Comments on the Consultation Paper of the
Constitution Commission Victoria
Lee Naish
President, Victoria-Tasmania Branch,
Proportional Representation Society of Australia
885 Park St.,
West Brunswick 3055
The Victoria-Tasmania Branch of the Proportional
Representation Society of Australia (PRSAV-T)1 welcomes the opportunity to give feedback on
the Commission's Consultation Paper. Our November 2001 submission,
Hare-Clark for the Legislative Council, argues for the Hare-Clark
voting method and constitutional entrenchment as discussed in sections 11
and 12 of the Consultation Paper. In this followup submission we restrict
our comments to section 10, Voting System for the Upper House.
We first give our views on the five electoral models presented as options
in the Consultation Paper.
- We do not support this option, for reasons given in our 2001
submission (the district magnitude is too large). It would be our
fourth preference. However, we disagree with the assertion that this
option ``provides no way to ensure that rural and regional areas are
represented''. Indeed, any interest group with at least 2.5%
of voter support is guaranteed representation.
- We strongly support this option -- it would be our second
preference. Our preferred model in our 2001 submission suggested seven
member provinces, though a smaller number of them. Our proposal would
make the Council size compatible with overlapping terms and slightly
smaller than the current size (in line with the trend towards smaller
Houses).
- We would support this option, though the district magnitude is
smaller that we would prefer (see our 2001 submission). It would be
our third preference.
- We do not support this option -- it would be our last preference.
The district magnitude is too small in some of the provinces and the
mixture of different district magnitudes is undesirable. It leads
to different quotas (in absolute and percentage terms) in different
provinces. For example, in the seven member provinces in this option,
assuming no malapportionment, the quota would be
of the voters state-wide, whereas the three member provinces would
have a quota of
. The lower absolute quota
in smaller provinces is matched by a higher percentage of wasted votes.
A mixture of district magnitudes should only be used when no reasonable
alternative exists. For example, when the size of the House is not to
be changed and is such that division into electorates of reasonable
and equal size is not possible (as was the case when Hare-Clark was
introduced into the ACT).
We believe it is a mistake to base the design of an electoral system on
the perceived issues in the previous election or elections. Instead,
it should be based on more fundamental democratic principles which do
not change over time. Option 4 seems designed to assure rural and
regional issues will be well represented, presumably because they are
seen to have been under-represented recently. However, these issues
are not likely to be the major issues in all elections in the lifetime
of the electoral system. Furthermore, given the slow pace of change in
electoral systems, the population of Victoria will probably significantly
grow and shift before another major electoral system change takes place.
The Hare-Clark system makes representatives responsive to voters whatever
the important issues of the day are. It is not necessary or desirable
for the system to be compromised by specially adjusting electorates for
economic, demographic, ethnic, religious or any other reason.
- We strongly support this option -- it would be our first
preference. We have a very slight preference for this option over option
2 because historically it has had more support and a slight decrease in
the size of the Council is likely to be more popular than an increase.
This option was the preferred option of the PRSA in our August 1985
submission to the Victorian Government, Proportional Representation
for the Victorian Legislative Council and has been supported by the
ALP in the past.
The Consultation Paper correctly points out that Hare-Clark works most
effectively with an uneven district magnitude. However, the size of
the House need not be uneven. Whether the House has an even size is an
issue for the overall operation of the House, as are the rules concerning
deliberative and/or casting votes of the President, but not the electoral
system used in the individual provinces.
The Consultation Paper does not discuss the relationship between the
sizes of the Assembly and the Council. Our 2001 submission argues for
maintaining the nexus between Council Provinces and a whole number of
Assembly Districts. It is therefore desirable for the Assembly size to
be a multiple of the number of Provinces. In option 5, for example, the
Assembly size could be reduced to 85 as suggested in our 1985 submission.
The five options set out in the Consultation Paper are proposed under
the assumption that the whole Parliament is elected at one time, which
is consistent with the views expressed in many submissions. We would
like to stress that if agreement on general elections for the Council
cannot be reached, the set of options must be reconsidered. Only options
1 and 3 are compatible with overlapping terms for the Council and, in
our view, these are significantly inferior to the preferred model of
our 2001 submission.
Comments on the Consultation Paper of the
Constitution Commission Victoria
This document was generated using the
LaTeX2HTML translator Version 99.2beta8 (1.42)
Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996,
Nikos Drakos,
Computer Based Learning Unit, University of Leeds.
Copyright © 1997, 1998, 1999,
Ross Moore,
Mathematics Department, Macquarie University, Sydney.
The command line arguments were:
latex2html -split 0 resub
The translation was initiated by on 2002-04-29
Footnotes
- ... (PRSAV-T)1
- Home
page http://www.prsa.org.au
2002-04-29