Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Home loans made clear

Independents to be disadvantaged by ACT Electoral Changes

By Antony Green 28 March 2008 31

(This was originally posted in full on my ABC website (http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/) but I think it is of most interest to Canberrans.)

At the 2004 election, the Stanhope Labor government became the first ACT administration to be elected with a majority, winning nine of the 17 seats in the Legislative Assembly. As a result, the Stanhope government is the first in the ACT’s history to be able to pass legislation without having to compromise on amendments put up by the Opposition or the Assembly cross-benchers.

One bill where this will be important is the Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill, introduced in August 2007. This bill, soon to be debated in the Assembly, includes a provision to change the way non-party candidates appear on the ballot paper. If passed it will become harder for Independents to be elected to the ACT Legislative Assembly.

The Hare-Clark electoral system has many similarities to the Senate, the main difference being a ballot paper that is designed to weaken the power of parties to determine who is elected. Like the Senate, candidates appear on the ballot paper grouped in columns, but there is no group ticket or ‘above the line’ voting. A special printing process is also used to vary the order candidates appear within groups on each ballot paper. This removes the advantage of appearing first on a party ticket by spreading straight party votes across all candidates in a group. The ACT also bars the distribution of how-to-vote material outside polling places, another measure that weakens a party’s ability to determine which of its candidates are elected.

Like every other state and territory, the ACT has a system of registered parties, registration requiring a party to prove it has 100 members. There are currently five registered parties, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the ACT Greens, as well as two minor parties in the libertarian Liberal Democratic Party, and Free Range Canberra, a party that campaigns against battery hen farming. The Australian Democrats were de-registered in September 2007, and new parties have until 30 June this year to lodge a registration for the 2008 election.

Registered parties establish their support in the electorate by proving their membership, and are granted the right to put forward the names of candidates without the need for nominators. Independents must lodge their nomination with the names of 20 nominators. Once nominated, two or more candidates are currently allowed to inform the Electoral Commissioner that they wish to be grouped on the ballot.

The proposed changes remove the provision that allows Independents to be grouped on the ballot paper. The Stanhope government attempted to make the same change in 2003, but then lacking an Assembly majority, it was blocked by the opposition and minor parties.

A similar provision was implemented in the Tasmanian Electoral Act before the 2006 Tasmanian election. However, the Tasmanian change was more democratic than the ACT proposal, as it simply applied a tougher test for grouping rather than totally remove the right.

Like the ACT, the Tasmanian Electoral Act requires parties to have 100 members for registration. Only 10 nominators are required for an Independent to nominate, and any Independent putting themselves forward with only 10 nominators will appear in the ungrouped column.

However, one or more Tasmanian Independents can have access to their own column on the ballot paper by applying for grouping, backed by 100 nominators. In effect an Independent, or group of Independents, can have their own group by proving a level of nomination support equal to the membership support required to register a political party.

This is where the proposed ACT electoral changes will disadvantage Independents. Unless Independents lodge a registration for political party status by 30 June this year, they will be forced to appear in the ungrouped column of the ballot paper with all other Independents.

Election from the Ungrouped column is possible, as was shown by Paul Osborne’s election at the 1995 ACT election. (How-to-vote material was still allowed in 1995.) The last occasion in Tasmania where an ungrouped candidate was elected was in 1959, and I am not aware of an Ungrouped candidate ever being elected to the Senate or to any state Legislative Council.

For Independents to receive the same rights as parties in accessing their own group, it seems appropriate that a higher test of support be applied, as is done in Tasmania. Simply grouping all Independents together, whatever their political persuasion or level of support, is unfair to Independents, but above all, deprives voters of ballot paper prompts on like-minded Independent candidates.

The approach adopted by the Stanhope government appears to be an attempt to make it harder for Independents to be elected. A fairer approach would be that adopted by Tasmania, setting a higher hurdle rather than banning like-minded Independents from appearing together on the ballot paper.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
31 Responses to
Independents to be disadvantaged by ACT Electoral Changes
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
amarooresident 2:41 pm 09 May 08

Council style government has it’s flaws to. You only have to read the papers to know that there are many disfunctional councils around the place.

Gungahlin Al 1:43 pm 09 May 08

Well it has happened. The ACT ALP has passed laws to make it harder for independents to run for government in the ACT, as reported by ABC.

A very disappointing move by Stanhope’s government, and makes it clear where he thinks his biggest threats will be coming from at the election in October – not the Liberals, but independents. It seems clear that he knows that he’ll be back in government, with the only question being whether he continues with a rubber-stamp majority or whether he has a minority and has to negotiate everything.

A sad day for the ACT, in my opinion, and a blow to what was one of the fairest electoral systems in the country.

Headbonius 9:51 pm 06 Apr 08

What about Deb Foskey? Damn you all to hell.

ant 10:52 am 06 Apr 08

caf said :

Gungahlin Al: Your “group of like minded independents” is dangerously close to benevolent dictatorship – with everyone inside the tent, it’s far too easy to get away with poor decisions and cockups.

Possibly. The local council model would be better, with everyone in it charged with running the city/shire. The council in my area is a bit of a mish-mash, but individucal councillors will stand up and make statements about things they disagree with, or think should be known by all. Even if several councillors collude on things, others will publicise it.

CanberraGreen 11:42 pm 05 Apr 08

A great post and an interesting conversation. Just wanted to express my appreciation.

caf 11:17 am 04 Apr 08

Gungahlin Al: The Government is not the Legislature. The Government is the Executive branch (Ministers and the bureauocracy under them) that performs the day-to-day work of running the place, like signing the cheques and contracts, and administering the laws.

So the people didn’t elect anyone directly to the Goverment – they elected representatives to the Legislature, and the Legislature then appointed a Government.

Additionally, the “adversarial situation” as you put it is quite possible the essential foundation of the Westminster system. It may not be perfect, but it certainly has a good batting average as far as good government goes. The structure of Government vs Opposition (together with a strong media) provides for oversight, to keep the Government honest. Your “group of like minded independents” is dangerously close to benevolent dictatorship – with everyone inside the tent, it’s far too easy to get away with poor decisions and cockups.

Gungahlin Al 6:29 pm 03 Apr 08

Given that independents can be a good thing, and serve many local governments well around the country, perhaps it should be called something like the “We promise to disband our party the day after the election party”. (There must be a better way of saying that…)

Then everyone can get on with being independents and keeping the minority ALP government honest (because it seems to me virtually certain that the government will be ALP – just a case of whether Canberra gives them the free rein of a majority again…?).
_________________________

You know it really bugs me that we call the party from which the Chief Minister (or Prime Minister for that matter) the “Government”. This embedding of the adversarial situation is the antithesis of good government (IMHO). And by definition, all the other people are therefore not the Government. But hang on – the people elected *them* to the government as well.

Having served as a Councillor in one of the country’s biggest and fastest-growing local governments, I’ve seen how a group of independents can work together to improve things. You don’t always agree on individual issues – nor should you. But it is the issue that is at debate – not the person or their party. And you can all sit down after a “vigorous” debate and have lunch, how’re your kids stuff together.

The adversarial situation makes it all about us/them, with the issue a mere side-note. A brief perusal of some Hansard quickly shows you how poorly *that* serves the ACT community!

All aided and abetted by a media built on winner-take-all-contests.

The ACT could and should have the best form of government in this country. Antony has brought our attention to a potential threat. Perhaps it could be the “Antony Green Group of Like-minded Individuals”?

Antony Green 4:41 pm 03 Apr 08

To get around the rule, any Independent who wants to run will have to get their friends together and get 100 of them to agree to a constitution and become members of a party. If Josephine Bloggs wants to run, she can have a party name like the ‘Josephine Bloggs Group’, or you can go for a generic feelgood name, like ‘Canberra First’ or the ‘Living Canberra team’.

It effectively flushes out Independent challengers early, because they have to announce they are running by registering a party before 30 June.

The new rule means that if it is true that some group like the Canberra Business Club wants to support Independents, they will have to register some sort of party, or all their supported candidates will end up with the flotsam and jetsam in the Ungrouped column.

Jazz 4:33 pm 03 Apr 08

beasley said :

Speaking of bygone Independants – did anyone see that photo of Dave Rugendyke (former running mate to Osbourne) on the back page of the Canberra Times last week? I assume from his beard length that he hasn’t touched it since losing his seat. Would make a great Santa.

Actually i understand that Dave Rugendyke does indeed dress up as santa every year and give out presents to underprivileged children. He and his wife have fostered heaps and heaps of kids.

caf 4:01 pm 03 Apr 08

S4anta: yes, comment #3 outlined how this can and has been done.

S4anta 3:40 pm 03 Apr 08

Is there a way of circumventing this by all independants taking a Co-operative approach, similar to the buying power the IGA (Independant Grocer’s Assoc.) has when it comes to buying power versus Coles and Safeway?

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site