Proportional representation will bring voters back
With a federal election looming in 2013 and the release of a discussion paper in Queensland reviewing its voting system, Dr Klaas Woldring suggests proportional representation as the way forward for Australia.
The crisis in Australia’s national Parliament is now obvious. In 2010, 22 per cent avoided voting. This situation cries out for a solution. A similar situation prevailed in New Zealand in the mid 1980s when a Royal Commission was established to recommend alternative electoral systems. Its recommendations were only acted upon in 1992/3 when referenda were held and a system of proportional system (Mixed Member Proportional) introduced – with good results.
What are the principal reasons in Australia, even apart from the wasteful, nasty adversarial fault finding parliamentary culture, why the nation should embark on proportional representation (PR)?
* There is a serious lack of diversity in representation in the House of Representatives. Voters are basically compelled to vote for the least objectionable major party. The ALP Government’s 2009 Electoral Reform Inquiry’s first Green paper explained correctly that “diversity has increased greatly in Australian society since 1945”, yet this is hardly reflected in the Parliament. But the second Green Paper deliberately encouraged only piecemeal tinkering in the way of system reforms.
* The single-member district system has resulted in frequent boundary changes, a costly and often controversial process; pork barrelling, yes, but little economic development or government assistance in ‘‘safe’’ seats. Costly by-elections are a by-product of this system. In proportional representation casual vacancies are filled by the next on the list at the previous election, or the count-back method.
* The lack of democracy in representation, a situation created by the 1918 and 1924 Commonwealth Electoral Acts, would be remedied. Currently, with single-member electoral districts, candidates are often elected on the basis of only about 40 per cent of first preference votes. The other 60 per cent are in fact not represented in their own electorate.
* The single-member district system has definitely not been in the interest of furthering female representation in parliament. Although improving, this is still at a low level in Australia.
* The existing regime is in Australia also biased against NESB migrant candidates and Indigenous people. There is now a very high percentage of the population of non-English speaking background of both first and second generations – approaching 40 per cent. These groups are severely under-represented in all Australian parliaments.
* Finally, the two-party dominance has thwarted many efforts to amend the now archaic Australian constitution. This is frequently not mentioned as a major barrier to amendment. In practice it means this: unless the major parties agree on a constitutional amendment it will be futile to put it to the people in a referendum. Agreement is so rare that only 8 out of 44 proposals were accepted. Many other sensible proposals never made it to the referendum stage.
Voters should have the opportunity to consider proportional representation as a major alternative to the present electoral system.
They have NEVER been asked! Proportional representation is based on multi-member electoral districts that provide opportunity for new parties to gain representation in the national Parliament. Most European countries use PR (21/28) and also others like e.g. New Zealand and South Africa. Altogether 89 states use a PR system. A form of PR (Hare-Clark, of British origin) is used in Australia in the Senate where smaller parties and Independents are doing a credible job as a result. Tasmania and the ACT also have that system. However, in my view the Hare-Clark system is definitely NOT suitable for the larger lower houses of Parliament.
The most desirable system is the Open Party List System (rather than the two-vote compromise adopted in NZ). In the Open Party List Systems (used by 80 per cent of PR countries) voters can indicate their preference for a party AND a particular candidate on its list with just ONE mark. This is a highly efficient system which can be introduced without a constitutional amendment. The 1918 and 1924 acts can be replaced simply by an ordinary act of Parliament.
Dr Klaas Woldring is Convenor of the Republic Now Association. He retired as Associate Professor from Southern Cross University, Lismore in 1999, where he taught Australian Politics, Management, Public Administration, Multicultural Studies, Workplace Democracy, Human Resource Management, Industrial Relations and Business Ethics. Originally from the Netherlands, he and his wife Aafke migrated to South Africa in 1959, then again in 1962 in protest of Apartheid policies to what is now known as Zambia, then once more in 1964 to Australia. In the 1980s he joined the ALP and twice stood for the federal seat of Richmond. After resigning from the ALP in 1989, he stood twice more for the Senate representing the Progressive Labour Party, which he co-founded in 1996. He has published 4 books and a large number of professional articles. Klaas and Aafke will have been married for 53 years, they have 4 children and 9 grandchildren.
Dr. Klaas Woldring is a former Associate Professor at Southern Cross University and the co-founder of Beyond Federation, a citizen group which campaigns to abolish the states and strengthen local government. His latest book is Yes, We Can… … Rewrite the Australian Constitution.
