Nominations for the 9 May Farrer by-election are now confirmed, which means it’s time for my prediction. Twelve candidates are standing, four have a realistic chance — and my head, overruling my heart, says One Nation’s David Farley will win.
Nominations for the 9 May Farrer by-election were published on the website of the Australian Electoral Commission on Wednesday 15 April. Therefore, now is the time I must make my prediction. There are 12 candidates, of whom four have some sort of chance to win. For my part I would be quite happy to see the election of the Liberal candidate, Raissa Butkowski, the Nationals candidate, Brad Robertson, or the independent Michelle Milthorpe.
However, as I explained in my article posted on 22 October last year “My first ‘roughie’ call: how I predicted Gough Whitlam’s dismissal, and nobody believed me” I never make predictions based on wishful thinking. My wishful thinking would lead me to predict success for one of the three named above, but my head tells me that the One Nation candidate, David Farley, will win the seat.
Farrer is one of the most rural federal seats in Australia and its characteristics are very like the South Australian state seats of Hammond, MacKillop, Narungga and Ngadjuri. If One Nation could win those very rural seats at a state election, I cannot see any reason why David Farley would not win Farrer for One Nation.
As luck would have it, the Liberal candidate, Raissa Butkowski, has drawn the top position on the ballot paper. If I were a Farrer elector (which I am not) I would give her my first preference vote and otherwise cast a “donkey vote” — straight down the ballot paper 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
A great deal has been written — and will be written — about the Farrer by-election, which means that I ask myself if there is any useful comment left for me to make. Yes, there is, as I now explain.
At federal general elections I rail against the AEC on the ground that it pumps out misinformation about voting and tells lies. Worse still, the Electoral Commissioner hires casual staff at polling places who, on the day of polling, are required to tell voters lies about Senate voting. By that I mean it is a lie to say that for the Senate above-the-line vote you need to number at least six squares. It is also a lie to say that for the below-the-line Senate vote you need to number at least 12 squares. The truth is that a single first preference for a party above the line is required by law to be counted as a formal vote. For the below-the-line vote, numbering 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 makes your vote formal.
So strong has been my criticism of the AEC at federal general elections that I bend over backwards to commend the Commission at by-elections. The point is that the Senate ballot paper is dishonest and has been designed to manipulate your vote. It is deliberately unfair between candidates — even though the Constitution requires that the system be candidate-based. Also, the Senate ballot paper is voter unfriendly. A disgrace!
By contrast, the ballot paper for the House of Representatives is honest. It is candidate-based and fair both between candidates and parties. The sole reasonable criticism of it is that the voter should not be required to number every square. That is a political decision, and I can say in its defence that Australia has had the same House of Representatives electoral system for a hundred years.
Whereas for general elections I discourage voters from practising voting as shown on the AEC website, I encourage it for the Farrer by-election. Let me tell you about it.
Under “How to vote formally” it reads: “To vote for a Member of the House of Representatives, you are required to write the number ‘1’ in the box next to the candidate who is your first choice, and the numbers ‘2’, ‘3’ and so on against all other candidates until all the boxes have been numbered, in order of your preference.”
Then there is “Practise voting” where you are shown the ballot paper which begins with “New South Wales: Electoral Division of Farrer” and then has this instruction: “Number the boxes from 1 to 12 in the order of your choice.”
A final comment is needed. New South Wales has optional preferential voting at state elections. You could place a number ‘1’ for a candidate and leave all other boxes blank. Your vote would still be counted as it is formal under NSW state law.
To avoid confusion, it would be desirable to have the same voting and counting rules for state and federal elections. If one jurisdiction or the other adopted that approach, there would be no confusion. Short of such a reform, the AEC is to be commended for going to great trouble to educate people about House of Representatives voting.
A final prediction: the informal vote at the Farrer by-election will be very low — under two per cent is my forecast.
(Malcolm Mackerras is an Honorary Professor at Australian Catholic University.)
