Advertisement

“This is bullsh*t”: Iain Evans on the electoral boundaries review

The electoral boundaries review is an undemocratic disgrace that, if implemented, will entrench 40 years of anti-Liberal bias, argues former party leader Iain Evans.

Aug 23, 2016, updated Aug 23, 2016
Weatherill's 2014 victory was "illegitimate". Photo: David Mariuz / AAP

Weatherill's 2014 victory was "illegitimate". Photo: David Mariuz / AAP

There is only one way to describe the proposed new state electoral boundaries released by the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission.

An undemocratic disgrace.

It’s a disgrace for many reasons, but especially for the majority of voters who get the government they did not vote for. This means they get policies the majority rejected at the election – like the O-Bahn extension and an expensive new hospital – and are denied policies they voted for – like capping council rates and lower taxes.

It’s a disgrace because in its report, the Commission confirms there has been an inherent bias against the Liberal Party for 40 years. That is, the boundaries have been more advantageous to Labor than they should have been for 40 years!

Given the Commission has been empowered to ensure fair boundaries since 1991, it’s good of it to admit this 25 years later! Where has it been doing all those years?

It also confirms it drew up boundaries for the 2014 election that required the Liberal Party to win 53.1 per cent of the vote to win government and required Labor to win only 46.9 per cent to win government. It apparently did not dawn on the Commission when drawing up those boundaries that they may be continuing the bias against the Liberal Party.

The 40 year bias against the Liberal Party will continue and be embedded as the norm if these boundaries are finally adopted.

It confirms that its task is to redraw the electoral boundaries so that the group of candidates (ie, the party) that wins 50 per cent plus one vote of the statewide vote will be elected in sufficient numbers to enable a government to be formed.

That task is clear – the new boundaries should drawn so if a party wins 50 per cent plus one vote they win government. That’s the Commission’s task, as set out in our Constitution.

So what has the Commission put forward as being democratic boundaries for the 2018 election after admitting an inherent bias exists against the Liberal Party?

  1. If each party receives exactly 50 per cent of the vote – that is, each party receives exactly the same number of votes – Labor wins 28 seats and the Liberals win 19 (assuming the two independents currently in the Labor Cabinet support the Liberals in Opposition.

So in essence, based on the proposed boundaries alone, if Labor get 50 per cent plus one vote they win 28 seats. If the Liberals win 50 per cent plus one vote they win just 19 seats. A party needs 24 seats to form government.

These boundaries have been drawn so only one party can actually win if it gets 50 per cent plus one vote – Labor.

Can anyone explain how that is democratic or fair?

  1. The Commission thinks it is somehow democratic to set the new boundaries so that if the Liberals can again win 53 per cent of the vote AND get one or two independents to support them, then there would be a Liberal Government in South Australia. The independents, of course, are currently ministers in a Labor cabinet.

This also means that Labor can win government with 47 per cent of the vote and two independents siding with them. To win government, Labor can get away with 6 per cent less of the vote.

If Labor wins 53 per cent of the vote, they would get 29 seats under the proposed boundaries and would not need the two independents. If the Liberals win 53 per cent they win 23 seats – short of an overall majority. They only reach 25 if you include the two independents.

Can anyone explain why the boundaries should be drawn to give Labor this huge advantage?

  1. The Commission’s own draft report confirms that the new the boundaries are drawn so that if the Liberals win 51.8 per cent, they will still lose the next election. Labor will win with just 48.2 per cent of the vote. How this is addressing the inherent bias against the Liberal Party, I am not sure. It seems to reinforce and repeat it. To suggest this meets the constitutional criteria that a party that wins 50 per cent plus one vote wins government is a fantasy.

Frankly this is bullshit.

How are the boundaries democratic if the Commission itself acknowledges that a 50 per cent plus one vote for each party delivers 28 seats for Labor and only 19 for Liberal (if you include the two independents)?

How is that fair or democratic? How?

For exactly the same number of votes, one party gets 9 more seats – nine! Nine seats in a 47 seat parliament is huge.

It seems everyone has forgotten, including the Commission, that the very reason the fairness clause was introduced – requiring a distribution after every state election – was that the Liberal Party won 52 per cent of the vote in 1989 and lost to Labor, who formed government with just 48 per cent of the vote.

Thirty years on and at the 2018 election the very Commission charged with delivering electoral fairness is suggesting that the Liberals could lose with almost 52 per cent and Labor would win with 48 – sound familiar?

A 52/48 result in 1989 saw so much community outrage that a Parliamentary Committee was established, a referendum was held and supported by the public, the state Constitution was changed and the electoral system reformed. The result where a party which won 52 per cent of the vote but lost was so widely condemned and accepted as unfair by both sides of politics that change was implemented with the support of both Liberal and Labor.

Now we are expected to believe a 52/48 vote where the party that gets the higher vote loses the election is democratic?

It’s not fair, it’s undemocratic and it’s a disgrace.

The 40 year bias against the Liberal Party will continue and be embedded as the norm if these boundaries are finally adopted. This will impact future redistributions and work against the Liberals even if they win in 2018, as it will be used as the base for those future redistributions. It will cut short the tenure of future Liberal governments.

The Labor Party will run the line that they are better campaigners than the Liberal Party and that’s why they have won seats. Of course, having an embedded bias in the boundaries that has assisted Labor for 40 years helps enormously with campaigning.

Labor will argue that the boundaries are fair and democratic.

Well here is the test. Let us hear Labor argue to the Commission that they want a system that requires Labor to win 52 per cent to win government. Let us hear Labor argue to the Commission that if they win 50 per cent plus one vote they should only win 19 seats and that the Liberals should win 28 seats with exactly the same vote. After all, if the boundaries are fair and democratic, as claimed, and Labor are so much better campaigners, as they claim, then they will win.

Labor will not argue that because they know these boundaries give them a huge advantage. They can win with 48.2 per cent of the vote.

Politics aside, the big losers in all of this are the voters.

The majority of South Australians are not getting the government they are voting for. In fact they are getting the policies and government the majority voted against and did not want. How is that democratic?

The minority consistently outvote the majority in this state.

And the Commission has designed the system so this is likely to happen again in 2018.

It goes against all principles of democracy. The whole point of democratic elections is so that a government is elected by the majority.

In South Australia, the boundaries are so biased and unfair that, all else aside, this democratic principle cannot be upheld.

So how is this fair? It’s not.

It’s an undemocratic disgrace.

Iain Evans is a former state Liberal leader and was MP for Davenport from 1993 until 2014.

Local News Matters
Advertisement
Copyright © 2024 InDaily.
All rights reserved.