Hon. Jim McGinty [1949

ONE VOTE ONE VALUE ACT 2005

Electoral reform legislation was signed into law by the State Governor on Monday 23rd May, 2005. This meant that beginning with the State election [due February 2009 but held 6th Sept 2008], most voters in WA voted in electorates of equal enrolment for the Legislative Assembly (LA), where the Government is formed. This is a great achievement for the people of Western Australia, the Gallop Labor Government, and especially for the Attorney General, Jim McGinty. After many years of struggling with the Upper House and losing legal battles, Jim McGinty gained the vote of an Independent [formerly Liberal], Hon Alan Cadby, and together with the Greens, guided through this significant reform.

Second reading speech by Hon J.A. McGinty (Minister for Electoral Affairs), See Hansard of WA Parliament, 30th March, pp 61, 266

Electoral Amendment Act 2005

Table 1 compares structural outlines
Table 2 provides enrolment comparisons between the old and the new electoral system for the State Parliament

• 57 districts
• The State is divided into 2 electoral zones by the Metropolitan Region Scheme Boundary
• The law requires 34 districts in the Metropolitan Area which means an average enrolment of approximately 27,500
• The law requires 23 country districts which means an average enrolment of approximately 14,000
• A redistribution would occur 1 year after every 2nd general election and set enrolments within 15% above or below the average in each zone

• 59 districts
• Instead of 2 electoral zones an average district enrolment will be calculated for the whole State of approximately 21,350 *.
• Some districts will exceed 100,000 square kms in area in which case at the time of a redistribution a number equal to 1.5% of their area will be added to artificially increase the number of electors so that the total may fall within a tolerance from 20% below to 10% above the State average district enrolment. This could reduce the enrolment in 5 districts by approximately 34,000.
• A redistribution will occur 2 years after every general election and will set the enrolment for most districts within 10% above or below the average district enrolment. [initial boundaries prepared in first half of 2007]

• 34 Members
• The State is divided into the same 2 electoral zones which apply for the Assembly and each zone is represented by 17 Members
• There are 3 regions in the country zone. Mining & Pastoral elects 5, Agricultural elects 5 and South West elects 7 Members
• There are 3 regions in the metropolitan zone. South Metropolitan elects 5, East Metropolitan elects 5 & North Metropolitan elects 7

• 36 Members
• The State is divided into 2 electoral zones and the boundary between them will be generally co-extensive with the Metropolitan Region Scheme Boundary
• There will be 3 country and 3 metropolitan regions with no change to the names of the regions
• Each of the 6 regions will elect 6 Members

• Law about the creation of electoral boundaries was in a separate Act - the Electoral Distribution Act

• The Electoral Distribution Act is repealed and the creation of electoral boundaries is now consolidated with other electoral law in the Electoral Act.

Table 2 - 2005 reform

Comparison between the old and the new electoral system

Malapportionment among enrolments in the new regions for Legislative Council elections show imbalances as large as those in the system being replaced but the boundaries of the old system have existed since 1998. Growth in enrolments has accumulated significant distortions in the old regions and this effect is likely to continue.

Comparison

Old

New

Legislative
Assembly [LA]

Legislative
Council [LC]

New system - 2007

Two districts will be added to the LA to make 59 and two seats will be added to the Legislative Council (LC) to make 36. Inequalities in the previous system required country LA districts to have around 14,000 electors but city districts to have around 27,500 electors. Removal of most of these inequalities will lead to fewer districts in the country and additional districts in the metro area.

TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE BACK IN 2005

These reforms are by no means comprehensive. In regard to the LA, the Government was constrained by an election promise to preserve five districts in the Mining and Pastoral Region, covering most of the remote areas of the state. In the rules for redistribution of boundaries in some LA districts, square kilometres will be equated with electors, which will produce districts with well below average enrolment, some more than 9,000 electors below [See the tables below]. This means that one vote, one value is not applied in the Mining and Pastoral region. This takes the edge off reform and leaves ground for further reform.

The biggest problems are with the Legislative Council (LC), which remains unreformed and undemocratic. The Government was forced to conform to Greens policy regarding the LC, as the Greens made their model of the LC a condition of their support for reform. Consequently, there are serious compromises to principles of democratic representation in Parliament.

Firstly, the LC will continue to have extremes of vote weighting of more than 4 : 1 between metropolitan and rural voters. Under the previous system there were 17 MLCs representing 74% of electors in metropolitan regions, and 17 MLCs representing 26% of electors in country regions. It seems unconscionable to ignore such large inequalities, but that is what the new law does by the addition of one MLC to either side of the country/metro allocation to make it 18/18 (six regions, each with six members). This is a serious flaw, and does nothing to address the existing imbalance in representation.

The second flaw is no less serious, and has the potential to result in an inaccurate reflection of voters' wishes. In order to win a seat when six are to be elected by proportional representation from a region an MLC must obtain 14.3% of the vote. It will be highly unlikely for a party to win a majority (ie. four out of six members in a region) as they would have to obtain 57.2% of the vote. The problem lies with the even number of seats. Under proportional repsesentation the election of an uneven number of representatives from each region will more accurately reflect the votes cast, a principal which applied under the previous system. Under the system insisted on by the Greens it will be possible for 57% to vote for party A and 43% to vote for party B - a clear decision by voters - and yet each party would win three seats from that region. Thus, winning the vote may not translate into winning the election. [See note below about Senate elections]

Greens' electoral model flawed

In a media release on 26th April, 2005, the Greens Party called for support for their Electoral Reform Model for the LC. The Greens may call their model "country-friendly" but it is certainly not "people-friendly". The Greens seem to have forgotten that in a democracy, Parliament is about representing people, not acres, trees, or anything else. Those concepts belong to the 19th century, when only men with property could vote.

The Greens' model, now entrenched in legislation, sets up 6 regions each electing 6 members by proportional representation (PR). Three regions cover the metropolitan area which contains 935,539 electors, and the other three regions containing 324,126 electors cover the SW, Agricultural, and Mining and Pastoral areas. There is an imbalance of 2.88 : 1 between the average number of people represented by a metropolitan and a rural Member of the LC. In the worst case this imbalance is more than 4 : 1. This is significantly worse than the weighting in the compromise model for the LC proposed by the Government. The Government model proposed 3 regions of 7 members each for the metro area, and 3 regions of 5 for the rural areas. Adoption of this model would have reduced vote weighting and preserved the momentum for electoral reform in State Parliament.

Democracy begins by giving everyone a vote, but it is measured by how fairly those votes are counted. The Greens' model fails to reform the WA Parliament, and must be a huge disappointment to Greens supporters.

These are the difficulties and objections to their model:

1. By weighting votes in the LC, the Greens are ignoring a fundamental principle of democracy, and presumably their own policy, that all votes should have equal value. This is a basic human right, and all voting systems are judged by this criterion.
2. The basic premise for the Greens' model is a flawed policy they describe as "bio-regionalism". The Greens believe that extra representation for the rural regions will lead to better land care. This belief is naive and misguided. It springs from a romantic view that most ancient indigenous cultures cared for their land better. Studies have now shown that it was only low populations, lack of technology, and lack of markets that prevented over-exploitation in the past. Most people in rural WA are not indigenous, and have ready access to suitable technology and markets. Growth and exploitation of natural resources are the economic drivers in rural WA.
3. The policy of embedding "bio-regionalism" in the electoral system displaces good land care policy. It was city based voters who forced a change to the SW forest policy - the local timber industry fiercely opposed any reduction in timber harvesting. At Ningaloo it is the locals who oppose fish sanctuaries. These are just a few examples. Land care is a State wide issue and must be debated as such. Weighted representation for country people usually leads to pressure for more development at the expense of the natural environment.
4. The Greens' model gives vote weighting to people in rural areas, so that on every issue before Parliament, not just land care issues, these electors have more say. Thus issues like law reform, health, education, planning, community safety which affect the whole State are controlled by these weighted votes. This is patently unfair and distorts the democratic process.
5. The current LC regions do not match any biological/botanical boundaries in WA and will not in the future. The Mining and Pastoral Region, for example, covers a huge range of habitats and disparate environments from monsoonal rain forest to absolute desert. The LA districts, however, better reflect the individual bio-regions of WA, and thus give better representation to them.
6. The case for better natural resource management should be debated on its own merits, and not rely on electoral manipulation to win. Good policy comes out of open and inclusive debate. Everyone should feel they were part of the decision, taken on a fair vote. They will then be much more inclined to support the result.
7. The Greens' model views the LC as a house of review. In the WA Parliamentary system, the LC is much more than this. The LC can block a budget, bring down a Government, initiate legislation, and its members can be Ministers. It is the second stage of the legislative process with most of the powers of the LA, albeit with a more sedate approach.
8. The Greens' model is loosely based on the Australian Senate. This is another backward and misguided idea. The Senate was constructed more than 100 years ago to entice the States into Federation. Senators were supposed to represent States, but that idea quickly disappeared and political considerations now rule the Senate. The same has happened in the LC - land care issues will be decided along political lines. [See note below for why we elect 6 at each half Senate election]
9. One of the basic rules of a democratic electoral system is no distortion to over represent any particular group of voters. This is likely to generate outcomes unacceptable to the whole electorate. It opens up the potential for excessive weighting, and leaves out other groups that may also deserve special treatment by the Government. The Greens' model over represents non-metro voters; what about people on low incomes, or disabled people, or people with language difficulties, etc?
10. The Greens' model proposes 6 regions each with 6 members. In a PR system, the election of 6 members can lead to skewed results. One political group could achieve up to 57% of the vote in a region, but still only have 3 members elected. Using an uneven number of electors in a PR region is more likely to produce a fair result. Minor parties will need more than 14% of the vote to elect a member in their model - a difficult task.
11. The continued support for malapportionment by the Greens leaves it open for other parties to manipulate the boundaries for political advantage. The Greens cannot complain if, in the future, another party constructs another model for the LC which gives weighted votes to their supporters. In a regional PR system, the region boundaries should set by Electoral Commissioners, not by Parliament, and the regions should have an equal number of electors.
12. The Greens' weighted vote model contains a metro/rural boundary where electors can lose voting power if they shift to another house. This is both ludicrous and unfair.

The opportunity to reform the WA Parliament does not come very often - the last significant reform was in 1987 by a Labor Government and it lead to representation in the LC for the Democrats and the Greens. And we still have a long way to go. It is critical that each step forward be guided by democratic principles, and that all steps lead to a better Parliament. The Greens' weighted vote model for the LC is a step backward for electoral reform in WA.

System prior to 2005 - the reasons for reform
Over and under representation in State Parliament

Enrolments in the old system. This structure applied from the 1987 reform until the election held on 6th Sept 2008.

REPRESENTATION IN STATE PARLIAMENT 26th Feb 2007

• The 29 districts with the lowest enrolments elect 29 out of 57 Members, so they therefore can control the Legislative Assembly. They contain only 37.7% of electors.
• The Assembly district with the highest enrolment contains 3.0 times as many electors as the district with the lowest enrolment.
• The two Assembly districts with the lowest enrolments together contain 12,577 fewer electors than the single district with the highest enrolment.
• The three Legislative Council regions with the lowest enrolments elect 17 out of the 34 Councillors which means they can veto any matter. They contain only 25.7% of electors.
• One region contains 4.3 times as many electors per Member as the region with the lowest enrolment per Member.
• Among the other 5 State and 2 Territory Parliaments in Australia the principle of equal representation is applied in drawing electoral boundaries, the only exception being in 5 of the 89 districts for the Queensland Assembly.