While there has been a lot of focus on the impending referendum to create the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice at the federal level, South Australia is on track to legislate a similar body on a shorter time frame.
A Voice by its nature is a political institution where individuals are chosen to express political views – whether directly or indirectly elected, and whether these representatives are chosen by individual voters or community groups, at some point there is an element of electoral system design that comes into play.
There are plenty of legitimate options to consider when designing such an institution, and we should also acknowledge that this is a new concept being developed – I think there will be space for trying things and then changing them up as we get more experience. But I still think there are lines that shouldn’t be crossed, and things that should be avoided.
I had my attention drawn to the draft legislation that apparently will be introduced to the SA Parliament tomorrow, which features the use of first-past-the-post to elect local Voice representatives. They really need to fix this before the legislation is passed.
The state Voice will be made up of two representatives each from a number of local voices (at first, six), but those local voices will be directly elected by enrolled electors who have declared their eligibility to vote in Voice elections.
The legislation specifies that first-past-the-post will be used to elect these representatives.
I don’t understand why this would be proposed. We have a perfectly good electoral system that can be used for either single-member or multi-member elections, using preferential voting.
I don’t know if this system has been chosen because of a concern about the complexity of preferential voting, but Australian voters have been trained to use these systems.
I do wonder whether part of the motivation is a judgement that it’s not worth the trouble of using a fairer voting system. I disagree – a fair voting system shouldn’t just be for parliamentary elections.
The legislation assigns responsibility for conducting Voice elections to the Commission. If they’re going to run public elections for this institution, they should do it properly.
I’m also concerned about the use of single-member electorates for the SA Voice. The state and local voices are designed to be gender-balanced, with each local voice sending one man and one woman to the state body. I’m all for assuring gender balance, but I think electing one person at a time will inevitably reduce diversity of opinions within the new body. On the other hand, if each body were to send 3-5 representatives to a state Voice, that would allow for more of a range of different opinions from that local area. A 12-member state Voice is quite small, so there is room to make it larger.
We know from political science that electing larger assemblies, and electing them from higher-magnitude electorates, results in more diversity of representation. While this is normally measured through the mechanism of political parties, I think it is true even in the absence of parties. If a local Voice can only choose two representatives, minority views within that local Voice likely won’t reach the state Voice. But electing five representatives probably does provide that space.
The legislation does not make it clear what electorates will be used to elect the local Voices, but the legislation does imply that they will be 2-member electorates, with the top-polling man and top-polling woman being elected.
It would be administratively easier to elect these local Voices at large, or at least electing them from a smaller number of larger electorates. This would allow for a group of members to be elected proportionally.
We don’t have a lot of examples of affirmative action being used in this way in public elections in Australia, but I think it would be easier and smoother to apply AA in larger multi-member electorates. If an electorate was choosing 4 members, and two needed to be women, you need only promote women if they don’t achieve quotas, which may well be possible (particularly as AA will encourage more women to nominate).
I’m aware that this SA Voice model has quite a lot in common with one of the proposed models for the federal Voice. There will be a time to discuss those models as well, but for now this post is just about South Australia. Their legislation is coming up now, so this is the time for them to change direction – throw out first-past-the-post, and use larger electorates to allow for minority representation to flow through to higher levels.
Finally, there are a few other issues with the legislation that should also be dealt with. Psephological tweeter Bianca has a thread about the legislation. I don’t agree with every criticism, but in particular I’m concerned about holding the elections simultaneously with state elections, and the fact that there is no attempt to draw regions that are roughly equal in population.
Well said, Ben! When there was a public consultation, I sent in the following comments –
“The proposal for South Australia to have a First Nations Voice to the South Australian Parliament is a welcomed development.
Unfortunately some of the proposed procedures need to be challenged, particularly in Schedule 1 of the draft bill on rules of election.
11 (2) stipulates that the method of voting in an election is to be first-past-the-post. Why?
First-past-the-post is an archaic, unfair method that is now not often used in Australia, even in single-member electorates, and certainly not in multi-member electorates.
As I understand it, one of the proposed models has 5 regional electorates and one metropolitan electorate, with the 5 regional electorates each electing 3 men and 3 women, and the metropolitan electorate electing 5 men and 5 women.
If first-past-the-post elections are held with this model, there will be many who vote that will find their votes not counting, and the last few members being elected even though they received very little support.
As it is proposed that several members will be elected, there would be merit in considering using the same method as used to elect local government in South Australia.
This method is call the quota-preferential method of proportional representation, and can be easily used by most voters, including First Nations. It was also used previously for ATSIC elections.
I urge that consideration be given to replacing the proposal to use first-past-the-post with the quota-preferential method of proportional representation.
While appreciating that regions have been proposed in the community consultations, there would also be merit in limiting the number of regions, as regional boundaries mean there are artificial constraints, particularly in relation to community versus Country. Also with more regions there is the risk of not enough nominations for the positions available.
In the first instance, I ask that consideration be given to removing first-past-the-post. I would be willing to discuss further.
Deane Crabb
11 Yapinga Street
SOUTH PLYMPTON SA 5038
Mobile: 0419 799 166”
Another consideration may be turnout. Although the Vic First People’s Assembly uses preferential multi-member electorates or regions. The total turnout for first election was apparently only 7%, some 2000 votes out of 30,000 eligible, with some elected off less than 40 votes. Doesn’t appear so representative and seems there are a range of issues over why there was a lack of engagement by some. Enrolment looks a bit more demanding than normal for obvious reasons of eligibility, voting is also not compulsory. It has 21 elected positions and 11 reserved seats for recognised traditional owner groups. With a gender quota as well it seems and apparently voting age of 16.
You’ll be pleased to note that the Bill was amended to adopt STV instead.
Ben played a major part in getting this change.
Comments are closed.