Vote law change has caught us by surprise

Compulsory voting in local government elections will not necessarily result in better engagement, warns James Walker

COMPULSORY voting gives you higher participation rates but are voters more engaged?

At school I was told Australia is fortunate to have compulsory voting because everyone had a say on the government. I accepted that on face value, not asking about downsides or questioning why after so many years so few other democracies also had compulsory voting.

As an Australian abroad I would talk up compulsory voting, parroting the same lines from school. My views changed in 1996 while living in New Zealand during their national election. The New Zealand participation rates in 1996 at 88 per cent were somewhat lower than the 97 per cent rate at our 1996 federal election, but their elections were undertaken voluntarily and without the threat of a monetary penalty. As such these voters were engaged and invested when casting their vote. The election debates in New Zealand were just as passionate but more civil and nuanced because persuasion mattered more.

One of the trite lines rolled out by compulsory voting advocates at state and federal elections is that you don’t even need to vote, all you have to do is get your name marked off. This ignores a number of upheld legal decisions to the contrary. Moreover, if compulsory voting advocates believe voting is so sacrosanct that people must be compelled to vote, how is it that these same advocates seem totally ambivalent about voters spoiling ballot papers or leaving them blank?

While we should all aspire to see as many people as possible vote in elections, if they are not doing so freely and willingly then I am going to take some convincing that imposing compulsory voting makes elections more democratic.

The imposition of compulsory voting on the next Tasmanian Local Government elections this October has caught many by surprise and without a case for change being made. What is the value proposition of this reform? Councils pay the Tasmanian Electoral Commission to conduct local government elections. No modelling on the new costs to ratepayers of funding the TEC to chase down people who do not vote has been provided. I’m confident it will run into millions of dollars and probably an extra half a million dollars for Clarence ratepayers alone.

The multiple impacts of compulsory voting should be discussed and include –

WILL both major political parties run candidates in this year’s local government elections and is that a good thing?

HOW will compulsory voting change the way candidates contest elections? Will campaigns focus more or less on issues that local government have no say over?

LOCAL government elections are conducted using postal voting. Will extra resources be provided to assist Tasmanians with lower literacy levels vote?

Ultimately, it’s a question of what is the problem that compulsory voting is expected to solve? What evidence is there that shows compulsory voting is delivering better local government elsewhere?

Increasing participation rates seems to be touted as main reason for compulsory voting but the Victorian experience shows that even this is far from certain. While the latest Victorian local government elections had increased turnout, preceding elections saw participation rates in some councils below 50 per cent, even with the threat of a fine exceeding $70 for not voting.

What is needed at all levels of government is better engagement between communities and elected representatives. Engaged voters are motivated by issues and ideas not simply by avoiding a fine.

Better participation rates do not ensure better engagement rates. For local government better engagement is a long road. It will probably need to start with the role and impact of local government getting more coverage alongside state and federal government’s role when taught at school. Something I would willingly volunteer to be part of.