Fairness and Unfairness in South Australian Elections Glynn Evans Thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Arts Politics Department University of Adelaide July 2005 Table Of Contents Chapter I Fairness and Unfairness in South Australian Elections 1 Theoretical Framework of Thesis 4 Single-Member Constituencies and Preferential Voting 7 Chapter 2 The Importance of Electoral System 11 Electoral Systems and Parly Systems t7 Duverger's 'Law' Confirmed in South Australia l9 Chapter 3 South Australia Under Weighted Voting 22 Block Vote Methods Pre-1936 23 Preferential Voting 1938-197 5 32 The 1969 Changes 38 Comparative Study: Federal Elections 1949-197 7 42 Chapter 4 South Australia Under One Vote One Value 51 South Aushalian Elections 197 7 -1982 52 The 1985 and 1989 Elections 58 What the 1991 Report Said 60 Comparative Study: the 1989 Westem Australian Election 67 Comparative Study: the 1990 Federal Election 7l Chapter 5 The X'airness Clause Develops 75 Parliamentary Debates on the Faimess Clause 75 The 199 1 Redistribution Report 80 Changes to Country Seats 81 Changes to Mehopolitan Seats 83 What Happened at the 1993 Election 86 The 1994 Redistribution and the Sitting Member Factor 88 The 1997 Election 95 Chapter 6 The Fairness Clause Put to the Test 103 The 1998 Redistribution 103 The2002 Election 106 Peter Lewis and the Court of Disputed Returns Cases 110 Chapter 7 Other Ways of Achieving Fairness Itg Hare-Clark t23 Mixed Systems: MMP and Parallel 13s New Zealand under MMP 136 Parallel Systems t45 Optional Preferential Voting t47 First Past the Post 150 DeGaris''Modest Proposal' 154 Redistributions After Every Second Election r57 Conclusion 160 Bibliography r64 Appendices t72 ll Table Of Abbreviations ACT Association of Consumers and Taxpayers(NZ) AEC Australian Electoral Commission AGPS Australian Government Publishing Service ALP Australian Labor Party DEM Australian Democrats EDBC Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission HA House of Assembly(SA) LC Legislative Council(SA) LCL Liberal Country League LIB Liberal Party NAT National Party SAGG South Australian Govemment Gazette SAPD South Australian Parliamentary Debates SEO State Electoral Office 111 ABSTRACT Fairness And Unfairness in South Australian Elections In 1991, the South Australian Government enacted legislation requiring electoral commissioners to draw boundaries that would give both major party groups (Labor and Liberal) a fair and equal chance of winning govsmment. This reform came as a result of long-standing grievances held by both parties about the unfaimess of the existing system. This thesis argues that electoral fairness or the lack of it, has been a major issue in South Australia since the early colonial days and that the 1991 legislation has failed to resolve the problem. This thesis analyses elections and electoral laws in a historical manner, because it was considered important to show how past events have affected the modern political landscape. It is argued in the thesis that the 1991 changes cannot guarantee fairness, as the200l election showed. It saw Labor win government with less than 50% of the two-party preferred vote, a result that is the occasional by-product of any single- rn"-b"r system. Such systems have a natural tendency to over-represent the largest parties, and in a close election, sometimes produce a result where the second largest party wins more seats than the largest party' It is also argued that while multi-member systems can and usually do produce fairer results than single-member systems, such systems are not likely to be introduced because both major parties have a self-interest in maintaining the single-member system. Occasionally electoral reform can be achieved (as happened in New Zealand and ltaly) when the existing system is shown to be producing bad results. However, the apathy of many voters and the partisan interests of the major parties means that such major changes are unlikely to happen in Australia in the foreseeable future. lv Declaration This work contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other Þfüary institutions and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by any other person, except where due reference is made in the text. I consent to this copy of my thesis, when deposited in the University Library, being available for loan and photocopylng. Glynn Evans July 2005 v Acknowledgements My greatest thanks are extended to Clem Macintyre and Lisa Hill, who were my supervisors during the latter and completion stages of my work, and Jenny Stock, who supervised me in the early stages. Thanks also to Mel Pearson, other office and academic staff, and fellow postgraduate students within the Politics Department for their assistance. Jane Peace at the State Electoral Offrce was very helpful, first in providing me with employrnent during 2000 and 200I, and in providing me with the necessary information and resources from the SEO library in later years. Thanks are also extended to Malcolm Mackerras, David Black and Dean Jaensch for their provision of information, and to Dean for permission to reprint the pendulums from his election monographs. Various former and sitting members of parliament were helpful in providing information, namely Ren DeGaris, the late Don Dunstan, Martlm Evans, Graham Gunn and Don Hopgood. Special thanks extended to three other members, Kris Hanna, Peter Lewis and Nick Xenophon, for whom I was able to indirectly conduct some research. There are also alarge number of füends without whose assistance I could not have completed this thesis, especially after my sight began to fail: The people who have provided me with accommodation while I have been resident in Adelaide; Jamie Mayfield, Alec Morris, the staff of Afton House, Rachel Biven and Rita Pringle. Members of the bridge playing fraternity, too many to name. Staff and fellow patrons of the Arab Steed Hotel, especially Charles Hawker and Rod Sonnenberg. My closest friends from schooldays who have continued in that vein; Arura Copeland, Ric De Oliveira and Simon Mikulandra, andtwo Perth-based friends, Roger Cook and Jo-anne Whalley. Great Southem Railway, who enable me to travel between Perth and Adelaide in a cheap and comfortable manner. The Indian Pacific joumey gave me an appreciation of the vastness of rural electorates. Lastly and most importantly, my parents, Lee and Brian Evans, whose support was always there, even from 2000 km away. Thank you to you all - I couldn't have done it without you! vl 1 Fairness and Unfairness in South Australian Elections Fairness, or the alleged lack of it, has been a major issue in South Australian elections almost since their commencement in the 1850s. Possibly aided by the fact that issues of fairness were also raised in federal elections, most notably after World War 2, it is not surprising that South Australia was the first state to recognise that apparently fairly drawn boundaries could assist or hinder certain political parties, and was to introduce legislation requiring boundaries to be drawn so that both major political party groups \ /ere given a fair and equal chance of winning government. Although the very issue of who had the right to vote for which, if any, house of parliament was an issue in the early colonial period, the issues that will be dealt with in this thesis relate mainly to the relative voting power of voters in certain geographical areas. The issue of weighted voting in rural areas was always controversial, but became especially so during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. For much of the early part of this period, the Labor Party had believed that unfair electoral anangements (specifîcally the weighted vote given to country areas) had prevented them from winning government, on the basis that they had more public support than the Liberal Country League, as the Liberal Party was then known' However in the late 1970s and 1980s, it was the Liberal Party who argued that unfair boundaries had denied them their rightful share of power. In 1991 legislation was passed requiring electoral commissioners to take into account the political consequences of the electoral boundaries they drew. This piece of legislation became known as the faimess clause, but it was actually an amendment to the Constitution Act 1934.It became subsection I in Section 83 of the Constitution ActNo.l of 1991 and came into force on 7 March 1991. It is sub-titled 'Electoral fairness and other criteria' and states that: In making an electoral redistribution, the Commission must ensure, as far as practicabie, that the electoral redistribution is fair to prospective candidates and gtoupr of candidates so that, if candidates of a particular group attract more than S0 p.t cent of the popular vote (determined by aggregating votes cast throughout the State and allocating preferences to the necessary extent), they will be elected in sufficient numbers to atlow a government to be formed.l The report then goes on to explain that Commissioners were to have regard to other criteria, many of which had been included in the previous legislation. An additional amendment was included, stating that: For the purposes of this section a reference to a group of candidates includes not only candidates endorsed by the same politi cal party, but also candidates whose political stance is such that there is reason to believe that they would, if elected in iufficient numbers, be prepared to act in concert to form or support a government.2 The legislators recognizedthat some provision would have to be made to deal with the election of those members not endorsed by either major party' The main purpose of this thesis is to analyse the general level of fairness in South Australian elections over time, and the particular impact the fairness clause has had on elections held since its inception.