NSW electoral "reform" an attack on democracy

by Rob Gowland

John Della Bosca, Special Minister of State in the NSW Labour Government, 
has released details of proposed amendments to the NSW Parliamentary 
Electorates and Elections Act designed to effectively prevent small parties 
from being able to take part in elections to the Legislative Council (Upper 
House).

The proposals have been buried (with small but favourable comment) in the 
bourgeois press. Murdoch's Daily Telegraph, in a tiny squib on the 
bottom of page five on October 14, blandly reported that small political 
parties would be "banned" from future elections:

"Micro-parties and table-cloth sized ballot papers effectively will be 
banned at the next election under a State Government plan to restore the 
integrity of the Upper House", said the first paragraph of three, all 
equally short.

In the last NSW elections, earlier this year, 81 registered political 
parties took part. Thirty percent of voters cast their primary vote for 
parties other than Labor or the Liberals/Nationals.

The new legislation is clearly intended to choke off this elector rebellion 
against the "two-party system" by eliminating most of the alternative 
political choices available to voters.

The proposed amendments impose financial and numerical restrictions on 
registered political parties (only registered parties can have their name 
on the ballot paper adjacent to their candidates) and introduces a 
mandatory waiting period of 12 months before a registered party can 
nominate or endorse candidates in an election.

To be registered in future, parties will be required to have at least 1,000 
members, all of whom must complete a special membership form supplied by 
the electoral office (and apparently do this every year) and pay a 
registration fee of $3,500.

Even when registered, a party will not be eligible to have a group voting 
square above the line on the ballot paper, unless it stands at least 15 
candidates for the Upper House at a total cost in deposits of $5,000. All 
but an insignificant number of voters choose to vote above the line.

In above the line voting, the voter accepts the preferences of the party he 
or she votes for (the "registered party ticket"). Few voters actually know 
what the preferences of their chosen party are, certainly not in detail.

A feature of the last NSW election was the manipulation of the flow of 
preferences by some parties in directions probably undreamt of by the 
relevant voters. This state of affairs is one reason advanced to justify 
the proposed "reforms".

The Government proposes to overcome the problem of these "labyrinthine 
preference deals" (as Mr Della Bosca calls them), by introducing optional 
above the line preferential voting — the only positive proposal among the 
amendments.

Electors will be able to indicate their choice of parties in order 
of preference. This is a definite advance, and originates not with the 
government but with the Greens.

Unfortunately, it is dependent on each party standing at least 15 
candidates, and the proposed deposit of $5,000 per team is clearly intended 
to be punitive on small parties. The Communist Party of Australia believes 
$1,000 per team is impost enough.

The other reason put forward to justify the proposed "reforms" is the large 
size of the ballot paper in the last election. Certainly it was large, and 
the subject of jokes about "tablecloths", but it did not seriously 
inconvenience people voting above the line, and despite its cumbersome size 
filling it in was relatively straightforward.

The size of the ballot paper and the presence of numerous parties, instead 
of being seen as democracy in action and a cause for celebration, were 
seized upon by the bourgeois media and the Labor and Liberal/National 
parties as the excuse for trying to make blatantly undemocratic changes to 
the electoral system.

In a letter to the Sydney District Committee of the CPA, which has been 
campaigning to protect the democratic process in NSW ever since the NSW 
Treasurer, Michael Egan, first mooted "reform of the electoral system", the 
Treasurer defended the introduction of a minimum membership of 1,000 for 
registration.

"Certain levels of transparency are important for the health of our 
political system", he wrote, adding "...it is only reasonable that a 
political party that wishes to avail itself of the mechanisms to make it 
easier for people to vote for it should be required to demonstrate a base 
level of public support."

Egan disingenuously confuses "membership" with "support". The level of 
support enjoyed by a political party is properly demonstrated at the ballot 
box since the great majority Australians who vote for any particular 
political party do not actually join it.

The insistence on a list of 1,000 members, to be updated annually, does not 
tell us anything about the support for that party. But it does present an 
obstacle to registration of the party, and there is little to suggest that 
this proposal is intended for any other purpose.

The CPA believes it is an error to confuse membership with support and, to 
address just this point, has proposed that the electoral office produce a 
form of petition expressing the wish that a particular party be registered 
for and be able to participate in state elections.

To be registered, a party would need to have the petition signed by 1,000 
registered voters, who need not be actual members of the party in question.

This proposal offers a way of measuring the support for a political party 
in a situation where parties may have a small membership but considerably 
more support. The membership of the ALP is small in comparison to the 
number of votes it attracts.

Under both the current and the proposed systems of registration, parties 
are required to disclose details of a large number of their members (1,000 
if the amendments are passed).

Perversely, the NSW Treasurer believes "this is not a violation of a 
person's privacy or civil and political rights" and that "to require proof 
of [a party's] level of support is not unfair or an interference in their 
affairs".

On the contrary, it is a clear violation of a person's privacy and their 
civil liberties. Moreover, the party membership lists required for 
registration are available for public scrutiny.

We have a system of secret ballots so that any citizen who wishes to keep 
his or her political preferences private may do so. The demand for details 
about individual members of political parties conflicts with this.

There is also an implicit assumption in what Egan writes that public 
knowledge of a person's political party membership is benign. This is not 
the case.

We have the recent example of the names of members of the One Nation party 
printed on the front cover of a Jewish magazine. And in North America, the 
names of abortion clinic workers and anti-fascists have been published on 
the internet with the express purpose of encouraging violence towards them 
from racists and other hate groups.

The proposed legislation is directly in opposition to both the sense and 
spirit of Article 25 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political 
Rights.

In his letter to the CPA Sydney DC, in response to the CPA's criticisms and 
counter proposals for real democratic reform of the electoral system, 
Michael Egan asserts that a political party being charged $3,500 for the 
right to contest elections (something which is free in every Australian 
State at present) is "not unreasonable".

He writes: "As there is currently no fee for registration the proposed 
$3,500 fee — being $3.50 per member for the minimum requirement of 1000 
members — is not unreasonable and will assist in discouraging the use of 
`front' parties." He also says it will be a "once only charge".

Until his or a future government decides to introduce a "nominal" renewal 
fee, and then to progressively increase it.

As for the "not unreasonable" registration fee of $3,500, it is in fact a 
severe impost on smaller parties. It is a larger figure than some now spend 
on an entire State election campaign.

This proposal will do nothing to address the problem of possible preference 
manipulation by a minority of the smaller parties. However, it will help to 
eliminate smaller parties from the NSW political scene.

Again disingenuously, Michael Egan tries to maintain that preventing a 
party from contesting elections until it has been registered for 12 months 
is not undemocratic.

"There is nothing in the proposed registration reforms that will prevent 
candidates standing on issues that arise suddenly. However as there is four 
years between elections it is not unreasonable to require some indication 
that a party is an ongoing viable entity."

There is no way to guarantee that an issue will not arise less than 12 
months before an election is due. And any party that arises in response to 
a specific issue is likely to remain in existence for as long as members of 
the community have an active concern about the issue.

Nor will this provision have any effect on the formation of "front" 
parties. They will simply be formed somewhat earlier.

The CPA believes the present requirement that parties be registered one 
month before an election should remain.

The trend towards higher votes for the small parties is a response to the 
growing disillusion with the ALP and the Coalition.

The NSW Government's proposals seek to take the political scene in NSW 
backwards to the time before independents and members of smaller parties 
began to be elected to our Parliaments.

The NSW Upper House cross benchers reflect the conflicting richness and 
diversity of views in the community. To stifle that is to try, Canute like, 
to hold back the tide of change and democracy.

Back to index page