Criticism of the Constitution (Reform) Bill

General

The Bill addresses several independent issues: electoral methods, parliamentary terms, size of parliament and power of the Legislative Council with respect to the Annual Appropriation Bill. These issues should be separated as much as possible to prevent rejection or delaying of a subset of these reforms which may be acceptable to the Legislative Council.

No entrenchment provision for the Bill is included. The people's right to a fair and democratic electoral system should protected so that a party with a bare majority in both Houses does not have the power to change key aspects of the Act.

Casual Vacancies (Section 28)

General

The Bill gives less power to independent MLCs compared to MLCs who are elected as a member of a registered political party. The filling of casual vacancies of party MLCs violates basic democratic values. No provision is made for parties which cease to exist or who do not nominate a new Council member to fill a vacancy. This section is a very poor alternative to the Hare-Clark "countback" method used in the ACT and Tasmanian Assemblies.

Party Appointments

Filling casual vacancies by party appointment violates the fundamental democratic principle that all MPs should be directly elected by the people. This principle is worthy of entrenchment in The Constitution, as has been done in Western Australia.

Recount

The recount provision for independents is vague, obscure and seems technically flawed.

sub-section b) states the recount must be conducted "as if the names of candidates appearing on the ballot-papers did not include the name of (the vacating candidate)". A literal reading of this sub-section may render all ballot-papers informal. Formality and other aspects of counting need to be clarified.
sub-section c) requires multiple recounts, which is cumbersome, costly and avoidable. It also adds to the vagueness and obscurity of the Bill be referring to (a modified version of) sub-section b).
sub-section b) refers to "the person who would have been elected". This assumes that only a single person is elected according to section 208I of The Constitution Act Amendment Act 1958. However, the Bill amends this section so multiple people are elected.
If "the person" in sub-section b) is interpreted as "the person other than a previously elected person" the Bill is still flawed. A recount of the ballot-papers using the prescribed method may elect a sub-set of the sitting members originally elected and more than one new person.

Group voting tickets (Section 165AA,AB,AC)

Group voting tickets are not voter-friendly. Although many voters are lured into saving a relatively tiny effort every four years, the longer term consequences are bad for voters.

Candidates should be fairly elected on their merits, as judged by the voters. Under Hare-Clark with Robson rotation, all candidates have an equal footing and it is the voters who decide who gets elected. With group voting tickets some candidates are virtually assured of winning from the outset.
MPs should be primarily representatives of and accountable to the voters. Groups voting tickets make them primarily representatives of and accountable to parties. Their election depends primarily on their position on the group voting ticket, which is determined by their party or a faction within the party. The voters' opinion of the candidate is generally of little consequence.
Voters should know who they are voting for. With group voting tickets, parties actively discourage voters expressing preferences for individual candidates. Most voters don't know who their vote ends up electing (section 165D, "Group voting tickets to be displayed" is based in Federal legislation which has clearly failed to solve this problem). This encourages large numbers of candidates to run and try to ensure their election through back-room deals with other candidates and parties rather than appealing to the voters (as seen in the NSW Upper House).

Formality of votes (Section 208E-G)

There is no justification for such strict formality provisions - 90% of preferences marked correctly. Voters should not be told to only mark a limited number of preferences, but if they do it should be counted as a formal vote (with the possible exception of requiring at least an many preferences as there are vacancies).

Lee