ALECOMM

Senate vote reform is justified, but risky

Details

Category: Political Media Puppets

Created: Wednesday, 24 February 2016 07:33

Written by Paul Kelly - The Australian

This reform is strong on democratic merit but guaranteed to create problems for the government in a Senate where the hostile crossbenchers will stay hostile and the friendly crossbenchers will now become hostile. That could be an ugly result for the long term.

Few of the current Senate crossbenchers — now facing likely political extinction — will be lamented. The current Senate is one of the most destructive and ignominious since Federation. Not since the entire elimination of the DLP from the Senate at the 1974 double dissolution will such a clean-out of most the Senate crossbenches be so welcomed.

But the tactical problem for Malcolm Turnbull is manifest. If he does not go to a July double-dissolution election — and the difficulties with such an election are significant — then most of the crossbenchers will remain for another three years since their six terms will not expire at a normal 2016 half Senate election.

They will remain dark and angry with the Turnbull government for legislating Senate voting reform with the support of the Greens and Nick Xenophon. Indeed, the next parliament may become even more dysfunctional.

Provided the government gets the legislation through the parliament by mid-March, thereby giving the Electoral Commission upwards of three months to get the administrative arrangements in order, an early July double dissolution could be held under the most significant changes to Senate voting for a generation.

Yet such a July double dissolution has multiple problems. Will the government be ready? The parliament would need to be dissolved the day after the budget, hardly a desirable move. Turnbull would be locked into a dangerously long campaign.

Turnbull’s decision to commit to voting reform reflects a core reality: most of the crossbenchers have signed their own political death warrants. When Turnbull became Prime Minister he held out the prospect of a better dialogue with those crossbenchers who had thwarted the Abbott government and even played a role in the destruction of Tony Abbott. Five months later the government knows this is largely a futile path.

Given the disintegration of the Palmer United Party, the voting reform puts at risk the re-election of Glenn Lazarus, Dio Wang and Jacqui Lambie. In addition it puts at grave risk any re-election of Ricky Muir and John Madigan (whose term expires this year) in addition to the two senators most prepared to negotiate with the government, Bob Day and David Leyonhjelm.

There are two cardinal problems with the Senate voting system. It produces results that defy the public’s wishes and it encourages independents and minor parties to seek their future in “gaming” the preference system, not by building community support. The current collection of minor parties — with the potential to hold the balance of power in the parliament — is a travesty of democracy.

In his evidence to the joint standing committee inquiring into the 2013 election, respected ABC analyst Antony Green said of the current system: “It has produced results that were engineered by the preference deals rather than by the votes cast by voters. Voters have to have some ability to know what is happening with their vote. The system, if changed, should advantage parties which campaign, not parties which arrange preference deals.” The committee concluded that in the Senate the preferences on group voting tickets by micro-parties led to “drastically different election results to those reflected in the primary vote results”.

The best example is Muir of the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, who got 0.51 per cent of first preference votes (or just 0.0354 of a Senate quota) and got elected. This was achieved by the transfer of 143,118 votes from the Australian Sex Party. Muir’s election had nothing to do with public support but everything to do with manipulation of the preference system.

The committee explained the system was “gamed” by micro-parties (in some cases with polar opposite policies) allocating preferences to each other, creating a higher probability of one of them being elected.

The committee received abundant evidence of “gaming’’ at the last election with the formation of a micro-party alliance organised by Glenn Druery. Former WikiLeaks Party adviser Greg Barns said: “The first meeting I ever went to with him, he said something to the effect of — there were about 20 to 30 people in the room — ‘One of you and your party will be elected.’ And he had them from that moment on.”

Druery denied to the committee he manipulated the micro-party alliance. But constitutional lawyer George Williams said: “He’s realised how that system can be exploited and he’s entitled to do so. The system is designed in a way that enables that to happen.” In fact, it’s a lottery. As the committee was told, you buy a ticket and, if you’re lucky, you get six years in the Senate plus a big salary and, if you’re really lucky, you can decide the fate of the nation on pivotal issues. That’s how it works now.

The system encourages more party registration with a recent explosion in the number of Senate candidates leading to a farcically long ballot paper. One technique is the creation of a large number of front parties to harvest votes.

Druery said: “I was in attendance at meetings throughout 2010 and 2011 where it was the clear intent of David Leyonhjelm to set up and establish front parties — in fact, as many parties as he could.” Leyonhjelm offered an insight, saying: “ If we had the energy, time and motivation, I would establish 20 such parties. There would be a ‘tobacco taxes are too high’ party. There would be a ‘no alcopops tax’ party. There would be a ‘no carbon tax’ party.”

Xenophon is dead right saying the system is broken. The announcement by Turnbull and Special Minister of State Mathias Cormann follows the unanimous recommendations in the joint committee report — optional preferential above the line voting, and abolition of group voting tickets.

There will be plenty of weasel words expended but the system is intolerable. While there are different views on the reforms required the method chosen has much support. However, the related tactical problems for Turnbull concerning election timing are serious.