The Electoral Pendulum is the most effective visual means of explaining electoral results.
Dear Jacinta
I am writing to you to make a genuine democratic request of your good self. It relates to the Victorian state election that will be held on Saturday 28 November this year. My request is that the electoral system be the same at the forthcoming election as was the case in 2006, 2010, 2014, 2018 and 2022.
In the case of the Legislative Assembly general election I don’t think anyone would disagree with my request. The need for my latest request, therefore, is simply described. There are those who think there should be a change to the electoral system for the Legislative Council. The election there will be the sixth under the system known technically as “proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote”. No one is disputing that system. The source of disagreement relates to the details of how that system applies. I insist those details be the same as was the case in 2006, 2010, 2014, 2018 and 2022.
This is not the first time I have written to you with this request. Enclosed is a copy of my earlier letter making the same request. It was dated 16 August 2024. You did not respond – which is understandable given that no decision needed to be made at that time. However, that is no longer the case. Some day during the first half of this year you will need to decide for or against the following document:
Victoria’s Upper House electoral system: Inquiry, December 2025
The report in question comes to 95 pages and is by the Electoral Matters Committee of the Victorian Parliament. I strongly support the dissenting Minority Report by David Ettershank which takes up the last three pages. I dissent from the report as a whole – but I most vehemently dissent from the Minority Report by Chris Crewther, Evan Mullholland and Emma Kealy. In short, I ask you to reject the report and the purpose of this letter is to explain in some detail the reasoning which has led me to this conclusion – which is an emphatic view.
Before I proceed on that subject, I note that I have included five cases of the Mackerras Pendulum. The Victorian one is included because what I sent to you in August 2024 is now out of date since Prahran is now held by the Liberal Party. Hence my inclusion of “Mackerras Pendulum Victoria for 2026 election”. It will be published in the Herald Sun about a month before polling day. All my pendulums – federal and state – are published in the Herald Sun. The others are included because you might be interested.
But let me return to the Liberals and Nationals. Since theirs is the one-page Minority Report to which I object most strongly I now go through the assertions it makes. It opens: “The Liberal and Nationals representatives on the Electoral Matters Committee support the principle of abolishing Group Voting Tickets (GVTs)”. Most emphatically I say that I do not support the Lib-Nat view. I am, however, willing to see GVTs disappear if that discontinuation is part of a genuine democratic reform. For example, I commended the reform that was made in Western Australia late in 2021 effective first at the March 2025 WA election. I have more to say on that below.
Furthermore, I would certainly be willing to see the discontinuation of GVTs if it were recommended by a genuinely independent inquiry of the kind I have long advocated. I certainly don’t support this cynical stitch-up to be enforced by the representatives of four big party machines – with their politicians ganging up against minor parties which are to be eliminated from the Victorian Parliament.
The next paragraph of that Minority Report refers to “the fact Labor has been dragged kicking and screaming to this position”. That carries the suggestion that the Liberals and Nationals stand on some moral high ground to which Labor has been dragged kicking and screaming.
What rubbish! The Liberals and Nationals occupy the gutter, but they are salivating at the prospect that a Labor government might do their dirty work for them. Meanwhile, Labor demonstrated that it was the party to occupy the moral high ground when it refused in 2018 and 2022 to have Victoria copy the horrible (and dishonest) Senate voting system.
The Minority Report goes on: “The Liberals and Nationals believe that representation of Regional Victorians is a paramount priority of any future structure of the Legislative Council.” I don’t accept that because I am old enough to remember that the Liberals and Nationals objected to statewide election in New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia. Now that statewide Legislative Council elections are a reality in all three states, they accept it either because it suits them (NSW and SA) or because they know that introducing statewide elections was the right thing to do. That was clearly the case in Western Australia.
Their real purpose in keeping Victoria’s regions is to enable them to lead a cynical gang-up with Labor and the Greens to shut out minor parties. The Liberals and Nationals have never shown they have any principles. Their arguments change according to circumstance. At all times they pursue the interests of the party machines that gave them their seats.
It would be a tragedy for Labor if it were to fall into line. The opponents of your government want Labor to descend from its present occupation of the moral high ground and go down the hill to join the Liberals, Nationals and Greens in the gutter. I could go on to pick more holes in this Minority Report, but I lack the space. Let me say, however, that there is virtually nothing in it with which I agree.
My Rejection of the whole Report
This EMC Report is a dishonest document and is massively cynical. My problem is to know where to begin with a document so very lacking in merit. However, I begin by noting that in the first three findings there are some statements with which I agree but more statements which I reject. So, I now quote the fourth finding in full.
A two-step process is the best way forward. Changes could be made to the Electoral Act before the 2026 state election to eliminate group voting tickets, to introduce the weighted inclusive Gregory system for surplus vote transfers and to improve the referendum process. A new process to build agreement about the electoral structure could take place after the 2026 election, with a referendum in 2028 or 2030 if changes to the electoral structure are recommended.
There is no need for a new process. Western Australia has already given the lead to Victoria as to what should be done. Surely, members of the Committee must know that! I can only conclude that members of the Committee reason among themselves that there would be no need to do anything during the next parliamentary term. That is what they want. Proclaim that the “democratic reform” which is needed has already been enacted. Then they would congratulate themselves on the elimination of six of the seven non-Greens crossbench members. (I say six of the seven because current polling suggests a doubling of the vote for One Nation. Perhaps Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell would be re-elected notwithstanding that the purpose of this exercise has been to defeat her - along with the others.)
I described this Report as “massively cynical” above. It is certainly that. The Liberals, Nationals and Greens have never indicated any democratic principle to which they adhere with any consistency. For them everything is about political calculation. Then you make up useful “principles” to justify what you have done. The self-serving nature of the exercise is best illustrated by the fact that Australia’s two most cynical so-called “independent electoral analysts”, Antony Green and Kevin Bonham, have had their wishes granted in full.
My blog contains a document described as “My open letter”. That open letter was to Green and Bonham jointly and was dated 21 June 2021. It appealed to them to have some principles by way of a change. It described both of them with these words:
” He is a pragmatist and a propagandist who panders to the greed of the powerful.” To his credit, Bonham quotes those words in his blog. By contrast Green has ignored me. Yet his consistent advocacy for the proposals of this Report tells me that my description of him is very close to the mark.
The truth is that my views on these kinds of questions differ substantially from those of Green and his de facto deputy Bonham. Yet I have my own de facto deputy, Chris Curtis. The reason why the majority of submissions favour Green-Bonham over Mackerras-Curtis is that Green and Bonham are brilliant propagandists. I am not a propagandist and nor is Curtis. I hope, however, to persuade by reasoning with people in a quiet conversation when I can tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
That Green and Bonham are such brilliant propagandists is attested to by a single fact. The majority of submitters believe that the Liberals, Nationals and Greens stand on some moral high ground while Labor operates from the gutter. To me the reverse is true. Labor took the moral high ground in 2018 and 2022 but, it appears, may be seriously thinking in 2026 that it might descend to the gutter to join the Liberals, Nationals and Greens. That would be a tragedy for Labor. I ask you to recognise the nature of that tragedy and refuse to give it your imprimatur.
How bad is it to be unique?
The propagandists will tell you ad nauseum that Victoria is unique in that it has retained the institution of the GVT. My reaction to that is to tell people I remember people fifty years ago saying that Tasmania’s Hare-Clark electoral system must be bad because it was unique. They don’t say that now. For that reason, if Victoria does as I request for the 2026 election it would have no reason to apologise. The Victorian system is NOT broken.
Victoria’s system has two unique features. One is the GVT. The other is regions. Given that NSW, SA and WA have abandoned regions why has Victoria not done so? The answer is simple. The Liberals and Nationals, aided by their cheer-squad in Green and Bonham, have persuaded gullible people to believe that there is some principle attached to the so-called “need” to retain regions. That doesn’t fool me. I know perfectly well that they have no principles, so the retention of regions is easy to explain. It enables the defence of electing only five members. The real purpose of electing only five members is to stop minor parties winning seats. Antony Green admits that, but he wants it because he is inherently hostile to minor parties.
IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE THE PROPOSAL TO KEEP REGIONS WHILE ELIMINATING GROUP VOTING TICKETS IS TO RIG THE SYSTEM IN FAVOUR OF BIG PARTIES AND AGAINST MINOR PARTIES.
One thing that might be said against me is that in the ACT and in Ireland the constituencies elect only five members, and I have never objected to that. My answer is to say that the ACT and Ireland each have proper single transferable vote systems. By a “proper” STV system I mean one that is candidate-based. By contrast all five mainland Australian upper houses have what I call “corrupted STV systems”. I use that word correctly. The systems have been corrupted by above-the-line voting, the purpose of which was to turn a candidate-based system into one that is party-based.
So, imagine the situation that would arise if the Victorian Parliament were to adopt this dishonest and deeply cynical EMC Report with its recommendation for a patent stitch-up. There would be four systems using state-wide voting, the Senate and the Legislative Councils of NSW, SA and WA. Then, sticking out like a sore thumb would be Victoria’s system. It would be very easy to tell voters the truth about Victoria’s system. It would be a unique stitch-up.
When I appeared before the EMC, I told members that “the Senate system is wholly without merit or virtue of any kind.” That is a slight exaggeration, but I insist that the present Senate system is the worst in Australia. If Victoria were to copy it, then Victoria’s system would be the worst. There is some virtue in the Senate system. Six are elected at each normal election where the number in Victoria is five. Furthermore, the number six can easily be increased to seven. In Victoria, by contrast, to increase from five to any higher number requires a referendum.
Western Australia Shows the Way
Of all the opinions that excite my hostility in this Report the one that excites me the most is the assertion (quoted above) that a new process is needed. Rubbish! Western Australia has shown what Victoria should do.
Following the landslide victory for Mark McGowan and Labor in March 2021 the government set up an independent Committee. It was presided over by a respected former WA governor supported by three academics known for their expertise and open mindedness. That Committee recommended the system for Legislative Council elections now in place which was first tested at the March 2025 election. The essentials of the system are that 37 members are elected from the state voting as one electorate, the ballot paper is honest, and voter friendly, and casual vacancies are filled by recounting votes from the previous election.
One of the few merits of this EMC Report is that there is a table on page 34 giving the WA result in March 2025. It shows how proportional that result was. It also shows that Labor won 16 seats, the Liberal Party 10, the Greens four, the Nationals and One Nation two each with a single seat being won by the Animal Justice Party, the Australian Christians and Legalise Cannabis.
This EMC Report should have recommended that Victoria copy Western Australia by having a genuine independent inquiry. Instead, it sought ways to disparage WA without directly saying so.
It is not hard to work out what the politicians who endorsed this report were saying to each other. Bear in mind that the seven members in question owe their seats to the machines of four big political parties. My next three paragraphs set out my surmise as to what they said to each other. Since this is not a direct quote, I am not indenting my next three paragraphs.
“We cannot have the WA system. In legislating for this new system, the WA politicians simply gave away five seats to minor parties. They gave two to One Nation and one each to the Animal Justice Party, the Australian Christians and Legalise Cannabis. We are not going to do that. Under the system we want only Labor, Liberals, Nationals and Greens will get seats. If Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell can double her vote she may be re-elected – but we are not going to give her a seat.
“Furthermore, there is another thing we are not willing to give up. Under our present system, parties can appoint a new member when a casual vacancy occurs. That is excellent. It means that the Liberal and National parties can keep their cozy arrangements. Likewise, Labor can keep its factional balance. We cannot let the voters interfere with that.
“This new WA system is altogether too democratic. It must be stopped from infecting Victoria. Let us therefore seek good arguments to stop it – good arguments to persuade the punters that we really are noble democrats seeking to empower you, the voter. And, of course, we can get Antony Green and Kevin Bonham to use their propaganda skills to help us.”
This new WA system was, in effect, road-tested in March 2025 at its first election. That tells me something that should be noted. The system whereby the Legislative Councils of NSW, SA and WA are elected all enjoy third-party validation. No voice has ever asserted that there is any need for further significant reform of those systems.
This Victorian EMC Report Lacks third-party Validation
One thing I do admit about this Report is that it is correct in saying that it represents the submission of the majority of submitters. Therefore, it enjoys third-party validation. Yet, I assert that, unlike the systems in NSW, SA and WA noted above, it does not enjoy third-party validation. It merely appears to enjoy that.
The essentials of the situation can be boiled down to the fact that there are four men who, over the years, have participated in all these arguments. They are Antony Green AO and Kevin Bonham on one side and Malcolm Mackerras AO and Chris Curtis on the other. Green and Bonham say to you: “The existing system is broken. So, go ahead and implement this Report”. The two dissenters (Curtis and yours truly) say: “Conduct the 2026 election under the existing system. It is NOT broken.”
Then you may ask me: “What about all the other submitters?” I say that they have been taken in by the propaganda skills of Green and Bonham. I have had private arguments with three of them in which I began by saying: “You are seeking to cheat Georgie Purcell out of her seat.” They reply: “If this system is adopted and she loses her seat it would be because she did not get enough votes”.
That argument is completely unconvincing. It is the same argument used traditionally by the British Conservative Party to justify the first-past-the-post system. The conversation broke down at that point because all three men are firm supporters of the concept of proportional representation. There is no point in having further arguments with them. They made their submissions, and I do not accept any of the arguments they used to support this Report.
Conclusion
Dear Jacinta, I ask you to reject this disgraceful Report.
Kind regards
Malcolm Mackerras