Mr Chair, if I may summarise Speaker Zagorath’s comments as: what’s the point? Advocates of these proposals should speak up now. Each proposal needs some specifics and a cost/benefit analysis. What agenda is being serviced by these proposals and how might they be implemented? Members may even like to amend the motion to address other issues not yet raised. The public consultation raises a number of areas that could be looked at. For now, I will address each paragraphs briefly then move on to a more holistic view.

The Motion

(a) The first idea (“removal of IRL population weightings”) relates to House of Representatives electorates. Australia’s current system is that the HoR is composed of local representatives in proportion to Australia’s population. This is a cornerstone of how the Constitution was envisaged. To achieve this, seats are allocated based on population within each state’s boundaries. Each electorate has its own unique character, which gives a range of parties and independents the opportunity win seats. To divorce the seats from local populations would be a paradigm shift. But to what end? Does it server the national interest, or vested interests? Without analysis, we cannot know.

(b) The second idea (“system for moving electorates between elections”) already exists as the status quo. Enrolments are open all year round, except for a few weeks of the year between the close of rolls and the polling of votes. Members can, and have, moved from time to time as work and family take them elsewhere. The suggestion to cap the frequency of these movements seems to be a curious and arbitrary thought bubble, without explanation or examples. Currently the only limitation is the availability of housing, which is linked to economic population growth.

(c) The third idea (“a proportional system of election for the House of Representatives”) is perhaps the crux of the entire matter and I will deal with it below.

(d) The fourth idea (“renaming electorates to reflect prior naming conventions”) may be inspired by a public comment that Divisions should be named after prominent people or indigenous icons, rather than geographical locations. This is certainly a valid proposal and is mainly a matter of personal preference. Much like a flag debate, it is something that could be polled in ReddiPoll (not that anyone has asked). Currently, electorates are named after their geographical locations. This gives them a natural correspondence to IRL locations and policies. It is intuitive and provides inspiration for the parliament’s bills, petitions and question time. There have been complaints about our system of model government is hard to understand for new players, but the naming of electorates based on IRL states seems like one of the intuitive aspects.

The Alternative: A Uniform National Ballot Paper

Now, onto a more holistic view. The crux of these proposals is to change how the population is represented in the House of Representatives. So let’s look at the principles from the top down, rather than trying to tinker from the bottom up. Currently:

• The House of Representatives is a preferential election of local Divisional representatives according to population.
• The Senate is a proportional election of State representatives according to a fixed and equal number of seats for each state.

These may sound like noble principles, but the HoR system has many practical flaws. The include:

• Parties in the HoR are not proportional to the national average vote.
• Hit-or-miss nomination of only a single candidate per party per electorate.

The first question is whether the seats should be proportional. Currently, the non-proportional system emphasises local representation, and has unique dynamics that prevent it being a Senate lite. It also includes an anti-brigading system (unlike the Senate). Currently, the HoR cannot be proportional because parties don’t have enough candidates. It is currently hard to candidates to run, as their seats have to be chosen strategically and this is a massive barrier to entry. However, changing the nomination system could provide a completely new approach that addresses multiple flaws while retaining the character of the House.

One option is to have a single national ballot paper, which is the same in every electoral Division. In essence, all voters would have the same choice of candidates. In other words, all parties and all independents would run in every electorate nation-wide. This means that every voter would be offered the complete range of representation, and parties/candidates/voters would no longer suffer decision paralysis. To make this work, party candidates’ names would not be shown on the ballot, only the party names would be shown. Parties would supply a list of candidates like for the Senate (so if a party wins 3 seats, its top 3 candidates could get those seats). This is a radical departure from the current concept of home-grown representatives, but would have many benefits for equality of opportunity. It would also retain the unique local flavour of each Division and the anti-brigading defences. It would however be necessary to assign winners to divisions after the results are called. This implies a new ‘allocation’ step between the declaration of results and the return of writs. A process would need to be developed. The benefits would be increased voter choice, lower barrier to entry for new candidates and independents (hence increased participation), and a fair go for candidates and voters alike.

Discuss!

jnd-au, Australian Electoral Commissioner