Senator Andrew Bartlett
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
 
THE SENATE - VOTING SYSTEMS & VOLUNTARY VOTING
It's always interesting reading post-election analysis, although I imagine it would also be somewhat more enjoyable if you've had a good election result rather than a bad one.

A recent Bulletin contains some items by Max Walsh. In the space of a page he raises a few different ideas.

Firstly, there's the prospect of changing the voting system to make it harder for small parties to get elected to the Senate – this following an election which may well see what I think is the smallest proportion of minor party seats in the Senate since 1993 (and before that, 1977)!

It's funny how the Govt always used to complain that the current system was unfair because it made it impossible for the Govt to control the Senate. I always argued that if they managed to get 50% of the primary vote, there was a fair chance they'd get over half the seats – in this instance, it's rather annoying to be right. I guess if the Coalition does hold 39 seats, we'll see whether or not a Govt controlled Senate is as big a negative as I think it will be, but trying to immediately make it a permanent feature doesn't strike me as a terribly good idea.

If people genuinely believe a Govt should be able to implement its program without being hindered by the Senate, we really should just get rid of it, but I think we should at least see how the next 3 years pan out before embracing such a radical change.

Walsh also raises the notion of moving to voluntary voting. I believe this is a bad idea which would lead to the disadvantaged being even more ignored than they are now.

If this is actually true, it is a very strong reason against change. However, I think people like me who support compulsory voting should start producing more solid evidence to back up these beliefs, rather than simply assert it as an article of faith.

If it is genuinely put forward for consideration, there will need to be good arguments against it, as electoral law will be able to be changed at the will of the Govt if they get those 39 Senate seats.

Walsh also puts forward the notion that it will be in the self-interest of the remaining Democrat Senators to take a "much more supportive approach to government legislation". I always find it hard to understand this rationale – it's not as if we just got a bad vote because the electorate thought we were too obstructionist. If anything, the perception is still around that we're too willing to negotiate.

Whilst I'll always defend the many positive things the Democrats have achieved – and negative things we've prevented – through negotiation and engaging with Govt (GST aside), I think the election result suggests voters aren't giving too much value to that role at the moment. Given that the Govt got all but 3% of it's legislation through the last Senate, it seems bizarre to me that someone as experienced as Walsh can believe we have been too obstructionist.

I also wonder how he (or anyone else) can think it would be electorally beneficial (let alone appropriate behaviour) to vote against your own policies and campaign promises so you can help a Government implement policies you don't support. The notion that negotiating a slightly less bad outcome is good strategy because it makes you 'relevant' is one that has taken hold amongst some commentators in the last 5 years or so, but it is one that I find facile.

The rationale to use in deciding what to support and what not to always seemed pretty simple to me, even if the topics themselves can sometimes be complex. If you can get an agreement that represents an overall step forward then consider supporting it (as long as you are reasonably sure you can't get something even better if you hold out for more), if it means a step backward then you oppose it. All this stuff about the need to be 'relevant' is just a bunch of hogwash to me which puts strategy ahead of substance.

Anyway, I guess it will all be academic soon enough, as the Govt is not likely to need to negotiate with anybody, which is a dangerous scenario.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, October 20, 2004 Permalink
|


<< Home