[DG]
I apologise for delaying my answer to the request on this list for more
information but have been checking back with the source. Here's the
available info:
[AL] Thanks - seemed pretty prompt to me - especially coming from WA!
--------
The reduction in size of the NSW Upper House is at this stage no
more than a gleam in the eyes of Labor and Liberal who are understood to
have got into bed together to produce this particular brat. I got it
from
a posting by Simon Disney, a staffer for the Australian Democrats in the
NSW Upper House. Here is what Simon wrote:
"Rumours circulating around here at the moment are that the Liberals
have
done a grubby little deal with Labor to introduce a referendum bill to
cut
the number of Upper House Members by 10. That's apparently what you get
for standing up to Treasurers who won't give the House the information
that
it needs. Naturally, a groundswell of community outrage would be
appreciated!"
[AL] Interesting - can anyone confirm that this issue is an "entrenched"
part
of the NSW Constitution which requires a referendum vote by the people
to change
it?
If so I imagine that they will be very cautious about actually going
beyond
threatening to introduce it in view of the danger of being knocked back
-
especially after the recent experience in NT. (In Tasmania, like
Victoria no
such referendum is required for alterations to the State Constitution or
electoral
system so they were able to just do a grubby deal to raise the quota for
the Hare-Clarke
quota in lower house to exclude Greens). However there wasn't much
public outrage and
the total Green vote as well as their representation actually declined
because they
were widely perceived as being just a nuisance.
If it does require a referendum I imagine that we would be better off
keeping quiet
until they do go ahead rather than discouraging them from giving it a
try by joining
in any current "groundwell of community outrage" as requested by the
Democrats.
A good campaign to defeat it would be better than no struggle over it
and them
succeeding in making the NSW Parliament even more unrepresentative will
do no
long term harm as regards making the Democrats and Greens (and One
Nation)
think more seriously about a real fight over PR for lower hourses (with
a single
electorate for minimum quota size). So why should we help try and nip it
in the bud
at the "gleam in the eye stage"?
(Similar reasoning was a factor, though combined with sheer apathy, in
not trying
to stop the JSCEM recommendation for amendment to s240(2) - let them
make themselves
unpopular and fight them in arenas where we can actually mobilize people
rather than
on their own home ground of expressing outrage to them.)
[DG]
Of course it is a threat to the Australian Democrats, but it is also a
threat to Greens, One Nation, Independents and any other person or group
seeking to represent in parliament the voice of all those who are
disfranchised by two-party rule. Simon has written that it is highly
likely that the major parties will seek to increase the quota to exclude
minor parties and independents, and that if, for example, they set the
quota at 6.5%, with no preference exchanges, this would leave the
Democrats
and One Nation as the only parties likely to pick up a seat. On current
polling, the Dems would probably pick up one seat and One Nation 2.
[AL]
Presumably if they do go ahead with a referendum they will present it as
just
being to reduce the number of Upper House politicians. Should be easy to
explain
that the primary point is to reduce proportionality by raising quotas.
At present we don't have much bargaining strength anyway, but when we do
I
think should make it damn clear to ON, Democrats and Greens that we
really
are not interested in preserving a few State or Commonwealth upper house
seats
for their politicians. If they want a popular movement supporting their
right
to be represented they are going to have to agree to fight for a fully
representative
legislature (i.e. Commonwealth and State lower houses with PR and a
single electorate).
Worth studying history of chartist movement in 19th Century Britain.
Liberal "Radicals"
tried to maintain leadership of movement for significant extension of
franchise to add to their own representation. Chartists held out for
adult male suffrage to break the previous
grip of the oligarchy rather than making it more palatable. Tories
eventually granted it,
with Liberals forced to support despite real disquiet about the
consequences. Adult
(female) suffrage followed not long after, once a real breakthrough
rather than a measure
to patch up the existing system had been made.
