To the Editor
The Independent Weekly
GPO Box 114
Adelaide SA 5001
Dear Editor,
Mike Schilling makes several interesting points in his article “How We Can Put Our Upper House in Order” (The Independent Weekly, February 27 – March 5).
However, it is surprising that he did not mention that the size, role, and structure of the Upper House were comprehensively discussed during the 2003 South Australian Constitutional Convention.
Following those discussions, delegates – a representative cross-section of South Australians – were surveyed on key questions of parliamentary design. The results were clear and balanced:
- 65% supported the current size of the Legislative Council;
- 62% supported continuing to elect the Council by proportional representation; and
- 75% supported having the entire Upper House up for election every four years.
These findings reflected a thoughtful consensus for gradual, democratic reform rather than radical overhaul.
Schilling also raises the idea of introducing multi-member electorates for the House of Assembly. This proposal was in fact identified at the 2003 Convention as one of the highest priorities for parliamentary reform — and it is a change that the Electoral Reform Society of South Australia has long advocated.
While Schilling notes that such a system might “give independents easier access to the Assembly,” its more significant outcome would be to ensure that more voters actually elect the representatives they support.
At the last State Election, 46% of Liberal voters and 37% of Labor voters cast their ballots for candidates who were ultimately unsuccessful. Multi-member electorates, elected proportionally, would make every vote more meaningful and every seat more competitive – outcomes that strengthen, rather than weaken, representative democracy.
Yours faithfully,
Deane Crabb
Leave a Reply