Hot air fuels case for new voting system
Sydney Morning Herald November 12, 2004
Beware any government in total control of both houses of Parliament, warns Mungo MacCallum.
It was a headline to chill the blood of any true conservative, let alone any true democrat: "Howard secures total control." As it turned out it did not mean that our mild-mannered Prime Minister had metamorphosed into a totalitarian Big Brother, merely that the Coalition had a majority in both houses of Parliament. But given the possible consequences of such a development, this is not much comfort.
What it does mean is that not only is there now no legislative impediment to Howard remaking the country in his image, but that he is in a position to guarantee himself unlimited time to do so. The Coalition is in control not only of the agenda, but of much of the machinery as well.
Because very little of the system of government is actually spelled out in the constitution, there is now nothing to stop him from changing it to give himself a huge and permanent electoral advantage. And there are precedents.
The best example comes from 56 years ago, when Labor last had control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In those days that was not uncommon, because the Senate was elected not by the proportional representation system we have today, but by a method much closer to winner takes all. But because only half the senators went to the polls at every House of Representatives election, governments could and sometimes did find themselves facing a hostile upper house.
In 1948 Labor's brilliant eccentric Bert Evatt took to the prime minister, Ben Chifley, a plan for proportional representation, which he said would guarantee Labor a permanent Senate majority. Chifley, impressed, put the necessary legislation through both houses.
But it turned out that Evatt's talents did not include arithmetic: Labor promptly lost control of the Senate, and has never looked like regaining it since. Indeed, such control has become a rarity for either side.
Howard could, of course, simply reverse Chifley's legislation. This would immediately eliminate the minor parties, a development which could be tacitly welcomed by Labor, which has generally opposed the power of the Senate in any case. It was Paul Keating who referred to its occupants as "unrepresentative swill".
But the signs are that the Government is playing for higher stakes: the introduction of voluntary voting for both houses. Parliament's best-known saver of rodent arses, Senator George Brandis, has joined long-time advocate Senator Nick Minchin in pushing the move as a matter of principle.
But in practice the principle seems to have more to do with self-interest than ethics. Even the most laissez-faire regimes involve some obligations, and not just the nasty ones like taxation.
For example, in Australia education is compulsory, and no one complains about that. Indeed, the right to universal free education was almost as hard-won as the right to universal franchise, and is similarly best protected by compulsion.
And really the obligation to turn up at the polling booth - not even to vote - is a very small burden on the citizen. In a normal lifetime, voting in all federal, state and local government elections would involve the loss of about one single day - hardly an insupportable price to pay for the privilege of living in a democracy.
The penalty for failure is a small and rarely enforced fine. For a Government which still locks up children behind razor wire, the claim that compulsory voting represents some kind of unacceptable state tyranny smacks more of humbug than of principle.
The other argument regularly put by proponents of the voluntary system is that it produces a more intelligent and informed outcome than does compulsion: the ignorant and the apathetic will stay away, and those really concerned about politics will run the place, which is as it should be. Apart from the naked appeal to elitism in this argument (should voters have to pass some kind of examination, as once they had to own property, in order to qualify?), it fails on logical grounds.
Voluntary voting encourages the drop-out mentality; those who already feel impotent and alienated will not bother, leaving the field to the enthusiasts and zealots: the well-organised groups fanatical about abolishing land tax, or the right to own firearms, or imposing their religious views on the population at large.
Voluntary voting can all too easily hand over the country to extremists; compulsory voting guarantees at least a level of moderation. And does a comparison of Australia with countries in which voting is voluntary really indicate that our decision-making is seriously inferior?
Finally, there is the sheer question of waste. In a voluntary system huge amounts of time, money and energy, which can be better devoted to developing and promoting policy, are diverted just to persuading people to turn up. Debates about the actual merits of competing proposals become a secondary consideration.
Believe me, I know: in 1964 I worked in a campaign in England, and the only thing potential voters wanted to know was whether they could get a lift to the polling booth, and if they would be rewarded with tea and biscuits there. If the other side offered a nicer car and threw in a hot scone, voting intention changed on the spot.
And this was meant to produce a more intelligent and considered result? Of course not; but that wasn't the point. What it did produce was a comfortable bias in favour of the Tories.
In those days, wet weather alone was considered worth a swing of 10 per cent against Labour, simply because the Conservatives were more likely to have their own transport. Obviously in Australia today the advantage would be far less, but the best estimates put it at between 3 per cent and 5 per cent. In a country where elections are regularly won and lost by a margin of less than 2 per cent, this is definitely worth having. And this, of course, is the reason why it is always the conservatives, never Labor, who argue for the change - from the highest possible motives, naturally.
Howard has indicated that he will be cautious; he accepts that there are many on his side, genuine conservatives, who do not like the idea of tampering with a system which has, after all, delivered them government far more often than not. However Howard has done nothing to stop Minchin, Brandis and others from starting the softening-up process.
If Howard does decide to go ahead, there will be little the Opposition can do to stop him. But the rest of us should be alert and alarmed. And if you hear the word 'principle', reach for your pooper-scooper.