Opinion: Both parties wrong in hysterical opposition to electoral reform

QUEENSLANDERS have nothing to fear from an expanded parliament or compulsory preferential voting. It’s the four year terms with no upper house that will become the nightmare.

HOUSE RULES: Neither increasing the number of MPs nor compulsory preferential voting is to be feared by voters. Picture: Liam Kidston

THERE was so much overheated hypocrisy coming out of George Street last week that Queensland could have begun a new export industry in hot air.

Both Labor and the LNP were wrong in their hysterical opposition to each other’s proposals for much-needed electoral reform.

The first to suffer was the LNP’s modest Bill to expand the Parliament to 93 seats. Because Queensland’s population has doubled since 1985, our access to local MPs has effectively halved. Even with 93 MPs, Queensland will still have 51,000 people to each member, compared with 45,000 for each Victorian MP.

But that didn’t prevent Labor from playing on voters’ silly cynicism towards pollies. I never tire of hearing anti-authority yokels demanding fewer MPs, unaware of the irony of concentrating political power in fewer hands.

The first to suffer was the LNP’s modest bill to expand the Parliament to 93 seats. Labor played on voters’ silly cynicism towards pollies. Above, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk. Picture: Jono Searle

But the LNP behaved no better. While Labor was wrong to attach compulsory preferential voting (CPV) to the LNP’s Bill — 18 minutes’ notice to Queensland undermines promises of consultative government — the LNP has been annoying in its apoplexy. We have nothing to fear from a CPV system that ensures minor party and independent voters get a full say via preferences.

That’s why numbering every square on a ballot paper (as we’ve done for all federal House of Reps elections since 1918, and as we did in Queensland between 1962 and 1991) hardly warrants such descriptions as the “most disingenuous act of corruption and bastardry”, or “creating Labor’s very own gerrymander”, or turning our back on the Fitzgerald principles.

What nonsense. Optional preferential voting (OPV) was never a Fitzgerald recommendation, but one born from the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission and passed, like any other reform, by an Act of Parliament under the Goss government. And, like any Act, it can be repealed by the Parliament without referendum.

But the LNP behaved no better. While Labor was wrong to attach compulsory preferential voting (CPV) to the LNP’s bill — 18 minutes’ notice to Queensland undermines promises of consultative government — the LNP has been annoying in its apoplexy. Above, LNP leader Lawrence Springborg. Picture: Steve Pohlner

It’s true Labor should enjoy an advantage from CPV via second preferences from Greens voters who previously “just voted one”, but that benefit is never guaranteed. If the Greens, as they’ve done before, spit the environmental dummy at Labor and direct preferences away — or if voters ignore how-to-vote cards and number ballot papers in other ways — that advantage is lost.

Nor will the LNP be as disadvantaged as it believes. While it’s true the Newman government would have survived in 2015 had more electors “just voted one”, it’s equally true the previously separate Libs and Nats were brutalised by OPV. Remember Peter Beattie’s 2001 landslide of 66 seats after a “just vote one” campaign? If — or rather when — the LNP sees its support cleaved in the regions by the next rural populist party, it will be very grateful for CPV.

That’s why I can’t help but recall Coalition MPs around the 1998 Mulgrave by-election describing OPV as “a bit of a mongrel dog”. Had One Nation voters passed on preferences, the Coalition would have won that by-election and Beattie would not have formed majority government.

Numbering every square on a ballot paper (as we’ve done for all federal House of Reps elections since 1918, and as we did in Queensland between 1962 and 1991) hardly warrants such descriptions as the “most disingenuous act of corruption and bastardry”.

The truth is that Labor last week returned us to CPV because it saw a partisan advantage, just as the LNP mooted voluntary voting in 2013 because of its own perceived advantage. Who would have thought politicians would act “politically”?

The real issue is how OPV, where huge numbers of “one only” ballot papers produces a de facto “first past the post” system, distorts election outcomes and, therefore, the public will.

If, for example, no voter passed on preferences in a field of 11 candidates, it’s possible for one candidate to win on just 10 per cent of the vote, leaving 90 per cent of electors unhappily disenfranchised.

Under CPV, we can at least be assured most of the people are satisfied all of the time. That was approximately the case in 1992, when CPV was still used by just 77 per cent of Queenslanders. At that election Labor attracted 54 per cent of the after-preference vote and won 60 per cent of Parliament’s seats, while the Coalition scored 46 per cent of the vote and won 40 per cent of the seats.

Compare that to 2012 when 70 per cent used OPV and allowed the LNP, with 63 per cent of the vote, to win almost 90 per cent of the seats and Labor, with 37 per cent support, to win just 8 per cent.

The Gallagher Index — which is a measure of disproportionality between votes and seats that, ideally, and should be as close to 1.00 as possible — blew out to 31.16.

Queenslanders have nothing to fear from an expanded parliament or CPV. It’s the four-year terms with no upper house that will become the nightmare.

Dr Paul Williams is a senior lecturer at Griffith University’s School of Humanities.

Twitter: @PDWilliams1