2016-05-15
Dinny Laurence
The all night debate on Senate voting reforms set the benchmark for ugliness in Parliament at an all time low, and it was already near rock bottom. Hypocrisy, name calling, self-interest, using serious issues as political playthings – these all ran rampant. No wonder voters are fed up with politics and politicians in a Parliament where the national interest goes AWOL and divisiveness and party politics reign supreme. Not to mention that in a democracy (or so I naïvely thought) elected politicians are supposed to reflect the will of the voters they represent – but had this been true marriage equality and voluntary euthanasia would already be on the statute books.
Through all the ugliness the Greens were steadfast. They acted with courage and integrity, and emerged as the party of principle to which I am proud to belong.
Voting reform has long been on the Greens political agenda. Bob Brown introduced a bill similar to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 (CEAB) about 12 years ago. Nine years later, the 2013 Federal election saw candidates from obscure parties elected to the Senate after securing miniscule percentages of the primary vote, and at the expense of candidates whose primary support was in double figures. As a result, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) inquiry was set up. All three major parties agreed the system was seriously in need of an overhaul and Lee Rhiannon and her colleagues worked hard to achieve that, and to lay the foundation of the CEAB that recently passed into law.
As Scott Ludlam mentioned in his speech during the CEAB debate, at the time of the JSCEM inquiry Senator Penny Wong stated to the Committee that one of Labors objectives was “to clear the political landscape of microparties and eliminate their cartel”. This stands in stark contrast to her statement during the CEAB debate that the changes proposed by the recent reforms were “essentially a disenfranchisement of millions of Australians who dont vote for the Labor Party, dont vote for the Liberal or National Party and dont vote for the Greens”. Both the meaning of and reasoning behind this statement is obscure, unlike Senator Ludlams lucid statement of the obvious that “The purpose of the electoral system is for the composition of our houses of parliament to reflect, as closely as possible, the voting will of the electorate”.
In due course the Electoral Commission will no doubt issue a simple explanation to voters about how the new optional preference voting (OPV) will work. The Greens have already done so: http://greens.org.au/senate-voting In essence, the changes mean that above-the-line voters will be asked to number at least six preferences above the line, but one will still be valid as under the old system of voting. Below-the-line voters will be asked to mark at least 12 preferences below the line, and as many as they like after that. The new system gives the 97% of voters who vote above the line control over where their preferences go instead of putting it in the hands of backroom “preference whisperers”. This restores a small piece of democracy to our electoral system.
Many people derive everything they believe they know about the Greens from the Murdoch and Fairfax media. It is therefore not surprising that their perceptions about the party are somewhat skewed, and such perceptions are reinforced by a statement such as that made by former PM John Howard on national television that “… people shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the principal beneficiary of these changes is probably the Australian Greens and that is why the Australian Greens are so strongly in favour.”
The statement (made casually, as if both obvious and incontrovertible) was implicitly and explicitly derogatory. Nowhere in the media did I see or hear it contested, or mention made of the fact that this was a Greens initiative supported by the Liberals, not the other way round, or that we cannot predict whether the reforms will be to our benefit or not. Doing the right thing for its own sake may be a very unusual concept in politics but it is one of the things that differentiate the Greens from the other parties.
It will be important to counter misinformation and media bias in this all important election. Our representatives in Parliament are already doing a great job of this, and our growing band of volunteers can help to spread the word, explaining why the senate voting reforms are an achievement to be proud of.
Understanding Preferences
An even greater challenge than understanding OPVs is understanding how preferences work.
One of the most common remarks I've encountered while door knocking and handing out HTVs has been of the "a vote for the Greens is a wasted vote" variety. Even some of my most politically aware friends and family say that they normally vote Greens but they are going to vote Labor at the State Election next year rather than risk another 4 years of the Barnett government. This misunderstanding about how preferences work is an equally important issue in the Federal election, where we want to lift our primary vote in all electorates, even if we have no realistic chance of winning the seat in this election (e.g. in Curtin where Viv Glance is up against Julie Bishop).
Talking to voters personally about this rather technical issue is much more effective than leaving a leaflet under the mat. I believe we should actively bring up the subject of how preferences work with as many people as possible. In my most recent experience of door knocking the only five "meaningful interactions" I had were with people who normally vote Liberal or Labor but obviously had green leanings. In each case they said they would vote or would seriously consider voting for the Greens after wed had a discussion about how preferences work.
We urgently need a simple flyer to back up these discussions, such as the one used in the 2013 re-election campaign. In Curtin we have suggested wording such as:
If you think Green, vote NUMBER 1 Greens, because then
1. you are voting for what you believe in
2. The Greens benefit by getting a primary vote that reflects your support and an electoral allowance that is based on the primary vote; and
3. if your Greens candidate does not win, under the preference system your vote goes in full towards electing your second choice.
So in effect your vote COUNTS TWICE
A simple graphic by way of illustration would make this clear. It would be great if the Greens could produce such a flyer quite soon, especially as a double dissolution election may be just around the corner.
Photo: Australian Senate chamber. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australian_senate_-_parliament_of_aus...
