voting in the Senate

Organised self interest

Exclusive

Bret Harte

It was Jack Lang who said, “Always back the horse named Self Interest, son. It’ll be the only one really trying.”

And if ever the truth of that saying was seen it was there in the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Matters’ interim report into the 2013 federal election.

The report focussed on the role of small parties in swapping preferences to give them a chance of election.

That was the issue that gave the Committee headaches, jitters, and diarrhoea, not the fact that 20% of the country did not want any major.

The report shows that there is nothing that unites Labor, Nationals, Liberals and Greens than the chance to jerry the voting laws to ensure that they stay in power.

True, the opportunity to plunder the public purse has a powerful uniting effect as well, but you can’t get your snout in the trough unless you are actually in the sty with the rest of the pigs.

When the realisation sunk in that 20% of Australians don’t want any of them, their cohesion on this issue made supaglue look like lolly water.

20% of Australians in the last election voted “Anybody But Them” and if truth be known, probably more voted for a Party only through gritted teeth.

“My God, ” the Committee screamed in horror, “those little parties swapped votes in order to get a seat in the Senate. Just like us. First you have Palmer spending his own money to get elected against all decency, and now you have minor parties funnelling votes to each other. Just like us.”

What they should have said was that a huge swag of voters are disenchanted with the majors, we have to reform ourselves and stop looking like the Three Stooges fan club.

As it stands, the present system allows “above the line” voting where a voter can put the number “1” alongside the party they want.

The problem with this is, although it looks simple, is that losing votes are then distributed according to the party’s (or group’s) pre-registered voting ticket, not according to the way that the voter wants. In short, it is the party who dictates who your second preference goes to. Labor, for example, pulled Greens in.

When voting “under the line” the voter is allowed, in fact, compelled, to give preferences up to the number of candidates. But not above the line.

The committee agonised, “The system of voting above the line has encouraged the creation of micro parties in order to funnel preferences to each other, from voters who have no practical way of knowing where their vote will ultimately land once they had forfeited it to the parties’ group voting tickets.”

Fair dinkum? But that was what you intended, wasn’t it? Blew up in your face, did it?

The answer to the problem is easy, allow full preferential voting above the line.

No way, say the committee. Abolish above the line voting altogether but allow optional preferential below the line so that the poor bloody voter doesn’t have to number a zillion squares and have his vote disallowed if he makes a mistake. He will only have to go to five or six.

Sounds like they are doing Australians a favour? No way!

The optional preferential voting system radically distorts the voting system in favour of major parties.

The outcome if the report becomes law will be that minor parties will never get a look in.

Senator Bob Day put it well when he said, “We’ve all been elected and they’re trying to sack us before we’ve even started….

“At least let’s see how we perform, and if the Parliament becomes dysfunctional or gets bogged down in gridlock, then fine, then make a case. But until we’ve all actually taken our seats — who knows, we might actually improve things.”

As the majors have seen, the result of the various enquiries going on into their behaviour has meant that their standing in the community is dropping faster than a groom’s trousers. There will be continuing revelations over the next three years, the dam has broken, and in three years time voters will be even more disenchanted. Chances that the Senate will reflect all classes rather than just the political classes will increase. And the majors can’t have that.

So there will be one issue in which Labor, Coalition, and Greens will agree on, and that will be on laws that must be passed before the next election in order to preserve their lives.