When Tasmanians go to the polls on March 23rd 2024, the ballot paper will have a new look to many voters. Yet, others will experience a “back-to-the future” feel by the return to a ballot so familiar a quarter century earlier. The ballot will reflect the changes needed to fill ten newly created seats in the House of Assembly. Consequently, voters will have to list at least seven candidates at this year’s poll up from numbering five for the 2021 state election to record a valid vote.
Labor and Liberals colluded in 1998 to eliminate the Greens from parliamentary representation by reducing the 35 seat House of Assembly to 25 by eliminating 2 seats in each of the state’s five electorates. The ploy failed as the Greens continued to win parliamentary representation. However, the failings of a too-small parliament became an increasing public embarrassment. Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff brought in legislation to restore the Assembly to its pre-1998 number in May 2022 (but not those taken from the Legislative Council) at the next election.
It is a sad commentary on the public standing of parliament in Tasmania that it was more politically palatable to reduce the size of the parliament to change electoral outcomes than it would be to amend the electoral act. That this ploy was possible, however, was due to the mechanics of state’s proportional Hare-Clark electoral system. Changing the number of MPs elected from constituency reset the quota needed to elect a candidate. In 1998, the quota was changed from 12.5% to 16.6% and in 2024 the electoral quota will return to 12.5%.
A question to be answered at the March poll is whether reverting to the pre-1998 quota will be a simple one-off mechanical transition back to earlier politics of an essentially two-party dominated parliament. Alternatively, the lower quota could be transformative by cementing in place a more open pathway to a more inclusive parliament with a routinely robust crossbench.
Consequences of a lower quota
The lower quota has been expected to draw a much wider field of candidates given the somewhat easier pathway to a parliamentary seat. This is illustrated in the following chart.
Tasmanian electoral results by percentage and seats over time
* Assuming same distribution in all constituencies. ^Jackie Lambie = 9 Other = 14
The difference in seats made by the change in the quota from the 1996 election (12.5%) to the 1998 election (16.6%) is clearest in the impact on the targets of the change – the minor parties and independents. The share of the combined vote of the two major parties remained much the same (81.7% against 82.8%) between the two elections as did the non-two-party vote (18.3% against 17.2%). Yet, the effect on the share of
parliamentary seats was dramatic. The two main parties won 85.7% of the seats in 1996; very close to their share of the vote. In the 1998 election, the major parties won 96% of the seats (24) while the Greens won only one seat (4%).
The election also sets out how the restored lower quota might have changed the results of the 2021. The actual result shows how much a premium the higher quota gave the major parties, especially the ALP. Despite a collapse in its vote (down to 28.2%), the ALP won 9 seats while the non-major party vote being only fractionally lower (22.8%) won a mere 3 seats. If the lower quota was applied to the 2021 election, the ALP may have only won one additional seat, but minor parties and independents would have taken something between 6 and 10 seats. Interestingly, the Liberal Government’s one seat majority would have been more robust; possibly even large enough to survive the two defections that led to the current early election.
Recent polling shows why so much speculation favours a minority Government outcome. According to recent polls, the significant erosion of the Liberal vote along with the failure of the ALP to recover from its low 2021 result will free up a large non-majority party vote. If a third of the voters support minor parties and independents, these candidates could expect to win a minimum of 10 seats. Assuming equal distribution of poll results across Tasmania, the ALP could win 10 seats leaving the Liberals with a maximum of 15, three short of a majority in the enlarged Assembly.
Some effects of the quota change
The polls have been consistent in predicting that the next state election would result in minority government. This expectation has been independent of the change in the electoral quota. Where the quota change has raised issues concern the range and diversity of the likely government-determinative crossbench. For a generation, the most influential single force on the crossbench has been the Greens Party. As the projections based on polling indicate this may no longer be the case. There is a possibility that independents alone could decide which major party governs. More likely would be the Greens in combination with a few independents. Rather less likely would be a Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) in combination with some independents. However, there are questions how well the minor parties and independents will perform in translating votes into seats.
Predictably, the lower quota has attracted a new suite of would-be MPs. There are 29 independents competing in 2024 compared with 12 in 2021. The total number of parties contesting (7) has remained the same but the addition of the JLN has brought in 12 new candidates while the disappearance of the Federation Party only cost one candidate. Beyond pull of opportunity, the lower quota has also pushed an increase in new entrants. The three parliamentary parties have needed each to add 10 new candidates to fill out their tickets. This is because voters will be required to number at least 7 candidates this year to record a valid vote compared with 5 in 2021.
Strategic voting in the Hare-Clark system compels the two major parties and the Greens seek to offer enough candidates within their own ticket to record a valid vote while keeping open the option of not having a surplus to help elect others by preferences leaking outside the ticket. This strategy can impose a political risk in that when votes go to exhaust, the quota for the unfilled seats drops favouring minor parties and independents. It also discourages preference arrangements with other candidates based in an alignment of policies. There is a practical limit to exchanging preferences, however. Formal preference deals are not possible as how-to-vote cards listing preferences are banned in Tasmanian state elections.
Independents and minor parties are more seriously impacted by the difficulties in amassing preferences as none of the minor parties has a full ticket. The JLN has the largest number of candidates of the non-parliamentary parties, but its voters will still have to give preferences to a larger number of other candidates to record a valid vote. If a minor party has no banner carrier, its candidates often fail to survive long enough to amass enough preferences to win. Independents need to have an even higher-level public support to win a seat since they cannot accumulate preferences from within a ticket. Beyond complicating the count on election night, the large number of candidates significantly elevate the likelihood of votes lost to exhaust. It is a major factor moderating expectations that the crossbenches will do as well as the polls currently suggest.
Transitional or transformative?
Whether the March election will be transitional or transformative depends, in part, on how well the parliamentary parties manage the lower quota in the face of apparent widespread support for new entrants. Success for the prominent names standing as independents, including former MPs from both major parties, are successful, could validate alternative paths to a political career. Historically, the major parties have recruited notables to run on their ticket. They have had difficulties this year filling out the expanded ticket. Should independent candidates prove that there is a non-partisan path to parliament, the established political parties may find themselves in a more competitive environment for star recruits.
The JLN poses a similar challenge from minor parties. Should it be successful, it could carve out room for four parliamentary parties. The ensuing flexibility in minority government arrangements would transform how the two major parties view alternative arrangements such as coalition or power-sharing. The Greens could benefit by becoming an acceptable option for post-election partnerships after a generation of being vilified.
History does throw some cold water on the transformative possibility. The 1998 attempt to recalibrate the political calculus by changing the quota nearly succeeded but the Greens survived and have continued to be influential on the crossbench despite the higher quota. Indeed, they expanded their parliamentary representation after 1998 to pre-1998 levels. This election is very likely to prove a difficult transition due to the quota change but it is less likely to be transformative unless the two major parties fail to recover from the long-term erosion of their base.
Richard Herr PhD OAM teaches Parliament Law and Procedure at the University of Tasmania. For more than four decades, he has provided election night commentary.