Bogey Musidlak (1953-2017) died in Canberra quite unexpectedly on 27 August 2017, just short of the age of 64. It was a shock death. His funeral service took place at the White Lady Chapel in the Canberra suburb of Kingston on Friday 8 September 2017. I was invited to pay a tribute to him which I did. In my talk I said that Bogey was one of those unrecognised people whose service to Australia was significant but not well understood. I said that I would ask the ACT place naming authorities to have a street named after him in a new Canberra suburb.

Only 15 people attended the service, that small number being an example of the extent to which the world under-estimated him. No politician attended though two unsuccessful candidates at ACT elections did attend. Anyway, in my talk I said that he should be regarded as the greatest Australian non-politician electoral reformer since Catherine Helen Spence (1825-1910). My obituary was published in The Canberra Times on Saturday 16 September 2017 and titled “Father of Hare-Clark in Canberra”, the title I insisted should be bestowed upon him.

The ACT Public Place Names Authority reacted favourably to my request. It was agreed that the street in question should be in the new suburb of Denman Prospect where the theme of street names would be “activism and reform”. The citation for what became “Musidlak Rise” reads as under:

Boguslaw (Bogey) Musidlak was a long-term President of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia (1994-2017) and a leading Australian electoral reformer. He campaigned strenuously in 1992 for legislative elections in the Australian Capital Territory to use the single transferable voting system. STV voting, known in Australia as the Hare-Clark system, is a proportional and direct election, candidate-based system. Musidlak’s leadership, advocacy and persistence is regarded as instrumental to the installation of the Hare-Clark system in the ACT. Likewise, Musidlak’s influence was important in achieving an important innovation to the ACT Hare-Clark system; that a single first preference beside the name of a candidate is a valid, formal vote. The Hare-Clark system replaced the initial modified d’Hondt electoral system employed upon the introduction of self-government to the ACT in 1989.

An elaboration is needed here about the words “that a single first preference beside the name of a candidate is a valid, formal vote.” It must be recorded that I never wanted this innovation, and I argued with Musidlak about it. He explained to me that I should accept it – and I went along rather than make trouble that might endanger our campaign for Hare-Clark. My current justification to myself about my surrender on this point is to say that one of my principles is: “Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

Nevertheless, readers should know the substance of the argument for and against this innovation, beginning with my argument against it. But first readers are invited to study my essays above, “The People’s Republic of Kurrajong” and “The People’s Republic of Clark”. In the Kurrajong essay two Robson rotations are shown on the 2018 ballot paper for Bass. The ballot paper is headed: “House of Assembly Division of Bass: Election of 5 Membrs”. Then below those words, and with 20 candidates on the ballot paper, the instruction reads: “Number the boxes from 1 to 20 in the order of your choice” but below it reads: “Your vote will not count unless you number at least 5 boxes.”

The form of wording was changed for the 2021 election, but the principle remained. Then my friends are invited to read “The People’s Republic of Clark”. Note that the Tasmanian principle remains that a vote should be informal unless it records the numbering of squares being the number to be elected. The form of wording has changed twice but the principle remains the same – and I agree with that principle.

It should be noted that Bogey’s innovation has never been accepted in Tasmania which is why I never wanted it for the ACT. When Tasmania elected five members for each House of Assembly division your vote was informal unless you numbered the candidates 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. If it had been left to me the ACT would have copied Tasmania, literally.

This is the argument: suppose the ballot paper were to read: “Place the number 1 in the box beside the candidate of your choice. You may, if you wish, place numbers beside other candidates starting with the number 2.” In a single-member district system it would not matter if almost everyone decided to cast a first preference only. There would simply be a first-past-the-post result. However, in a multi-member contest it might wreck the distribution of surplus votes. Therefore, voters should be massively discouraged from casting a first preference only.

Bogey accepted my argument but insisted that the ACT ballot paper as designed by him would have that effect. It would also, he averred, reduce the informal vote. The main reason why I gave way to him was that we organised a referendum to entrench all the features of ACT Hare-Clark which included this one. There is, therefore, a genuine democratic argument for it. To view the ACT ballot paper, see “The People’s Republic of Kurrajong”, above. Bogey designed that ballot paper.

The important point is that Bogey insisted this argument applies only to a candidate-based system. He was very angry when supporters of the new Senate system ballot paper tried to justify its above-the-line instructions on the basis that they were broadly based on the ACT electoral system. He insisted that an argument applicable in a candidate-based system cannot be transferred to a party-based system.

The above explains why I have always given the ACT variant of Hare-Clark a lower mark than the Tasmanian original. There is now an added reason. The Tasmanian Hare-Clark system now elects seven members per division, not five. Therefore, it produces more proportional results and is more generous to minor parties and independents. These reasons combine to cause me to give the Tasmanian Hare-Clark system a high distinction mark of 90 per cent whereas I give the ACT version a distinction mark of 81 per cent.

Continuing to be logical, in Tasmania your vote is informal if you fail to number the candidates 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Furthermore, and this is important, the ballot paper tells you that. By contrast, the ACT ballot paper says at the bottom: “Remember, number at least 5 boxes from 1 to 5 in the order of your choice” but it does not tell you that the indication of a single first preference counts as a formal vote. The voter is left to assume such a vote to be informal. Voters should not be asked to make assumptions. They should be told the truth and the whole truth.

Anyway, here is the street sign for Musidlak Rise. Denman Prospect is located in the ACT Legislative Assembly Electorate of Murrumbidgee, called after the river that flows through it. Denman Prospect is called after an English married couple. They were Governor-General Lord Thomas Denman (1874-1954) and his wife Lady Trudie Denman (1884-1954). They inaugurated Canberra on 12 March 1913. Lady Denman stood upon the newly laid Foundation Stones and pronounced, “I name the capital of Australia – Canberra”. Lord Denman was Governor-General from July 1911 to May 1914. The name “Denman Prospect” was chosen to distinguish the Canberra suburb from the town of Denman in New South Wales.

For a photo of Musidlak himself go to “Book Chapters”, above. Then go to “Obituary for Bogey Musidlak”.

Malcolm Mackerras

10 July 2024