CHAPTER TWELVE: CLARK AND SPENCE The federal general election held on Saturday 18 May 2019 created a situation whereby two new divisions were named after electoral reformers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the names being Clark and Spence. In every sense, however, it is true to say that the new Division of Clark was merely a re-naming of the Division of Denison which had been continuously one of Tasmania’s five House of Representatives seats since 1903. The document Redistribution of Tasmania into electoral divisions dated November 2017 was also titled Report of the augmented Electoral Commission for Tasmania under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. On page 67 the document shows that all 73,993 electors from the old Denison were transferred to Clark. To that number were added 61 electors from the old Franklin bringing the Clark total up to 74,054. The quota for Tasmania as a whole was 75,014 and all the figures just quoted are the enrolment numbers as at Thursday 1 September 2016. In Australia today the name Clark is mainly known for the Hare-Clark electoral system. Thomas Hare was an Englishman who was born in England in March 1806 and died in May 1891, several years before Tasmania’s first experiment with Hare-Clark in 1897. Andrew Inglis Clark was a Tasmanian in every sense, born at his parents’ Hobart house in February 1848 and died at Hobart in November 1907. His grave is at Sandy Bay, a Hobart suburb. Anyway, regarding the name of the Division of Clark, on page 21 of the above-cited document the Commission explained its decision this way: A substantial number of objections, comments on objections and submissions to the inquiries argued that the proposed Division of Denison should be renamed in recognition of Andrew Inglis Clark. These arguments were based on: Lieutenant-Governor Denison having been a worthy public official of his era who contributed to the development of the colony of Van Diemen’s Land over the term of his appointment Andrew Inglis Clark having been a born and bred Tasmanian who had a significant impact on Tasmania and Australia including:
1
- drafting a significant number of clauses of the Constitution, including those concerned with constitutional entrenchment of the High Court and for parliamentary creation of federal courts, trial by jury and freedom of religion - introducing the Hare-Clark system of proportional representation based on the concept of the single transferable vote The augmented Electoral Commission considered the arguments in favour of and against re-naming the electoral division and concluded it would be appropriate to re-name the electoral division to recognise an individual who had made such a significant contribution to Australian political and legal systems. The re-naming of Denison to Clark went without any kind of hitch. The same was not true, however, of the introduction of the name of Catherine Helen Spence to the federal electoral map of South Australia. Born in Scotland in October 1825 she arrived in South Australia in November 1839. She died in April 1910 aware that the April 1909 Tasmanian election had been conducted under the Hare-Clark system which, at the time, was as often as not known as the Hare-Spence system. There was an important difference between the Tasmanian redistribution of 2017 and that for South Australia in 2018. Tasmania simply retained its five seats. On the other hand South Australia saw its number of seats cut from eleven to ten. In the document Proposed redistribution of South Australia into electoral divisions dated April 2018 the Committee, in effect, proposed the elimination of both Port Adelaide and Wakefield, the two divisions to be merged into a new Division of Spence in which the number of electors would be 116,179, being 87,035 from Wakefield, 29,084 from Port Adelaide and 60 from two other divisions. The quota for South Australia as a whole was 119,503 and all the numbers just quoted are the enrolment numbers as at Monday 4 September 2017. On page 29 the Committee explained the new name with these words: The Redistribution Committee proposes naming the electoral division ‘Spence’ in honour of Catherine Helen Spence (18251910) for her work as an advocate for female suffrage and electoral reform. Throughout her life Spence was an advocate for justice for the disadvantaged and the dispossessed, using her books and newspaper articles to argue for equality of opportunity. Spence was a member of several prominent reform boards in South Australia and helped found the first fostering-out scheme to help orphaned, destitute and delinquent children. This belief in equality of opportunity influenced Spence to become a 2
strong advocate for the introduction of proportional representation. In 1891, Spence joined the South Australian Women’s Suffrage League, and as vice president of that organization from 1891 helped to bring about women’s right to vote in state elections and women’s right to stand for the state parliament. These measures were introduced in 1894 making South Australia one of the first communities in the world to enfranchise women. Spence continued to fight for women’s suffrage throughout Australia. In part through the efforts of Spence, the women of Western Australia earned the franchise in 1899 as did the women of New South Wales in 1902. In various places in this book I have noted the tendency of parts of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia to be doctrinaire in their approach. Here is a good example of that. The South Australian branch of the PRSA is known as the ‘Electoral Reform Society of SA’. Here is what Deane Crabb their secretary wrote to the Redistribution Committee on this subject: The Electoral Reform Society of South Australia wishes to object to the naming of one of South Australia’s electoral divisions as ‘Spence’. . . Miss Spence was one of the first advocates of proportional representation in Australia (and indeed the world) and this became her main focus. She supported the quotapreferential method of proportional representation for all elections (called Hare-Spence in her day). As proportional representation requires multi-member electorates, to name a single-member electorate after Miss Spence is an insult to both her memory and her life-long cause. . .There was a South Australian State single-member electorate called ‘Spence’ and the Electoral Reform Society campaigned for many years before the name of that electorate was changed. When the day comes that there are multi-member electorates for the House of Representatives, this Society would welcome the first multimember electorate being named ‘Spence’. That prompted a letter to Crabb from Geoff Goode of the VictoriaTasmania branch of the PRSA. After the usual pleasantries between friends Goode’s letter continues: I understand your reaction to this proposed new electoral use of Catherine Helen Spence’s name. It is consistent with your Branch’s former campaign against the use of the name Spence for the former State district of that name. Do you believe that your 3
campaign against the use of that name formed a significant aspect of the decision of the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission to discontinue its use? Its discontinuance gave one less opportunity for people to learn about Ms Spence and her work, even though it did not bear fruit there. I should mention that I have heard no similar reaction to the proposed use of the name ‘Clark’ to replace the Federal and also State division of Denison, in Tasmania, which is – unlike divisions in other States – the same geographical area, so at least one will have PR-STV, unlike the SA case. Catherine Helen Spence and Andrew Inglis Clark each have the same characteristic of being prominent early supporters of PR-STV in Australia, but they are possibly better known for other achievements. In Spence’s case that was female representation in parliaments, and in Clark’s case it was the production of the first draft of a proposed Constitution for a Commonwealth of Australia. At the time, Clark was probably more successful. The commemoration of people that were, among other things, pioneer advocates of PR-STV in Australia, even by the name of single-member electoral districts, could nevertheless be worthwhile, because it gives an indication of their stature, even though the electoral district is not multi-member, as they would have wanted. The presence of their name gives a talking point to press for improvement, whereas the absence of their name, at least in that context, contributes to keeping them out of the limelight. I think the reality of a new federal division named ‘Spence’ is that it will remain a single-member division for a long time. If it is called ‘Spence’ that does give a repeated opening for asking why it is not a multi-member division, and urging it to become one. At the time I was completely unaware of this dispute between supporters of proportional representation. Nevertheless I had my own views. In my six-page letter to the Victorian redistribution committee I objected to their proposal to eliminate the name ‘Corangamite’. For South Australia my letter was dated 10 May 2018 and read as follows: I have subjected your Proposed redistribution of South Australia into electoral divisions to significant study and I have no objection of any kind to any of your proposals. Why, then, would I bother to write to you? The answer is to commend you upon your proposal
4
that there be a federal division of Spence at the 2019 general election. I claim to be something of an electoral reformer myself and I am currently writing a book on that subject. One of the things I have been thinking about is to name the electoral reformers of the past by each quarter century. So far I have decided the names of Andrew Inglis Clark and Catherine Helen Spence should be recorded for the first quarter of the 20th Century, Ben Chifley for the second quarter, Gough Whitlam for the third quarter and Neville Wran for the last quarter of the 20th Century. It would give me great pleasure to note that the 2019 election had federal divisions of both Clark and Spence. Some day in the future (when there is an increase in the size of Parliament) I shall propose that the New South Wales map should contain a Division of Wran. In the meantime I rejoice that the 2019 map will contain the names of Clark and Spence. A comment is needed on the relative numbers for Spence and Clark noted above. The number for Spence being 116,179 and for Clark being 74,054 it means the Spence number is 157 per cent that of Clark. Had there been one more seat for South Australia rather than one less the Spence number would have been about 99,000 or ‘only’ 134 per cent that of Clark. The merits of increasing South Australia by two seats are discussed in Chapter 5 Increasing the Size of Parliament. I repeat here what I wrote there. I favour giving South Australia two more seats but only if the increase is preceded by, or accompanied by, a decision to give the Australian people a DECENT Senate voting system. The final South Australian report was titled Redistribution of South Australia into electoral divisions and was dated July 2018. It was also titled Report of the augmented Electoral Commission for South Australia and published pursuant to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. On page 21 it noted that “One objection argued that a single member electorate should not be named after Catherine Helen Spence as she was an advocate for proportional representation.” Anyway, the Commission argued strongly for the name Spence – and so it came to be. There were some trivial complaints about the exact boundaries but these too were rejected. Thus the final map of Spence had 116,179 electors, being 87,035 from Wakefield, 29,084 from Port Adelaide, 48 from Makin and 12 from Mayo. Whether people are interested in my judgments on this subject I cannot say. However, I have given them in my letter to the South Australian redistribution committee quoted above. Some may object to my 5
nominations on the ground that I have recommended only those whose names are associated with the left of politics. Unfortunately that is so. The point simply is that right of centre politicians do not figure – except in one area. Associated with Hare-Clark come three names from the modern Liberal Party, Dame Enid Lyons and Neil Robson from Tasmania and Gary Humphries from the Australian Capital Territory. One would certainly not nominate Malcolm Turnbull for any award in relation to electoral system questions. His “Senate reform” was nothing more than a decision to take the camel to a plastic surgeon who botched the job so badly that the camel’s nose and mouth are actually uglier than they were before. His greed-driven new system was nothing more than a thoroughly dishonest re-contriving of the contrivances of the old system – implemented in the most cynical way it would be possible to imagine. So, who will be my nominations for greatest Australian electoral reformers in the first quarter of the 21st Century? One name is already included, my “First Statesman”, Steve Bracks. Let me again quote the citation for his AC: “For eminent service to the Parliament and the community of Victoria through reform of the constitutional and electoral systems, the introduction of initiatives for education and training, leadership in the promotion of multiculturalism and through economic development.” When the year 2026 arrives I would be delighted if I could add another two names, a politician from the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia and a politician from the Parliament of the State of Western Australia. Their names would be added for instigating the upper house reforms I am proposing in this book. In the meantime I add that the greatest non-politician electoral reformer of my lifetime was the late Bogey Musidlak (1953-2017) to whose memory I have dedicated this book. During his lifetime he never received any official honour – not even an OAM. However, in my tribute to him at his funeral on the afternoon of Friday 8 September 2017 I mentioned the idea of pursuing the possibility of a street being named after him in a new Canberra suburb. My submission was completed in time to commemorate the first anniversary of his death and resulted in my receiving a letter dated 18 September 2018 from Jeff Brown, Surveyor-General of the ACT and cochair of the ACT Place Names Committee. The letter reads in part:
6
I was very pleased to table your submission to commemorate Mr Musidlak at the meeting of the ACT Place Names Committee on 4 September 2018. The committee unanimously agreed that Mr Musidlak is very worthy of commemoration in a suburb where the streets are named to commemorate ‘reform’. The committee has recommended that Mr Musidlak be considered at the earliest opportunity for a street in Denman Prospect. The roads in the first two stages of development have been formally named but I will ensure Mr Musidlak’s name is considered for the first land release in Denman Prospect 3. At this stage I am unable to advise you of the timing as we are waiting for planning to progress in the next stage of the suburb (to the west). That this letter did not actually say “There definitely will be a Musidlak Street” worried Bogey’s half-sister, Clarissa Dodawec. (Clarissa and Bogey share the same mother but not the same father).The upshot was that she wrote to Greg Ledwidge, Deputy Surveyor-General of the ACT. In her email she sought clarity on “Musidlak Street”. Both of us received a reply from him. His letter to me was dated 30 October 2018 and it reads in part: The ACT Place Names Unit has reserved Mr Musidlak’s name in the Denman Prospect research folder for further action once the design of the new road layout in the next stage has been approved. The Place Names research officers have also created a file in the research database and populated the folder with the information you have provided so far. The research team will consult with you, and Ms Clarissa Dodawec, once the timing for the next set of road names is known, to make sure you both support the proposal and also to provide an opportunity for you to have input into the short citation to explain the origin and significance of the proposed road name. When the roads are ready to be named the Place Names Unit will prepare the Disallowable Instrument to determine the names under the Public Place Names Act 1989. The instrument will be referred to the ACT Place Names Committee for final review and then recommended to the Minister for Planning for approval. The approval instrument will be notified on the ACT Legislation Register and tabled in the ACT Legislative Assembly for six sitting days in accordance with statutory requirements.
7
Consequently, on Wednesday 21 November 2018 I had lunch with Clarissa at her Melbourne home and we celebrated the very high probability that there will be a Musidlak Road (Avenue, Circuit, Street, whatever!) in Denman Prospect. Thus far this chapter has dealt with electoral reformers who were advocates of proportional representation. It should be noted, therefore, that Clark and Spence are not the only federal divisions named after distinguished deceased Australians who were electoral reformers. There is another, Boothby, and it came into existence as long ago as 1903. William Boothby came to South Australia in 1853. The full story of his contribution to electoral reform and administration in the colony is told by Judith Brett in her book From Secret Ballot to Democracy Sausage: How Australia Got Compulsory Voting. (Text Publishing, Melbourne, 2019). Her third chapter Three South Australian Innovators deals with Spence, Boothby and Mary Lee. However, neither Boothby nor Lee is a name significant in promoting proportional representation, the main subject of this book. On page 37 Brett writes: Boothby’s advocacy foreshadowed the role that electoral officers would play in Australia’s journey to compulsory voting. On one electoral matter, though, Boothby supported the way things had always been done. He was entirely unconvinced by Catherine Spence’s arguments for proportional representation. It would, he said, be unintelligible to the average voter. In her sixth chapter Administering Elections Impartially Brett notes this about Boothby: In July 1903 William Boothby died. He had just completed his recommendation to William Lyne on the division of South Australia into seven federal electorates. The 1902 Electoral Act gave the power to draw electoral boundaries to the state electoral offices. Community of interest, physical features, means of communication and the existing boundaries of electoral divisions were all considered, and Boothby drew the boundaries with his usual meticulous care. To honour his life’s work, one of these electorates was named after him. Bureaucrats are rarely remembered for their contribution to public affairs, but every federal election night Boothby’s name is on commentators’ lips, even if few now know of the man’s achievements. Meanwhile the official description of the name in question is this: “William Robinson Boothby (1829-1903), Returning Officer for the first 8
election of South Australian Members of the House of Representatives. Commissioner to distribute South Australia into divisions 1903.” The first member for Boothby was a Labor man, Egerton Lee Batchelor from 1903 to 1911. He had been elected in 1901 for South Australia as a whole. In 1901 South Australia elected its seven members from the state voting as one electorate by the “multi-seat plurality system” (to use my terminology) known in Australia at the time as the “block system”. In 1901 Tasmania also elected its members from the state voting as one electorate. In its case the Hare-Clark system was used, that system at the time generally being known as the Hare-Spence system. In 1903 Boothby included such Adelaide suburbs as Belair, Beaumont, Blackwood, Burnside, Glen Osmond, Mitcham, Netherby, Toorak Gardens, Torrens Park and Unley. It has remained, roughly speaking, on the same boundaries ever since though since 1949 several of these places have been in Sturt.
9