Electoral reform would remove the senseless need for opposition parties to think up useless alternatives to the governing party, argues Dr. Klaas Woldring.
It is hard to believe that the Greens, who support proportional representation in their political program, are not actively promoting it.
Given that they received 12.2% of the vote in the 2022 federal elections, a properly designed proportional representation system could give them 18 federal seats instead of the current four. Their entire strategy is still shaped by the culture of the two major parties, which is based on the single-member electoral system.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton’s new nuclear policy is a clear indication of how dangerous this system is. Australia’s main electoral system has now raised nuclear power as a possibility. Nuclear power is an expensive, dangerous and very slow energy alternative, and would also undermine the various non-nuclear alternatives advocated by both the Greens and the ALP.
Dutton is busy trying to trick Australia into building unnecessary nuclear power stations in seven safe conservative electorates. The single-member electoral system has allowed for possible plans for an energy system that is not supported by the majority – indeed, widely opposed for several important reasons. The role of the Leader of the Opposition to develop opposing policies – the function of an Opposition Leader at Westminster – has led to entirely unnecessary threats to society.
The Greens are certainly well aware of the link between the existing electoral system and this harmful political initiative. Quite apart from that, proportional representation is a much more democratic and fair electoral system.
From an environmental perspective, Australians can generate an abundance of solar and wind energy. The need for nuclear power simply does not exist in Australia. Trying to use safe conservative seats for this negative purpose is political mismanagement.
Australians are fed up with electoral favouritism in marginal constituencies, neglected safe constituencies and the fact that only a handful of seats are awarded on the first count while the rest are allocated through compulsory preferences in favour of the major parties.
Let us stop pretending that this is a fair and safe system. Australia can do much better. My suggestion to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters 2022 makes this clear.
Although the committee is completely dominated by the major parties, only one Green senator sits on this committee. Did the Greens mention that proportional representation was presented to the committee as an option?
We have recently witnessed once again the absurdity of the federal opposition’s rejection of the very reasonable proposal of the Albanian government to bring an indigenous voice into the archaic Australian ConstitutionThis has also shown once again how necessary better political education is. Compared to the Referendum of 1967 to recognise Indigenous peoples as Australian citizens – almost 91% of voters voted ‘yes’ – the ‘no’ campaign 56 years later was evidence of serious ignorance of the constitutional provisions and abuse of the system.
The same category also includes opening up “safe” seats to nuclear power plants in order to gain political advantages. The existing electoral system offers this possibility.
This has nothing to do with democracy – on the contrary.
Australian voters have already turned their backs on the Liberal Party and voted heavily for Independents and the Greens in 2022, essentially bidding farewell to the two-party system. But further consideration is needed about what that means and what will take its place.
The major parties are opposed to replacing the current single-member constituency (SMD) system with a much more democratic system. Although the election results for the ALP in 2022 were marginally positive, as it still provided its party’s majority government despite a very low first-past-the-post vote share of 32.6%, this is further evidence that a comprehensive change to the electoral system is long overdue.
The SMD system of mandatory preference voting has strongly but rather unfairly favoured the major parties. A proportional representation system is, of course, based on multi-member constituencies. Nevertheless, the somewhat unusual result of the 2022 election does not mean that the electoral system has changed at all. The opposition culture will continue and clearly represents a potential threat to unity and progress in Australia.
But this may not be Prime Minister Albanese’s preferred path either. He has stated that he prefers cooperation, fairness and democratic representation. And here he has an opportunity. The Westminster legacy of Australia’s parliamentary and electoral system is no longer fit for purpose. Even in the UK and US this is widely recognised.
The Greens and most, perhaps even all, independents will certainly now think about campaigning for a more democratic electoral system. For almost half of the voters – who come from different cultural backgrounds – the existing system as a whole is of questionable value.
Governance and civic education must play a greater role in longer-term reforms, but the electoral system can be changed now. A new electoral law can be drafted immediately. Parliament has the constitutional power to implement reforms to the electoral system. This is enshrined in several clauses.
Given the precarious position of Labor in retaining enough votes at the next federal election, it may well be in its interest to rethink the situation and develop a completely new approach. Voters would support such an initiative. Multi-party electoral systems could include 15 out of, say, ten members for the federal House of Representatives. This would result in a national multi-party system and more independents.
The emphasis would be on cooperation rather than opposition, which would be a major step forward for the nation. Australia’s recent political history shows that a system change is urgently needed. A new electoral system should be national, not based on federal and state boundaries. Of course, similar system changes could and should be made at the state level.
For opposition leaders, the senseless need to think up useless alternatives to the ruling party would disappear forever.
Dr Klaas Woldring is a former Associate Professor at Southern Cross University and former Director of ABC Friends (Central Coast).
Related articles
Support independent journalism. Subscribe to IA.
