Proportional Representation Society of Australia www.prsa.org.au Page 2 of 3 Proposed Changes to Tasmanian Councils’ Electoral Basis
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA (VICTORIA-TASMANIA) INC.
/Tel. +61395891802
/ /18 Anita Street
Mobile +61429176725 / /BEAUMARIS VIC 3193
A0048538N Victoria / / ABN 31 010 090 247 / www.prsa.org.au2012-10-31
Comments on Proposed Changes to Local Government Electoral Arrangements in Tasmania
Proportional Representation Society of Australia (Victoria-Tasmania) Inc. appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Government’s Discussion Paper on the above proposals.
Although PRSAV-T Inc. supports Points 1 and 3 below, but does not support Point 2, those points are not ones that comment is sought on, as the Government intends to maintain, for municipal elections:
- their conduct by the Tasmanian Electoral Commission,
- the direct election of mayors by the whole municipal district, and
- the use of the Hare-Clark system.
PRSAV-T Inc. considers that most of the electoral provisions for Tasmania’s local government elections are distinctly superior to the corresponding provisions in Victorian local government, which is possibly explained by Tasmania’s having used its excellent Hare-Clark system for its House of Assembly for the past 103 years, and for all of its municipal councils for the past 19 years, whereas Victoria adopted, only 9 years ago, much of that system, but not all of it, later than any Australian State other than Queensland.
Councillors’ terms should be Concurrent rather than Staggered:
PRSAV-T Inc. considers the only exception to Tasmania’s general superiority in municipal electoral arrangements is its requirement that councillors’ terms are staggered rather than concurrent.
Staggered council terms originally arose in the United Kingdom as a means to ameliorate one of the ill-effects of winner-take-all electoral systems at general elections, which is the distinct possibility of a “clean sweep” of all incumbent councillors as a result of a quite small change in electoral support at a particular general election. Such a “clean sweep” is a real prospect if a small change in electoral sentiment were to affect a municipal-wide electoral district that used winner-take-all counting, albeit using transferable votes, as applied until recently for municipal polls in the Northern Territory, and certain such polls in Victoria and New South Wales.
That counting system had operated for Senate polls from 1919-48, until PR replaced it. The staggered terms for the Senate in the 1900 Australian Constitution were deliberately provided for to reduce the drastic effect of the winner-take-all swings in membership that such Upper Houses were protected from. That awareness led to the rotational elections for Tasmania’s Legislative Council, and the United States Senate, as had been embodied in the 1788 US Constitution, as both those bodies were, and are still, elected using winner-take-all electoral systems, even though the former is a preferential system.
However, since 1993, all Tasmanian councils have been elected using the Hare-Clark electoral system, which is a proportional representation system, so the introduction of staggered terms then in the form of alternating terms was not necessary for the above reasons. Since then, reasons for not having staggered terms have become more apparent. Two significant reasons for not having the present system of alternating terms are based on:
· the concept of parity in the electoral arrangements for all elected representatives, and
· the need to avoid a predisposition to stalemate being institutionalized by ensuring majority representation at every poll.
Parity and Stalemates - Proportional Representation works best with an Odd number of vacancies:
Parity among representatives, in so far as their electoral arrangements are concerned, is highly desirable. It is greatly preferable to the present institutionalized disparity, where different councillors can be elected by different percentage quotas, depending on which of the alternating polls they happen to contest.
Tasmania presently has twelve 12-member Councils, fifteen 9-member Councils and one 7-member Council. With the present system of alternating terms, the democratic standards of a Council whose total number of members is an odd number - which is desirable for avoiding stalemated voting scenarios in the Council chamber - are impaired by there not being the same number of seats to be filled at each successive election, so that councillors in one batch are elected with a larger quota than those in the other.
This anomaly is compounded by the fact that the batch that is an even number can be returned with a stalemate outcome in terms of balance of major groups on the Council, which leaves a lop-sided arrangement where the more decisive election in the electoral cycle is generally the alternate election, where an odd number of positions being filled is more likely to decide any narrow balance of power issue.
Dr George Howatt’s classic 1958 report to the Tasmanian Parliament, Democratic Representation under the Hare-Clark System, which led to the Parliament legislating to move from 6-MHA electoral districts to 7-MHA districts, stressed the inherent stalemate predisposition of a PR system electing an even number of representatives, rather than an odd number, as the latter, but not the former option, is intrinsically able to represent an absolute majority of voters by an absolute majority of representatives. That principle was observed in the later move from 7-MHA districts to 5-MHA districts, and should be observed if the Parliament decides to return to 7-MHA districts, as it has indicated would be desirable. The principle is just as important in local government elections, so it is desirable that an odd number of vacancies is available for any general or periodic election.
Odd and Even Nos. Alternating: At present, if the total number of members of a Council is an odd number – which has the virtue of avoiding a predisposition to stalemates being built into the whole Council – that number, when divided into two integers as close to each other in size as possible, produces one odd number and one even number (7-, and 9-member Councils and, potentially, 11-member Councils), so that disparity anomaly occurs, and the capacity for a stalemate is built into each alternate election, but not into the whole Council.
Even Nos. at Successive Polls: At present, if the total number of members of a Council is an even number that, when divided by two, produces even numbers (12-member Councils and, potentially, 8-member Councils), that disparity anomaly does not occur, but the capacity for a stalemate is built into each election, and into the whole Council.
Odd Nos. at Successive Polls: At present, if the total number of members of a Council is an even number that, when divided by two, produces odd numbers (10-member Councils), that disparity anomaly does not occur, but the capacity for a stalemate is still built into the whole Council.
PRSAV-T Inc. supports the proposed election of a whole council for a four-year term at one election, rather than the present system of elections for half, or as close to half as is practicable, of the positions on a Council every two years. The proposal it supports is called all-in-all-out (AIAO) in the discussion paper.
Casual Vacancies: Presently councillors that have filled vacancies at a recount (countback) election, which the PRSA supports, hold office only until the next biennial election, even if the vacating councillor’s term continues until the biennial election after that. This is the same practice that the original form of Section 15 of the Australian Constitution required for Senate casual vacancies until it was replaced by the new version of Section 15 that was approved at a 1977 referendum. The present practice in Tasmanian local government is akin to that prescribed by the pre-1977 version of Section 15, and could cause a vacancy to be filled by a person from a totally different background at the biennial election, and result in a different quota as an extra vacancy needs to be filled.
It could also result in vacancies being manipulated. In 1974 the Whitlam Government sought, unsuccessfully, as the manoeuvre was forestalled by the Bjelke-Petersen Government, to create an extra Senate vacancy in Queensland by creating a casual vacancy by appointing the DLP Leader, Senator Vince Gair, as Ambassador to Ireland. With an extra vacancy to be filled, with 6 rather than 5 senators, the lower quota and the stalemate scenario associated with a close vote for an even number of positions, the last position would almost certainly have been filled by a candidate favourable to the Whitlam Government.
It is inconsistent that a councillor elected to fill a vacancy at a by-election poll is able to serve until the end of his predecessor’s term, whereas that is not the case if that councillor had been elected by recount.
Tasmania’s requirement that Mayors be elected as a councillor maintains democratic PR balance:
Although PRSAV-T Inc. prefers a system in which Mayors and Deputy Mayors are elected by and from the elected councillors, as is consistent with the systems for appointing Premiers and Prime Ministers, it nevertheless applauds Tasmania’s recognition that these presiding officers must also be elected as ordinary councillors, in equal competition with all other contenders for positions on the Council. Most regrettably, that understanding is totally lacking in mainland Australia, where the democratic balance is distorted, and candidates’ options unnecessarily and foolishly restricted by a compartmentalization of the election of presiding officers and councillors. That distortion is greatest in the City of Melbourne.
Separate election of Deputy Mayor:
Should that office exist, which is only a position waiting in reserve, a little like the Vice-President of the United States, or the Prince of Wales, there seems no good case for it to be filled by other than the Council itself. It would be hoped that Tasmania’s general astuteness in electoral matters would lead it to avoid any thought of appointing a Deputy Mayor from the candidate that was runner-up in the Mayoral election, as that would amount to falling into the same trap as the framers of the US Constitution. Its original provisions for the election of the Vice-President followed that approach, but had to be abandoned in favour of the present separate arrangements in 1800.
Arrangements if wards are to be used:
Should a council be divided into wards, it is fair and straightforward if all wards had the same odd number of councillors, and the total number of wards should also be an odd number, to avoid stalemate problems.
Compliment to Tasmania vis a vis Victoria:
Tasmanian local government seems prudently to have avoided the “dummy candidate” problem that bedevils Victorian council polls by sensibly using partial optional preferential voting, and refraining from circulating candidates’ lists of recommended preference orders, which simply requires all major candidates to protect themselves by recruiting a spread of “dummies” to channel preferences. This is artificially inflating the number of candidates, and providing ammunition to critics of proportional representation.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
PRSAV-T Inc. makes the following recommendations:
· All councillors rather than approximately half of the council should be elected at one election (that is, AIAO) for a four-year term.
· Councils should always consist of an odd number of councillors.
· The Mayor if elected by the voters should continue to be required to also be elected as a councillor.
· The Deputy Mayor should not be elected by the voters, but if the position exists should be elected by councillors themselves.
· If it is determined that a council should be divided into wards all wards should return the same number of councillors and that number should be an odd number, and the number of wards should also be an odd number.
Geoffrey Goode
President
Proportional Representation Society of Australia (Victoria-Tasmania) Inc.