RESEARCH PAPER SERIES, 2017–18 25 JANUARY 2018 The new Senate voting system and the 2016 election Dr Damon Muller Politics and Public Administration Section Executive summary • In 2016 the Senate voting system was changed to remove the use of group voting tickets; and to require voters to allocate six or more preferences above the line or twelve or more below the line on the ballot paper. The 2016 federal election—a double dissolution election—was the first to be conducted under the new system. • The change resulted from recommendations from an inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the 2013 federal election, largely in response to the number of candidates being elected to the Senate from small and unknown parties on very low first preference votes. However, the changes were only legislated late in the parliamentary term, not long before the double dissolution election was held. • A High Court challenge was launched almost immediately in response to the changes to the Senate voting system; however, the Court rapidly and comprehensively dismissed the case. • When it was introduced, the new Senate voting system was criticised for a number of perceived problems, including that most voters would continue to vote 1 above the line; that the informality rate would be high; that many more votes would exhaust and not be counted; and that small parties would have no chance of election. • None of these anticipated problems presented in the course of the 2016 election. Voters quickly adapted to the new system; informal voting rose only a small amount; and that the Australian Electoral Commission was able to implement the new system and count the votes with no major issues eventuating. • The changes did not arrest the trend of fewer voters giving their first preferences to the major political parties in the Senate election. However, many of those who gave their first preference to minor parties also preferenced one of the major parties with their second and third preferences. While the 2016 Senate election resulted in a record crossbench, much of this is attributable to the reduced quota due to the double dissolution. Yet even under a normal half-Senate election, a number of minor party Senators would have been elected. • Analysis shows that Australian voters’ use of above-the-line Senate preferences was complex; was not always along party lines; and, in many cases, was not consistent with the first preference party’s how-to-vote recommendations. ISSN 2203-5249 Contents Executive summary ..................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 4 A brief history of Senate electoral system reform ......................................... 4 The single transferable vote system ................................................................... 4 Introduction of group voting tickets in 1983 ...................................................... 4 The vote count in Senate elections and the 2016 reforms ................................ 5 Disproportionate Senate election results ........................................................ 6 The inquiry into the 2013 Senate election ....................................................... 7 Legislating the changes .................................................................................... 8 The High Court challenge ............................................................................. 9 How the new Senate voting system works................................................... 10 How well did it work at the 2016 election? .................................................. 11 Above-the-line voting ....................................................................................... 12 Use of preferences ........................................................................................... 13 Vote exhaustion ................................................................................................ 14 Informal votes .................................................................................................. 15 Senate composition and smaller parties .......................................................... 17 Proportionality.................................................................................................. 21 Public response to the changes ........................................................................ 24 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 24 Appendix A: Analysis of voter Senate preference choice .............................. 25 Preferencing of established parties .................................................................. 25 Graphic analysis of above-the-line preference flows, state by state ............... 26 New South Wales ........................................................................................... 26 Victoria ........................................................................................................... 28 Queensland .................................................................................................... 30 South Australia ............................................................................................... 32 Western Australia ........................................................................................... 34 Tasmania ........................................................................................................ 36 Appendix B: Political party abbreviations .................................................... 38 Figures Figure 1: Senate ballot paper structure .............................................................. 10 Figure 2: How above the line preferences are counted on the Senate ballot paper ................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3: Above-the-line voting at Senate elections, 1990–2016....................... 12 Figure 4: Unique parties contesting recent federal elections ............................ 20 Figure 5: Candidates and groups on the NSW Senate ballot paper in recent elections.............................................................................................................. 21 Figure 6: Proportion of votes and seats won in the Senate by party/group ...... 21 The new Senate voting system and the 2016 election 2 Figure 7: Combined share of seats and votes of the ALP and Coalition, 1987– 2016 .................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 8: Party share of first preference Senate vote, 1987–2016 ..................... 23 Figure 9: Share of Senate seats won, 1987–2016 ............................................... 23 Tables Table 1: Use of above- and below-the-line voting by state ................................ 13 Table 2: Use of preferences above the line as a proportion of votes above the line ...................................................................................................................... 13 Table 3: Senate ballot paper informality in 2016 compared to 2013, percentage of total vote ........................................................................................................ 16 Table 4: Types of Senate ballot paper informality in 2016 ................................. 17 Table 5: Percentage of first preference Senate vote by party/group ................. 18 Table 6: Senators elected by party under the statutory recount ....................... 18 All hyperlinks in this paper were correct as at January 2018. The new Senate voting system and the 2016 election 3 Introduction In 2016, following a long and sometimes acrimonious debate in the Senate, the largest reform to Australia’s federal voting system in more than three decades became law. Despite the haste with which it was introduced and passed through the Parliament, the reform was a response to address flaws in the Senate voting system that became apparent over the previous decade and had been the subject of considerable deliberation. This research paper outlines the recent history of Senate electoral reform in federal elections, including examining the reasons for the most recent changes to the Senate voting system. It describes how the new system works, and analyses the characteristics of its operation in the 2016 federal election before exploring how well it worked in practice. It concludes that Australian voters adapted well to the additional complexity of the new ballot paper; that the election results were generally more proportional in respect to the vote; and that—so far, at least—the reform appears to have been successful in terms of aims and implementation. A brief history of Senate electoral system reform The 2013 Senate election was notable both for the overturned result in Western Australia (WA) due to lost ballot papers, and for the number of previously unknown candidates from small parties who were elected on very small primary votes. Both of these issues received considerable attention from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) in its inquiry into the 2013 federal election. In 2016, it was the latter issue that resulted in the most significant change to Australian federal elections in more than 30 years. The single transferable vote system Since 1949, the Senate has used an electoral system known as proportional representation