Next year will see elections in as many as six of the eight states and territories. It sounds like a lot of democracy, but in fact it shows the Australians are largely at the mercy of state politicians who have shown a consistent propensity to rig electoral systems to their own advantage.
The vagaries of dates and electoral systems in the Australian states and territories and have a distinctly undemocratic flavour that favours incumbent governments of either complexion. It contrasts unfavourably with the position in the US where fixed terms and one-vote one-value prevails.
The tragedy is that despite calls from two Royal commissions about the importance of fair elections the rorts and attempted rorts continue.
The following looks at each in order of electoral timing.
ACT: Election on February 18. Federal legislation fixes the date as the third Saturday in February every three years and fixes the number of members. A referendum is likely to entrench various key elements of the voting system which will make the ACT the most securely fairest system in Australia. The referendum was proposed after the Labor Government attempted to pervert the spirit of the advisory 1992 referendum by proposing party voting.
NSW: Election in March. The Premier can determine the date to his or her own advantage, but is prevented by legislation from calling an election in the first three years. The Premier can call on the Governor to prorogue Parliament several months before the election (and did so) even if a majority of MPs want the sitting to continue. Legislation requires approximate “”one vote, one value” when setting electoral sizes. Very little electoral law is entrenched.
Queensland: Election due in September. The Premier can choose the election date and can soften the electorate up with goodies beforehand. Queensland still does not have “”one-vote, one-value”. This system at present favours Labor and to a lesser extent the Nationals. It disadvantages the Liberal Party severely. This is despite the Fitzgerald report stressing the importance of a fair electoral system to keep governments accountable. Very little electoral law is entrenched. A change to the electoral term requires a referendum and voters knocked back a four-year term.
Victoria: Election due any time after October. Legislation generally prevents an election in the first three years of the four-year term. The Premier determines the date. Legislation requires approximate “”one-vote, one value”. Premier Jeff Kennett has hedged on an earlier promise to go the full four years. Rumours, denied by the Government, have suggested that the Government intends to reduce the number of MPs which will be to its advantage.
Tasmania: Election must be held by February 1996, but could easily be held next year on the Premier’s whim. Unlike the other five states, Tasmania has Hare-Clark multi-member electorates which ensures “”one-vote, one-value” and representation of minor parties. Premier Ray Groom has attempted to rort the system by reducing the number of MPs to 30 _ six in each of five electorates. This will have the effect of wiping three or more of the Greens five seats. Electoral boundaries follow the Federal boundaries which prescribe one-vote, one value.
Western Australia: Election due by February 1997. Electoral boundaries corrupt with inequality. Legislation requires country seats to have fewer voters than Perth seats. The result is over-representation of the National Party. The system, however, has helped the Labor Party. Premier Richard Court has no intention of changing the system despite calls by the WA Inc Royal Commission for a fair electoral system.
The ALP is conducting a constitutional challenge to the High Court but it is thought unlikely to succeed.
South Australia: Election due by December 1997. Legislation requires not only “”one-vote, one-value” when determining the size of the electorate, but within that constraint an overall “”one-vote, one value” so that a party with, say, 52 per cent of the vote gets 52 per cent of the seats. However, nothing can prevent any single-member system from excluding any non-regional minor party until it gets at least 30 per cent of the vote, nor from throwing up aberrations once a party gets above 55 per cent of the vote when seats fall like nine pins to it. At the last election the Liberals got 78 per cent of the seats with 61 per cent of the two-party preferred vote.
Northern Territory: Single member electorates in a small polity has resulted in perpetual National-Liberal Government with large majorities and far larger representation than their vote. The Chief Minister determines election dates in a three-year maximum term. The next election is due in mid-1997.
Overall: In 1988 a referendum to insert into the Federal Constitution a clause requiring fair elections at state level failed when it got caught up with a mish-mash of other proposals.
Reforms in the past decade have generally been begrudging and have never gone to the heart of the matter: entrenching fair systems that cannot be changed without referendums and taking away the power of incumbent governments to dictate election dates.
It would be nice to suggest that such changes were unnecessary, but you cannot in the face of the sorry history of governmental corruption in Queensland and Western Australia and the attempts by governing parties in nearly all other jurisdictions in the past five years to continue electoral rorts or create new ones.