Watch what the major parties do with the Senate in the next three years. They will be spurred on by the elegance and “”success” of the Tasmanian manipulation at the weekend which in effect rid the major parties of the turbulence of minor parties and independents. Their federal colleagues in the major parties must be salivating.
For more than 15 years, the major parties have had a thorn in their sides in Tasmania: the Greens. Under Tasmania’s Hare-Clark voting system, the Greens have obtained between three and five seats and held the balance of power in Tasmania’s Lower House for nearly all of that time. It has meant that Labor administrations have not been able to do the “”right thing” by their union mates and dam, mine or chop down the state’s resources to create jobs, jobs, jobs. It has meant that Liberal administrations have not been able to do the “”right thing” by their business mates and dam, mine or chop down the state’s resources to create profit, profit, profit.
The Greens — love them or hate them — presented an ameliorating factor against the excesses of the big two. The Greens became such a thorn in the side of the two major parties that this year the majors conspired to do them in. The conspiracy came at a cost, but they thought it worthwhile. They cut the number in the Legislative Assembly from 35 to 25. At the election at the weekend, there were only five members for each of the five Tasmanian electorates. At previous elections there were seven. It meant that for a minor party or an independent to get a seat, they needed 16.6 per cent of the vote (after preferences) instead of the 12.5 per cent when there were seven seats per electorate.
When the quota was 12.5 per cent, the Greens typically got one seat in each electorate. At Saturday’s election with a new quota and fewer seats available, the Greens got only one seat. At the election two and a half years ago the Greens got four seats of the 35 seats with 11 per cent of the vote, an almost exact proportionality. At Saturday’s election with 10 per cent of the vote, they got one seat out of 25. Four per cent of the seats with 10 per cent of the vote. For a state that has had proportional representation for decades, it was a democratic outrage.
The major parties deliberately conspired to axe the Greens even if it cost them several seats each with all the trappings of office for the staffers and hangers on that come with each MP. In political terms that is a big sacrifice — mates in jobs, cars, offices for political campaigns, resources etc etc. The usual pattern in politics is that perks are added to, never subtracted from. The fact that so many jobs and perks were sacrificed is testimony to the spikiness of the Green thorn.
In the Federal Parliament, the Democrat, Green, Independent (and soon-to-be-added One Nation) thorn is that much sharper. The turbulence of these independents will come to a head this election and the majors will want to give them good riddance.
Sure we have always had independents and minors in the Senate. However, in the past they have usually only troubled one side. The Coalition loved the strife the four or five DLP senators gave Labor. Later, Labor lapped up Green and Democrat support in the Senate, only occasionally complaining that they were “”unrepresentative swill”, while the Libs detested them.
Even so, in the 1984 Labor hatched a plan that their dreaded enemies, the Nationals, agreed to. The plan was to eliminate the minors and independents from the Senate.
Before 1984 there were 10 senators per state. At a half Senate election that meant five seats were up for grabs. Each seat required a quota of 16.6 per cent (one sixth of the vote plus one, leaving no room someone with one sixth of the vote minus one). That meant a major party could easily get two seats at 33.2 per cent (16.6 times two), but found the third seat at 49.8 per cent (16.6 times three) just beyond reach. What if, Labor, thought, we increased the size of the Senate to 12 senators per state. That would make the quota for one seat at a half Senate election 14.3 per cent. Sure it was lower for a minor party than the previous 16.6, but it would help the major parties more. To get three seats they needed only 43.9 per cent. That should be easy. They could share the spoils between them. In the old five-seat regime, they fell far short of the third seat and the remainder of their vote usually spilt on preferences to a minor party which picked up the fifth seat in each state. A 43.9 per cent quota for three seats would ensure that the majors got three seats each in each state with nothing much to spill to the minors.
It was a good theory, but it failed spectacularly. The major parties arrogantly assumed they would always get at least 43.9 per cent of the vote. Fact is, that since 1984 they often fell short of it in most states. And the minor parties thrived on the lower quota.
At this election, the minor parties and independents will have a field day.
Leaving the four self-neutralising territory senators aside, 36 senators are up for re-election, six in each state. These were the 36 elected in the highly polarised 1993 election. Only four of them are from minor parties or independents (two Democrat, one Green and Senator Brian Harradine).
At least six, if not eight minor party and independent senators are likely to get elected this time. They will augment the six already there (five Democrats and a Green), making between 12 and 14 minor and independent senators.
They will form a turbulent group with views on economic and social policies that will make legislation difficult for whichever major party is in Government.
My guess is the major parties will conspire again, having seen the effectiveness of the conspiracy in Tasmania.
The Constitution permits the Commonwealth Parliament to determine the electoral system for the Senate. It does not require a referendum to change it. Just as the Tasmanian Parliament could change the electoral system without referendum.
Do not be surprised if the major parties push through a change to the Senate voting system to favour themselves. Instead of having the election statewide, they could divide each state into three and have four senators representing each electorate, with only two coming up for election each half Senate election (one from each major party). It would ensure a major-party monopoly in each state.
The system has already been idly floated by people in the major parties in the past. After this Senate election with its promise of a large a disparate group of minors and independents, the temptation may get too great. Richard Alston and John Faulkner would for once see eye to eye.
++ That temptation will be great because the major parties are going to get a hiding in the Senate on October 3. They are both defending good results in 1993. The Coalition is defending 17 seats and Labor 15. Let’s look at the possibilities state by state.
Tasmania. Now: Coalition 2, Labor 3, and Harradine. Labor could lose a seat to the Greens.
NSW. Coalition 3, Labor 3. Majors could lose a seat each, to Democrats and One Nation.
Victoria. Majors have three each. One or other could lose a seat to the Democrats.
Queensland. Coalition could lose a seat to One Nation.
WA: Coalition or Greens could lose a seat to One Nation.
SA: Coalition could lose a seat to One Nation or Labor.
Nowhere is there any prospect of the major parties picking up any seats, except Labor from the Coalition in SA.