believe that in the other chamber there should be single-member electorates." [63]
But this view has no relevance to Queensland anyway, since we have no Upper House and - more importantly - given the lack of consensus on its structure and powers, little chance of reintroducing one. [64]
[To next part (Usual Objections to PR, and Responses)]
62. Nor by "stacking" of appointments by the opposing party - as was done for the Senate in 1975. C/f Knapp, p 105. [Back to text]
63. Senator Robert Ray (ALP, Victoria), Senate, 7 May 1987. [Back to text]
64. We express no opinion on whether the reintroduction of an Upper House is desirable - except, of course, that if elected it should be chosen by Hare-Clark proportional representation. [Back to text]