|
QUOTA Newsletter of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia
QN1998A March
1998 www.prsa.org.au · List of issues of Quota Notes Proportional Representation at the Constitutional Convention Canberra, 2nd-13th February 1998 by Andrew Gunter, Elected Delegate, New South Wales In mid-1997 the Federal Parliament legislated for the
quota-preferential method of proportional representation to be used for
electing half the delegates to Australia's 1998 Constitutional Convention.
Senator the Hon. Nick Minchin, in introducing the Bill, referred favourably to submissions (QN1997C) by
the Proportional Representation Society of Australia, which were in support
of the usual quota-preferential rules for vote counting as used in Senate
elections, a novel ballot-paper format to cope with an expected very large
number of candidates, and provisions for computer counting to replace a fully
manual scrutiny. In most respects it was the election method the Society
champions. It had untested elements whose potential merits the Society
assessed as being reasonable responses to the unusual circumstances. The ballot, controversial for being voluntary, and
for being postal, returned a very diverse range of delegates who, despite the
low turnout of just under 47%, were the broad cross-section
of national opinion rightly expected from proportional representation.
Despite rigid group-tickets' tendency to impose de facto party list
style and outcomes on quota-preferential systems, there was one candidate low
down on a group list that was elected ahead of those higher in that group -
Hazel Hawke, of the AUSTRALIAN REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT,
in New South Wales, and former wife of Australia's second longest-serving
Prime Minister. Despite all this, or perhaps because the other half
of the Convention delegates were ex officio party leaders or
government appointees, the Convention gave proportional representation very
short shrift. Ed Haber and I, both office-bearers of the PR Society's NSW
Branch, expressly raised the issue of entrenchment of proportional
representation in the Constitution. Consistent with his long-standing status as a
wide-ranging political reformist, another NSW delegate; the former North Sydney
Mayor, independent NSW and Federal MP Ted Mack; whose surplus votes
contributed to the election of both Ed Haber and myself as NSW delegates,
spoke strongly of the need for the political accountability that the Hare-Clark
method of proportional representation is best able to provide. We made up 3
of the 20 NSW delegates. Other delegates that took a position in defence of PR in Senate elections, or advocated its more
widespread use, included Mary Kelly (Women for a Just Republic, Qld.), Catherine Moore (Greens, Bill of Rights,
Indigenous Peoples, NSW), Hon. Mike Elliott MLC (Australian Democrats,
SA), Christine Milne MHA (Greens, Tas.), Senator Natasha Stott
Despoja (Australian Democrats, SA) and a few others that were almost
all PR-elected delegates, or appointed delegates elected to their parliaments
by PR. Mr Haber flagged a crucial problem with the form in
which the AUSTRALIAN REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT'S two-thirds-majority-appointment
method had been constructed (Hansard,
4th February 1998, p. 171-173), "... the [ARM's] ... proposal... in a
clarifying comment ... kindly noted: 'The prescription of a special
majority, being two-thirds, is on the understanding that the Senate continues
to be elected by proportional representation.' Is that just a wish and a
dream? Unless we entrench it in the Constitution, [the ARM's] proposal is
already constitutionally flawed." '... the AUSTRALIAN REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT ... pointed
out the bipartisan nature of the special majority of two-thirds of the joint
sitting of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, but
only back to 1949 when PR was introduced for Senate elections. Mr Haber showed that a two-thirds majority would
often not require bipartisanship if proportional representation was not used
for Senate elections, as applied before 1949: '... the two-thirds test
would have failed in [the parliaments elected in] 1914, 1917,
1919, 1931, 1934, and 1946. During this speech, the Hon. Michael Hodgman QC MHA, a former Federal Minister, and proxy for
the Tasmanian Premier, the Hon. Tony Rundle MHA, interjected, 'This is not
Hare-Clark; it is hare-brained.' Mr Ed Haber said, 'You got elected on
Hare-Clark.' Mr Hodgman responded, 'Yes, but I
would prefer to be in a single electorate any day. The following day Ed Haber and I attempted to amend
the bipartisan-parliamentary-appointment model, as it then stood, by adding a
requirement: 'That a provision
requiring the Senate to be elected by the single transferable vote
(quota-preferential) form of proportional representation be inserted in the
Constitution', followed by an
explanatory note for the benefit of those unfamiliar with it, 'Proportional
Representation should be entrenched for Senate elections on the grounds that
other electoral systems would periodically produce lopsided (greater than
two-thirds) Senate majorities for one party or group, as occurred on several
occasions between 1901 and 1949, thus allowing partisan appointment to be
made more easily.' The amendment was lost, even though the hurdle that
motions and amendments had to clear in order to be included in further
discussion was only 25% of delegates (38 of 152). Many of the supporters of
this amendment were aghast at the unwillingness of most delegates to entrench
such an uncontroversial but vital safeguard. On Friday of the first week, Malcolm Mackerras, the
political commentator and academic, who is a supporter of proportional
representation in some contexts, spoke at the Convention as a proxy for an
elected AUSTRALIANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY
- NO REPUBLIC delegate. He had stood as an ACM-NO REPUBLIC candidate in the
ACT, but had not been elected. In his opening remarks he referred, unlike
almost all other proxy delegates, to both his proxy status and the voters
that elected the delegate for whom he was a proxy. He said, '... I represent
the quota of voters who elected Marilyn Rodgers from Western Australia ...'
He may not have been their choice, but he showed decency in acknowledging
them. On the second Monday, Ms Kirsten Andrews, elected
for the AUSTRALIAN REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT from South Australia, delivered a
paean to that State's nineteenth-century social and electoral reformer, Catherine
Helen Spence, without once referring to proportional representation, a
cornerstone of her reform views. ortunately, Tuesday to
Friday of the second week saw modest yet useful progress to discussion of
electoral reform as part of the wider debate. A working group that had been
created by those delegates that wished the Convention not to be strictly
confined to the three heads of consideration identified by the Prime Minister
(whether to become a republic; if so, what sort of republic, including powers
of and method of choosing the head of state; and timing of any change to a
republic) was established by petition of a significant minority of the
delegates, under the title 'Process and Procedures for ongoing debate on
Constitutional reform'. This working group proposed, and the Convention
eventually adopted as part of its Communique, the
establishment of a further convention. That future convention, originally
mooted to be fully appointed, would be two-thirds elected (rather than merely
half, as was the case with this Convention), and one of its proposed subjects
for debate would be the 'system of governance and proportional
representation'. Attempts were made to rule the matter out of order,
on the grounds that it was not necessarily connected to any transition to a
republic. That difficulty was overcome by amending the proposal to make such
a convention dependent on a republic eventuating, and to make its timing
between three and five years after the commencement of such a republic. As part of a broad question, on the final day,
dealing with provisional resolutions of the Convention on consequential
matters, the proposal for a future convention to deal with matters including
the 'system of governance and proportional representation' was supported by
102 delegates and opposed by 16, with 32 abstentions. Yet, on the questions that the public saw as the
Convention's main task, the results were not as clear-cut, particularly when
the attitudes of the elected delegates alone (who, all being elected by a
form of proportional representation, were the closest Australia has seen to a
'mirror of the nation's mind' on this subject) are considered against all
delegates taken together. The greatest illustration of this was the vote on
the motion 'That if Australia is to become a republic, this Convention
recommends that the model adopted be [the AUSTRALIAN REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT'S] Bi-Partisan
Appointment of the President Model'. The overall result of this vote,
when held on Thursday 12th February, was 75 'Yes', 71 'No', and 4 'Abstain'. A
closer reflection of community opinion was shown by the elected delegates
taken alone: 33 'Yes', 42 'No', and 1
'Abstain'; the reverse result. The Proportional Representation Society of Australia
can, on balance, be proud of the role that PR had in the make-up of the
Convention; however it can at best only take solace that the necessary role
of proportional representation in Australian public life is likely to get at
least some airing at any future convention. I hope that members of the
Society, and others with pro-PR views, will take every opportunity to push
the essential PR barrow at such a convention. * * * * * * * * * Note 1: Andrew Gunter, 34, is a solicitor and a
Vice-President of the PRSA's NSW Branch. He is a former National Secretary of the PRSA. He has
been a North Sydney municipal councillor since 1995
and, on the Convention ballot-paper for NSW, he successfully headed the ELECT
THE HEAD OF STATE group, whose Web site is at www.suburbia.com.au/~mickgg/ethos.htm Note 2: The PRSA's policies focus on the election of groups
rather than single offices. PRSA members have a range of views about
Australia's Head of State. The PRSA advocates that both Federal Houses should
be elected by a Hare-Clark PR system. Note 3: At a Women's Constitutional Convention, which
preceded the official Convention, PR was high on the agenda. Ms Julie
McCarron-Benson, a PRSA ACT Branch Committee member, made significant amounts
of literature, including a new brochure on why proportional representation is
important for women, available to delegates there. She did likewise at the
21st annual national conference of the Australian Democrats. Tasmanian Local
Government Uncertainty Tasmanian municipal councils decreased in number (QN73) from 46 to 29
in 1993, following a report of the former Local Government Advisory Board.
Their elections are now all under the Hare-Clark system, but without Robson
Rotation. Postal voting, conducted by the State Electoral Office, applies to
all councils. The elections are, with one exception, conducted at large. Half
of each council faces the people every two years. The Minister for Local
Government, Hon. Denise Swan, in May 1997, directed the Local Government
Board to carry out a review of the boundaries of the municipal areas of all
councils to reduce their number to no more than 15, with single councils
covering greater Hobart and Launceston respectively. On 1st December, the Board's exposure draft proposed that the mainland
have nine councils only, and that King and Flinders Islands each have a
separate council. It proposed direct election of all Mayors and Deputy
Mayors, and general elections of councils (of standard sizes) every four
years. The Board warned against breaking the new councils into wards or
electoral districts as that would tend to encourage sectoral
views on the part of those elected. Several councils, particularly around Hobart, have strongly fought the prospect of amalgamation. Ten or so official elector polls have indicated 70-90% voter opposition to the published proposals. Two members of the Local Government Board have resigned this year, including former chairman Julian Green, following publication, without his being consulted, of a newspaper advertisement by the Board responding to arguments placed by councils in another paper. Amid significant ongoing public uproar and constant political sniping, the Minister, in mid-February, asked the Board to reconsider its proposals, taking the results of elector polls into account. Under current laws, she will decide whether to implement the proposals put forward in the final report due by 31st May. Liberal Party Seeks Nominations for Tasmania's Legislative Council Nothing came of the renewed
round of Government optimism at the start of December (QN 1997D) about its
proposals for reducing the size of the Tasmanian Parliament being enacted. Following
a Liberal Party State Executive decision to set aside a long-standing Party
policy, the Party's State President, Mr Jim Bowler, on 27th February 1998,
sought expressions of interest from Party members in gaining official
endorsement for the three periodic Legislative Council elections due on 23rd
May 1998. He claimed that this new approach was to counter ALP policy to
'dominate the Legislative Council by stealth', and to pursue the goal of
having a Legislative Council 'more responsive to the development of Tasmania'
(QN62, QN70, QN1996B). Labor's incumbent in Buckingham, Dr David Crean MLC, immediately called on voters to treat that election as a referendum on local government reform and the sale of the Hydro-Electric Commission. A large field is expected in Macquarie as Hon. George Shaw MLC is retiring after 30 years. Another Independent, Hon. Colin Rattray MLC, will be re-contesting South Esk. Mr Bowler has subsequently announced that no Liberal will be officially endorsed in Buckingham, and hinted likewise for the other two seats. S.A. Polls:
Comparing the Two Houses The South Australian State elections were held on 11th October 1997.
The House of Assembly is elected using 47 single-member electorates, while
the Legislative Council uses proportional representation to elect 11 members
(half the Council). This gives an ideal opportunity to compare these two
electoral systems.
Single-member electorates are used for the House of Assembly, yet there
is now, as a result of this election, a minority government, with the
Liberals needing the support of at least one of the two Independents or the
one National. It is interesting to note that South Australia has had more
minority governments (using single-member electorates) over the past thirty
years than Tasmania, where proportional representation is used for the Lower
House. For the House of Assembly, only 54% of South Australian voters found
that they had voted for winning candidates. Of the past eight State elections
(QN56, QN72), this was the worst in terms of the proportion of voters that found
their votes did not elect any of the 47 MPs. This is in spite of the requirement
now that there be an electoral redistribution, based
mainly on voting patterns, after every election. While it appears that the Australian Democrats were
the big losers in the election, winning 16.4% of the votes but no seats in
the House of Assembly, it was actually the Liberal and Labor supporters
living in the 'wrong' electorates that lost more. Of the 400 000 Assembly
voters whose votes did not count, 167 000 supported the Liberals and 147 000
the ALP. If the major parties want to win majority government in future they
will need to consider these supporters whose loyalty must be wearing very
thin. n contrast to the House of Assembly, the result in
the Legislative Council elections was that only 56 000 (6.6%) of South
Australian voters found their votes did not count. Unfortunately the method used to elect the
Legislative Council - proportional representation with the State as one
electorate - is not without its faults, including mandatory indication of all
preferences (if a below-the-line vote is to be valid), political
parties' power to decide the order of their candidates on the ballot paper,
and incorrect procedures in counting the votes. Reforms that are well overdue
include the Robson Rotation and optional preferential voting for the Legislative
Council. For the first time since proportional representation was introduced
for the Legislative Council in the 1970s, an Independent was elected to it. A
similar result at the next State elections will see both major parties very
much short of a majority. S.A. Municipal Electoral Systems In South
Australia, local government has a choice
of voting methods - either proportional representation or the 'bottoms-up'
method. Regardless of the method used, the size of electorates can range from
single-member wards up to a whole council being elected at large (QN1997A, QN63). The SA Branch of the PRSA (the Electoral Reform
Society of SA) with support from the PRSA nationally, has analysed
the results of the May 1997 local government elections to compare the two
methods and to make comments on other improvements that could be undertaken. Currently two-thirds of councils use proportional
representation. Under this method, voters must mark as many preferences as
there are vacancies to be filled, or their ballot papers are treated as
informal. With the 'bottoms-up' method, optional preferential
voting is allowed. With this method, the candidates lowest in the poll are
successively excluded. The ballot papers for those excluded candidates are
transferred to the remaining candidates with the next available preference on
each ballot paper, or exhausted, as the case may be, until there remains just
the number of candidates to be elected. An examination of the two methods shows that
proportional representation seeks to maximize effective voting by placing all
elected candidates on an equal footing through the distribution of any
surplus above the quota of votes required to be elected. On the other hand,
the 'bottoms-up' method merely seeks to exclude the necessary number of
candidates, without regard to achieving an accurate overall reflection of the
voters' wishes. As this method pays no regard to surpluses, it is entirely
possible that majorities of voters will not be reflected in the composition
of the council. Perversely, the more support the individual candidates
attract, the greater is the likelihood of a result that thwarts the wishes of
the people. The SA Branch of the PRSA
recommended that proportional representation should be used for all local
government elections in South Australia. It is pleasing that during the
recent State election campaign the Liberal Party released its policy on local
government advocating proportional representation for all local government
elections where there is more than one member per ward. The analysis also compared the outcome in relation
to the size of the electorates. For example it was noted that for almost 60%
of single-member wards there were no contests - this declined to less than
20% where there were six or more vacancies. Also the larger the number of
vacancies, the more likely there was an increase in the number of candidates.
The voters get more choice and more effective voting when there is a larger number of vacancies. The SA Branch considers that at-large elections
provide the most balanced council participation, and that if wards are
created they should return more than three representatives. Other findings
from this analysis were: closer examination is needed for all councils where more
than 5% of votes were informal in at least one ward, to try to establish
whether ballot-paper layout, or confusion between several elections, might
have contributed to those high levels of unused voting power. Optional preferential voting should be allowed when
proportional representation is used. With proportional representation, the calculation of
the transfer value presently used needs refining, and casual vacancies should
be filled by countbacks. The SA Branch gave copies of the analysis (available
from Deane Crabb, below) to the Local Government Association, the Review of
Local Government Elections being conducted for the Office of Local
Government, and the City of Adelaide Governance Review. © 1998 Proportional Representation Society of Australia National President: Bogey Musidlak 14 Strzelecki Crescent NARRABUNDAH ACT 2604 National Secretary: Deane Crabb 11 Yapinga Street PLYMPTON SA 5038 Tel: (02) 6295 8137, (06) 295
8137, 04291 76725 quota@prsa.org.au Printed by PANTHER PRINTING 97 Pirie Street ADELAIDE SA 5000 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
