Macro Parties Move on Micros as Government Introduces Senate Voting Reform

Wednesday 24 February 2016 @ 11.44 a.m. | Legal Research

On Monday (22 February 2016), Mr Scott Morrison, the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, Senator Mathias Cormann, in the House introduced the Federal government's Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 (the Bill) which is proposed legislation intended to reform the Senate voting system in a way that, as it has been described by commentators, "will squeeze out micro - players".

The Key Changes Proposed

The Bill proposes to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act) to:

  • improve the system by which voting for the Senate is carried out;
  • require that there be unique registered officers for Federally registered parties, and
  • allow for political party logos to be printed on ballot papers.

The Bill proposes, as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, to:

  • reduce the complexity of the Senate voting system, by providing for "partial optional preferential voting above the line", and this is to include the introduction of advice printed on the Senate ballot paper that voters number, in order of preference, at least six squares;
  • provide appropriate vote savings provisions to capture voter intent and reduce the risk of increased vote informality, including by improving vote savings provisions for below the line voting - in other words increasing the number of mistakes allowed in a below the line vote from three to five, so long as 90% of the ballot paper is filled in correctly;
  • improve "transparency around the allocation of preferences in a Senate election", by abolishing group and individual voting tickets, this proposed measure does not change other provisions relating to candidates nominating to be grouped on the Senate ballot paper;
  • introduce a restriction that there be a unique registered officer and deputy registered officer for a federally registered party; and
  • reduce the confusion that may arise with political parties with similar names, by allowing party logos to be printed on ballot papers for both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Pros and Cons

A pro that has been argued is the removal of the result  under the present system where people just mark one box but have no control over their preferences, the ultimate result is that often complex deals are done with preferences which end up in the election of candidates with very small vote numbers and also that some voters end up electing people they would never have voted for in a direct vote.

A con would be the increased difficulty for individual or small groups to be elected as a result of the changes. Meaning that in a democracy already dominated primarily by two parties at all levels of government with a third party sometimes having a role - it would be even harder to reflect and enact diverse views and ideas to those of the major players. While it may be frustrating to major party players to have their legislation scrutinised and reviewed to the extent it has been in the last few years; there is a baby and bath water equation here that might say that the scrutiny and view provided by non-major players, for example Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, can actually be very valuable and vital to a democracy.

Another, useful pro is the notion of adding logos to the ballot paper so people can better identify the party they intend to vote for - an excellent idea given the nature of some party names and their very apparent similarities, notably for example, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and the Liberal National Party (LNP) or even just the Liberal Party. However, on considering the logos further are they all that different?

Ahead for the Proposed Legislation

Overall, the proposed legislation is not considered all that controversial, and as the Prime Minister Mr Turnbull is reported to have pointed out the reforms were recommended unanimously by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The Greens and Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, are reported as supporting the proposed changes which effectively means they will eventually pass into legislation. The Standing Committee is now expected to scrutinise the legislation, which the Federal government wants passed and eneacted by the time parliament breaks for its autumn recess in the middle of March 2016.

If the change is required to be in place for the next Federal election it will take the Electoral Commission about three months to make the necessary changes, which means they could be ready for either a normal election or as many now think a double dissolution in July 2016.

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.

Sources:

Related Articles: