The tradition of senators working with the government is one that should be re-introduced, says Peter Reith in today’s Age, a bonus news extra that comes with the daily wraparound ad produced by Fairfax. Well, I bet you think that, mate, I have no doubt. After all, it’s not politics — it’s a tradition, like clog dancing. How could anyone deny a tradition? One suspects the part of the tradition Reith would like the best is where independent senators knuckle under meekly to whatever the government proposes and throw in a few amendments.
Of course Turnbull — having set up a long election that does not flatter his skills — might actually manage to throw the thing. If Labor squeaks in on a hung parliament, expect to start to hear a lot about states’ rights, George Reid blah di blah.
The high polling for the micro-parties and independents — 15%, on top of the Greens 10% — is looking like the story of the election. Indeed, this most tedious of elections, as far as the lower house goes, looks like being a crucial one as far as changes in Australian governance goes. Despite the changes to Senate voting procedures, which eliminated carousel tickets of nominal micro-parties, small parties and independents are holding their own. I would prefer more of that vote flowing to the Greens. In the absence of that, a rich crossbench of left, right and centre offers an opportunity for real political reform.
Those of us who supported the abolition of single-box ticket-voting did so not without misgivings. As your correspondent pointed out last year, this was simply an enormous unthinking mistake, a small change made in 1984, without any thought given as to how it would work in a proportional-preferential voting system. It ticked along well enough for decades before the gaming inherent in its structure came to be deployed. Once that happened, it had to be changed. But in its time, it did deliver into Parliament a number of people who were decidedly not political professionals and showed a capacity to take the job seriously and learn along the way. It wasn’t quite the Athenian lottery system of democracy, but it wasn’t too far from it.
The abolition of it, and the substitution of an easy above-the-line optional ticket system, threatened to turn the chamber into a four- or five-party thing. Once again, not a bad result, to my mind, if the Greens could regain balance of power; a disaster if, as seemed possible, the Coalition could take back two or three of the seats occupied by implicitly or explicitly right-wing people. That latter prospect is fading; the crossbenches after July 2 might look very much as they did after September 2013 — a motley crew with a centre of gravity, last time occupied by PUP, this time by Xenophon’s NXT team. If Xenophon is lucky, he could have the balance of power within the balance of power.
Bizarrely, the greatest change that may occur is that the Senate, for the first time in its history, may begin to take the form it was intended to have: as a states’ house, representing states’ interests. In South Australia, Nick Xenophon will get one seat, very likely two, possibly three. In Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie has a decent chance. In Queensland, Glenn Lazarus or Pauline Hanson may get up. All, even Hanson, will present themselves as states’ champions first. That might well encourage similar groups elsewhere.
From a left perspective, that might (emphasise might) be much to the good. Championing the non-VIC/NSW states (the BAPH states — Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart — as the ABC used to call them) would necessarily bring to the fore statist, interventionist policies that present the country as an entire community to be managed as such, not the preferred neoliberal model — a two-state, really two-city, centre, with a periphery left to wither away. Should that occur, then this election will have become an important one — but not for any reason that Malcolm Turnbull would want. Win or lose, he will be damned as the man who, for no great result, gave two months of free publicity to the opposition, the Greens, and a bunch of independents who couldn’t ordinarily get TV time if they shot someone in the street. Who could be surprised that the Coalition would like to revive the “tradition” of senators working with the government? They have already revived the tradition of pissing razor blades every day to the poll, and there’s still a month to go.
I rather liked the independents in the last Senate, even if one was from the 19th century.
which one?
Obviously Lambie
But even she wasn’t that bad in my opinion, she stood up for ordinary Australians against the austerity/tax cuts agenda of the government.
“It wasn’t quite the Athenian lottery system of democracy”
No, but it did provide a viable “anyone but the majors” option. It was viable because it was as convenient (or lazy, or unthinking if you like) as voting above the line for any of the majors. The majors (Greens, ALP, LNP) didn’t like that, but I can’t recall anyone of the more-than-a-quota who voted for a micro party complaining – and they were the ones whose votes were supposedly being gamed. Which suggests to me they really were voting for “ANYONE but the majors”. Now we will have candidates (probably from the majors) elected with less than a quota. And this is more democratic?
just because no-one complained about the complete preference trails doesnt mean they were a good thing. in designing a voting system, you dont want an imbalance of knowledge between voter and system. The microparty scam relied on voters not knowing that their vote was going to be shuttled to parties they wouldnt agree with – if people had understood what was going on, by definition it wouldnt have worked.
“if people had understood what was going on, by definition it wouldnt have worked” (by definition??)
There is no evidence for this. They may have consulted the published preference trails or, more likely, been voting for “Anyone but the majors” after their first preference (just as you might prefer even a Pauline Hanson to a majors-dominated senate). The fact that they don’t complain is a small (but by no means overwhelming) indication that one of the two is indeed what they were doing.
In any case – will such voters (people voting for “anyone but the majors”) now know that their vote will exhaust without achieving their goal? And without scrutinising the published preference trails, will anyone be able to know for sure that (say) a simple Labour vote will not help elect a Family First or (now more likely) Liberal or whoever – just as, the one and only time I voted Labour above the line, I discovered I’d helped elect Bob Day above the Greens?
Under the new system, there may be some gain in “balance of knowledge”, on the dangerous and perhaps offensive assumption that micro-party voters know less about what they are doing than major party voters, but it will be at the expense of voting the last candidates in over a lower hurdle than everyone else.
keith
that’s transparent nonsense. Let’s take the reasonable case, not the formal one. How many people are going to follow the preferences of the Bullet Train Party through 15 different other parties, before landing where the people backing all these parties want it to? Yes, each and every voter could look up the whole preference flow of 25 micro parties but they wouldnt and dont, and voting shouldnt be a shell game, getting an advantage from asymmetrical information.
The new system is an optional preferential ticket system, clear as day, and bearing no resemblance to the previous system
Indeed they are as unlikely to bother with the preference lists as major party voters. However, they are likely to have been voting (remarkably successfully) for “anyone but the majors” – a likelihood which most commentators seem resolved to discount or ignore. Under the new system, a micro party vote is likely to exhaust before it has a chance to fulfil the intention of the voter to elect “anyone but a major”. Yes, this is formally an optional preferential system, but transparent, or clear as day, it is not.
Keith1 has a point, if you voted 1 above the line in 2013 for a micro-party that vote will be much more likely to default to a coalition/labour/greens preference in the upcoming election. I really hope the minor players do the preference negotiations ahead of time to fuck the big 3 as much as possible. To see the same (or a larger) protest vote against the mainstream parties produce fewer independent senators would be terrible for democracy.
That ‘dangerous and perhaps offensive assumption’ is actually borne out somewhat in polling: the latest Essential shows that 20% of respondents planning to vote non-major (ALP, LNP, Greens) reported having ‘No Interest At All’ in the election campaign, compared to 15%, 13% and 17% from those planning to vote ALP, LNP and Greens respectively. The margin is not huge, but statistically significant nonetheless. I’d also venture a guess that the proximity of the level of disinterest between Greens and non-major voters is due to the retributive/protest vote, suggesting there’s some kind of correlation between being pissed off and being uninformed – go figure.
a correlation between being pissed off and being uninformed – a very good point.
Scary.
Has any of the polling sought to establish just what percentage of voters are now likely to vote informal; either because they are just so totally pissed off with the low standard of politics in Australia and/or the trickiness of the voting system?
MT
You are entitled to your guess, but neither your guess nor the polling you mention, even if proven beyond all doubt, can provide any justification for making it harder or more onerous for such voters to vote according to their intentions (anyone but the majors), as opposed to those voting for the majors.
You seem to have missed the salient point of the new Senate voting rules.
The voter distributes their own preferences BtL, a minimum 1-12 but as many as they choose.
Even lazy, dumb, ignorant or uninformable AtL voters can number 1-6 and carry on if they so choose.
I wish to state that the great Spanner in the works will be the massive proportion of the aforementioned AtL voters will do as they have done for 30+yrs and just make a single mark in a single box AtL.
That will be an interesting anomaly.
just for the record and to be clear, i would rather almost anyone else other than pauline hanson get elected to the senate from queensland.
What about a Christensen clone with half a quota? 🙂
The razor blades reference resonates.
But, frankly, this drawn-out campaign isn’t nearly as mind-numbing as the 2010 Gillard/Abbott version when ‘moving forward’ became an hourly mantra. Gawd.
They could charge admission?
(Peter Reith – “Hero of Children Overboard” – now there’s a quotable quoit?)