Senate Voting and Constitution

Prof George Williams, an expert in constitutional law at the University of NSW, has argued the changes are a major improvement on the current system but said that maintaining full preferential voting below the line “[enables] parties to affect the result in a way that is not a true reflection of voter preferences”.

“Disturbingly, it would do this in a way that would create the impression that this bill is designed to harm the electoral chances of minor parties while retaining the capacity of major parties to manipulate the preferences of voters through the ordering of candidates,” he said in a submission.

Psephologists Peter Brentand Antony Green have also argued for optional preferential voting below the line, which was a recommendation of the 2014 Senate inquiry into the voting system.

Green said it was “disappointing” the legislation did not introduce optional preferential voting below the line, arguing the same expression of preferences could be considered formal above the line, but informal below. 

It would also “allow voters to optionally express preferences for candidates in the order presented by parties, but deny voters the option to optional give preferences for the same candidates in a different order,” he said in a submission.

“It is the sort of inconsistency that attracts the attention of the High Court, especially when Section 7 of the Constitution states that Senators should be ‘directly elected by the people’.”