It is all but certain
that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s plan to reform the voting process for
the Senate will sail through that very same Senate thanks to a deal negotiated
with the Greens. While Mr Turnbull insists the plan is aimed solely at improving
transparency, and allowing voters to choose where their preferences flow, there
is little doubt that the change will benefit the major parties, at the expense
of micro parties and independents. And it is likely to benefit the Coalition
more than it will help Labor, because micro parties and independents have
historically eroded votes from the right more often than from the left.
It remains to be seen what
the outcome will be for the Greens; presumably they would not agree to the
changes if they feared that their own existence would be imperilled. However
some analysts believe that a double dissolution election under the new rules will
see the number of Green Senators reduced from 10 to 8. I suspect that over
time, the Greens would see their numbers further eroded, until perhaps they go the
same way as the Australian Democrats. Remember them?
The Democrats also
reached a deal with an incumbent Coalition government to pass contentious
legislation, in that case the introduction of the GST. It was a turning point
for the Democrats, and although they loitered on the scene of the crime for a
number of years, voter discontent saw their ranks slowly dwindle until eventually
they disappeared altogether. Obviously there were other factors involved, but
the decision to support the GST was received by many voters as a sign that the
Democrats had abandoned their self appointed task to “keep the bastards honest.”
In the same way, the
Greens have grown well beyond their original brief as a party of environmental
conservation, and have come to relish their role as major political players; so
much so that it now appears they no longer believe the phrase “minor party” applies
to them. How else to explain their apparent belief that they will be immune to
the effects of the voting change they are about to rubber-stamp for the
Turnbull Government. Nevertheless, if they are so willing to risk shooting
themselves in the foot, there will be little cause to mourn their ultimate
demise.
On the other hand,
critics of the major political parties will have substantial cause to mourn the
loss of representation in the Senate. While the importance and influence of the
Greens will most likely wither away gradually, the influence of micro parties
and independents will be destroyed at the stroke of a pen, and their seats in
the Senate stolen from under them by the changed voting arrangements at the subsequent
election.
Now, it is easy to see
why some people think that would be a good thing. As Malcolm Turnbull has so pointedly
reminded us, Senator Ricky Muir of the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party was
elected to the Senate on the strength of a primary vote amounting to 0.5 per
cent, with the help of a complex string of preference deals. On the face of it,
such a phenomenon seems to be far from democratic and not at all transparent.
Indeed, that is exactly the argument put forward by the Prime Minister when he
claims that people have been “gaming the system.”
However, to say that
Ricky Muir represents only 0.5 per cent of the electorate is a boldly
misleading assertion. Certainly he received the benefit of preferences from
people who did not put the number one against his name on the ballot paper. But
remember, those preferences all came from people who did NOT vote for the major
parties. In that sense, Ricky Muir is the duly elected representative of ALL
those people whose first choices did not make the cut, but whose preferences eventually
found their way to him. Senator Muir represents the nearly 25 per cent of
people who did not vote for either of the two major parties.
On the latest figures
from this week’s Newspoll, 43 per cent of voters support the Coalition, 35 per
cent support Labor. That leaves 22 per cent who support neither. Of those, 12
per cent support the Greens, and 10 per cent are divided up among the micro
parties and independents. On that basis alone, the Senate can only be truly
representative of all Australians if those numbers are reflected by the
election results. And oddly enough, under the current system, they actually
are.
Currently the Coalition
has 33 out of the 76 seats in the Senate; that’s about 43 per cent.
Labor has 25 seats, or
around 33 per cent; the Greens have 10 seats, or 13 per cent; and the eight
cross benchers equate to just over 10 per cent of the Senate.
A consistent 10 per cent
of voters support micro parties and independents, and by the magic of our
preferential voting system, 10 per cent of the Senate seats are held by
(surprise surprise) micro parties and independents.
What could be more representative
than that?
And yet, Prime Minister
Turnbull is trying to sell us the snake-oil that eradicating the preference
deals will somehow make the Senate more representative. Clearly that cannot be
the case, when the representation already so accurately reflects the wishes of
the people.
On the contrary, Mr Turnbull’s
proposals can only make the Senate less representative, by stemming the flow of
preferences from minor candidates to other minor candidates. It should be
blatantly obvious that this is nothing short of hypocrisy when the major
parties carefully negotiate preference deals all the time, in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate, to maximise their own advantage. To seek to
deny this opportunity to smaller parties on the basis that they are somehow
less worthy is distinctly unfair, elitist, and just plain bullying.
Of course, given the
standard of the discourse on this matter, it would be easy to presume that the
minor parties and the independents are in fact less worthy. Once again, poor
old Ricky Muir can be held up as an example of an individual considered to be
ill prepared for office. But let us not pick on poor Ricky quite so much; how
about the colourful Jacqui Lambie with her propensity to speak bluntly even if
she is not in full possession of any degree of expertise on any given topic? Or
Glenn Lazarus, also given to an exuberant turn of phrase in the right
circumstances?
What many people fail
to appreciate, and in my opinion it is a pity that they do, is that the present
system of voting means that genuine ordinary everyday Australians can actually
get elected to the Senate. That is a marvellous thing, and a precious thing not
to be discarded lightly. Of course there is always the risk that a ratbag will
be elected. But can anyone honestly claim that no ratbags have ever been
elected while members of the major parties? Both Labor and the Liberals have
had plenty of ratbags, and as for the Greens, well conventional opinion has already
written them off as being all ratbags.
The reality is that
there are 76 Senators. Most legislation can be passed through sensible
negotiations, and when it can’t be passed, perhaps we should consider the
possibility that this lack of consensus might indicate a lack of quality in
both the proposed legislation and the arguments supporting it. It would be
highly unusual for one rogue Senator to ransom the nation, and even less likely
that such an individual would continue to have a political career in the
aftermath.
And let us not forget
that some of the Senators elected under the current system have been considered
to be pretty good. Nick Xenophon is widely respected, even by those who don’t
agree with his policies. It is something of a paradox that Senator Xenophon
supports the proposed changes to the Senate voting procedure. There is no doubt
that Senator Xenophon is sufficiently popular that he would not only survive
the reform, but he would most likely succeed at having some of his chosen colleagues
join him in the Senate.
However, the paradox
arises from the reality that Senator Xenophon has only been able to build that
popularity and respect because he was elected in the first place. When Nick
Xenophon was first elected to the Legislative Council of his home state South Australia
in 1997, he won his seat on the strength of a primary vote of 2.86 per cent. It
was the flow of preferences that got him over the line. From there he built his
reputation and was able to make the leap to federal politics in 2007 on the
strength of his track record.
Under the proposed new
system, an unknown independent candidate would have little hope of success. In
that case, where would the nation’s next Nick Xenophon come from? Are we
condemning ourselves to a future where only candidates with the backing of a major
party machine can aspire to the Senate?
The beauty of the current
system is that it not only allows, it encourages, minority groups to engage in
politics and to participate in the process. It fosters a diversity that is more
likely to reflect the concerns of the community than would otherwise be the
case. But if the reform proceeds, with the imprimatur of the Greens, it will
result only in the political elite controlling the flow of their own
preferences, while rendering impotent the preferences of their smaller
opponents, denying their supporters any kind of voice.
Now, that really is the
very definition of “gaming the system.”
