NSW: electoral changes on agenda

by Anna Pha

When the final results of the NSW State elections were announced last week 
the Carr Government had already begun rewriting the electoral laws. There 
is considerable scope for making the election of parliamentarians more 
democratic, but that is not what the Government has in mind.

Bob Carr was re-elected with his government's 1995 majority of one expanded 
to 17. This relatively large swing in the number of seats did not arise out 
of a large swing in popularity. Labor won 59 per cent of the seats (55 of 
the 93 seats) with just 42.7 per cent of the primary vote, that is, before 
the allocation of preferences. It was preferences and carefully targeted 
campaigning that gave him his majority.

The Liberal/National Party Coalition won 33 seats — roughly in proportion 
to its 33.2 per cent of the primary vote.

But another 24.1 per cent of the electorate rejected the major parties — 
almost one in four of the electorate voted for the Australian Democrats, 
the Greens, Independents, One Nation, and other smaller parties, including 
some for the Communist Party of Australia.

While five Independents were elected none of the other parties won a seat 
in the Lower House. It means that almost a quarter of the electorate are 
far from adequately represented in this Parliament.

Under a system of proportional representation Independents and the non-
major parties would have been entitled to 22 seats, Labor only 40 (instead 
of 55), and the Coalition 31 seats.

Instead of a majority of 17 Labor would have been looking to form a 
minority or coalition government.

And this is what is worrying the major parties. They are both desperate to 
preserve the two-party system.

The Legislative Council (the Upper House) is of even more concern to Labor 
and the Coalition. There, 35.3 per cent of those voting — about one in 
three — chose not to give their primary vote to any of the major parties.

Labor received 37.3 per cent and the Coalition only 27.4 per cent of the 
Upper House primary vote.

Around 30 of the smaller ("micro parties" as some call them) parties kept 
their preferences within the group.

As a result, the preferences of a large number of voters who were looking 
for an alternative to the major parties were diverted from the more 
acceptable course of giving preferences to the Greens, Progressive Labor 
Party or Democrats.

As a result the Australian Democrats and The Greens only picked up one seat 
each, when they might have been expected to do better with more than one 
third of the electorate rejecting the major parties. The PLP with a 
respectable 33,763 votes (1.4 per cent) did not win a seat.

The exchange of preferences among the "micro" parties resulted in The 
Outdoor Recreation Party (0.2 per cent) and Reform the Legal System (1.0) 
per cent) being elected. One Nation, Fred Nile's Christian Democratic Party 
and Unity (whose preferences flowed to Labor after some of the "micro" 
parties) were also successful — all but One Nation relying on preferences 
to gain the necessary quota.

There were more than 70 parties with votes of between 800 and 36,000.

Apart from working against the election of Greens or Democrats, the entry 
of these "micro" parties is being used by the Government, the Opposition 
and the media as an excuse to change the electoral laws, with the express 
purpose of eliminating smaller parties.

One of the proposals being floated by the Government is for parties to be 
required to submit the names and addresses of 1,000 members who are on the 
electoral role to obtain registration. At present the number required is 
200.

There may also be an attempt to substantially increase candidates' deposits 
which are already $500 in the Upper House. The Coalition Parties are also 
expected to support these changes.

Without registration, the name of the party does not appear on the ballot 
paper, putting a party and its candidates at a considerable disadvantage.

Parties that already have representation in Parliament do not have to 
collect any signatures for registration at all. They are automatically 
registered.

The Upper House electoral system is the most democratic and must not be 
tampered with. It is based on a proportional/preferential voting system in 
which the whole of the State constitutes a single electorate. Compulsory 
voting should also be retained.

The Carr Government's proposed changes are a clear case of discrimination 
to distort the voters' wishes in favour of the existing major parties. They 
will reduce democratic rights and call for a strong campaign to defeat 
them.

State Treasurer Michael Egan is calling for the abolition of the 
Legislative Council. The ALP did not pursue this demand when the Upper 
House was a House of privilege elected on a property franchise. It is only 
now when the Upper House actually reflects voter wishes much more 
accurately than the Lower House that we have this demand raised by right-
wing Labor leaders.

It is the voting system for the Lower House that should be changed so that 
it too becomes more representative. A system of proportional/preferential 
voting with multi-member electorates is the best way to achieve a 
democratic reflection of voter wishes.

The preferential system allows people to express their wishes and still 
have their vote count if their first choice is not successful.

If the ALP wants to improve its electoral chances it should look at 
changing its policies rather than using its numbers in Parliament to stomp 
on democratic rights.