Can Matt Birney fight a real election?
We now have details about Jim McGinty’s “creative solution” to the one vote one value impasse. Two new seats will be created, which will allow five seats to remain in the Mining and Pastoral Region, instead of four.
The West has found an angle that it thinks will hurt Labor (p4):
Opposition Leader Matt Birney will be looking for a new seat to contest at the next election after a deal between the Government and the Greens on one vote, one value legislation carved the seat of Kalgoorlie off the WA electoral map.
The implication is that there was some kind of plot to unseat Birney. The Liberals joined in, saying “Labor is obviously targeting Mr Birney.”
What a load of twaddle — the redrawing of Kalgoorlie’s boundaries is inevitable. It covers just 67 km2 and is surrounded by the 1 232 356 km2 electorate of Murchison-Eyre. It is truly absurd, as a quick glance at the map will confirm.
Equally absurd is the fact that the Opposition Leader represents just 13 414 electors, while the Premier represents 25 903. Next time around, Birney might need to convince more than his extended family to vote for him. The West’s Robert Taylor notes (p23) that the “surrounding areas [are] populated by miners and Aboriginals,” and wonders whether Birney would rather shift to a safe metropolitan seat.
But while the new legislation is a step in the right direction, we ought to remember that it will not actually deliver democracy, and who is in the way of its achievement — the Greens.
Of all parties you would expect the Greens to be happy about this one.
That’s my point, Nic. They forced McGinty to compromise and retain a gerrymander in 7 seats. Shame.
Yeah I was agreeing, it doesnt make sense at all. They must have some other agenda we dont know about.
I’m not sure. I think they might be worried about the impact of this deal on their vote in regional areas. A significant drop could cost them several seats. They’re selling it as the Greens’ “country friendly” electoral reform. I don’t think it’s anything more sinister than short-sightedness, a dubious commitment to principle, and a desire to be seen as the deal-makers — a trait that cost the Democrats dearly.
Two party upper houses here we come.
Malapportionment has been a constant theme in Australian politics. Usually any electoral changes come due to one party seeking advantage over another. Fair representation in a representative system is rarely an issue.
IIRC the Victorians allowed their electoral commission to draw boundaries without political interference. Forgive my ignorance of WA politics here, but does the WAEC have the authority to redraw boundaries or does it require state parliament to do it?
Since 1986 the WAEC had drawn all of WA’s electoral boundaries and (I am pretty sure) they were automatic on the commission’s approval.
Of course, because of malapportionment, there were some very firm guidelines. Thirty-four seats - and thirty-four seats only - went to an area defined as ‘metropolitan’ and twenty-three seats went to the rest of the state. In 2004 it meant that 74% of the population that lived in the city were only entitled to 60% of the seats.
Anyhow, you’re right about malapportionment encouraging the self-interest of political parties. The fact that the system is open to manipulation under the guise of ‘compensation’ is one of the many reasons why it is unworkable and unfair.
Thanks Ross. The only case of removing malapportionment where they knew it would cost them government I know of is Steele Hall’s SA government. It is a shame more dont have his courage in putting partisan power aside.
I expect the Greens will be in for a very nasty shock after the next election when Labour will most likely hold a majority in both the Assembly and Council. Hopefully then we’ll get a true one vote one value.