We want change too. But we don't want a model that disproportionately benefits certain minor parties.
In the ongoing human struggle to balance representation with power, Victoria finds itself at a familiar crossroads: a government proposing to dismantle one flawed system without yet offering a fairer one in its place. Georgie Purcell and the crossbench warn that abolishing the group voting ticket mechanism — long criticized as opaque but quietly useful to minor parties — could concentrate power in the hands of One Nation and the major parties rather than dispersing it more equitably. The Allan government's apparent haste, timed ahead of an election, raises the oldest question in democratic reform: who does the change actually serve?
- The Allan government plans to abolish Victoria's group voting ticket system when parliament resumes, but crossbench MPs say they were never consulted — not on the direction, not on the details.
- Georgie Purcell warns that stripping out the preference mechanism without replacing it with something proportional would hand outsized power to One Nation and the major parties, hollowing out the crossbench.
- The timing is hard to read as anything but strategic: Labor appears to be racing to reshape the electoral landscape before voters go to the polls later this year.
- Purcell is pushing a concrete alternative — a proportional statewide model like those used in NSW and WA — arguing it would deliver genuine reform rather than a quiet power consolidation.
- With the premier's office silent and crossbench resistance already public before legislation is even drafted, the government may be walking into a political fight it underestimated.
Victoria's crossbench MPs are raising the alarm over electoral reform they say was never discussed with them. Georgie Purcell of the Animal Justice Party warned this week that the Allan government's plan to abolish the group voting ticket system — the preference mechanism that has allowed micro-parties to win seats with small vote shares — would not democratize the upper house so much as consolidate it, handing greater power to One Nation and the major parties.
The group voting ticket system has long drawn criticism for its opacity, with preference deals struck behind closed doors producing outcomes voters never explicitly chose. But Purcell's concern is that removing it without replacing it leaves a vacuum. A source close to the crossbench told the Guardian they had anticipated Labor might move on voting reform before the election — the strategic logic is plain enough — but were blindsided by the complete absence of consultation on either the shape or the substance of any proposed legislation.
Purcell's alternative is specific: a proportional statewide model, as used in New South Wales and Western Australia, which she argues would prevent the undemocratic outcomes a simple abolition would create. She also challenged what she called a simplistic belief among Labor factional figures that removing the tickets would automatically protect their own candidates — a misreading, she says, of how the system actually functions.
The stakes are real. Victoria's upper house has grown increasingly reliant on crossbench support, and any reform that appears designed to erode that balance — rather than improve it — risks looking less like modernization and more like a power grab. With the premier's office yet to respond and crossbench MPs already speaking out before legislation is drafted, the government may find the politics of this reform considerably messier than it anticipated.
Victoria's crossbench MPs are sounding an alarm about electoral reform they say nobody asked them about. Georgie Purcell, who represents the Animal Justice Party in the state parliament, warned this week that the Allan government's plan to abolish the group voting ticket system—the complex preference mechanism that has long allowed micro-parties to win seats with tiny vote shares—would actually hand power to One Nation and the major parties instead of democratizing the system.
The Age reported that Labor intends to introduce legislation when parliament returns from winter break to overhaul Victoria's unusual voting architecture. On the surface, this sounds like a reasonable modernization. The group voting ticket system has been criticized for years as opaque and undemocratic, allowing preference deals struck behind closed doors to determine outcomes that voters never explicitly endorsed. But Purcell's concern cuts deeper: she argues that simply removing the tickets without putting something better in their place would create a vacuum that One Nation, the Greens, Labor, and the Coalition would fill—leaving crossbench members like herself stranded.
What makes this particularly pointed is that the crossbench says it was never consulted. A source close to the crossbench told the Guardian that while they had anticipated Labor might move on voting reform around this time—strategically, before the election—they were blindsided by the lack of discussion about either the general direction or the specific details of any legislation. The timing itself suggests calculation: get the changes through before voters go to the polls, reshaping the parliamentary landscape in Labor's favor.
Purcell's alternative is specific. She points to the proportional statewide models used in New South Wales and Western Australia as templates that could deliver genuine reform without becoming a death sentence for minor parties. Such a system, she argues, would prevent the "undemocratic outcomes" that a simple abolition of group voting tickets would create. She also took aim at what she called the "simplistic belief" among Labor factional leaders that removing the tickets would automatically protect their own MPs ranked second on party lists—a misunderstanding of how the system actually works.
The stakes here are not abstract. Victoria's parliament has become increasingly dependent on crossbench support in recent years, and the balance of power in the upper house has shifted dramatically as micro-parties and independents have gained seats. One Nation, in particular, has grown from a fringe presence to a force that can shape legislation. A voting reform that accidentally accelerates that shift—or that appears designed to do so—would be a significant miscalculation by a government that depends on crossbench goodwill.
What remains unclear is whether the Allan government will listen. The premier's office has not yet responded to requests for comment. But the fact that crossbench MPs are already publicly warning about the reform, before the legislation is even drafted, suggests the government may face more resistance than it anticipated when parliament returns. Electoral reform is supposed to make the system fairer. If it ends up looking like a power grab instead, the politics could get very messy very quickly.
Notable Quotes
Crossbench MPs like myself support electoral reform, and we've been asking for it to be implemented in a sensible way for years. We want change too. But we don't want a model that disproportionately benefits certain minor parties.— Georgie Purcell, Victorian Animal Justice Party MP
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would abolishing group voting tickets actually help One Nation? Doesn't that sound counterintuitive?
It does at first. But the tickets are what allow micro-parties to survive. Without them, you need a different system to stay viable. If Labor just removes the tickets and replaces them with nothing—or with something that favors larger parties—smaller players get crushed.
So Purcell is saying Labor is being lazy about this?
More than lazy. She's saying they're being strategic. Labor thinks removing the tickets helps them. But they haven't thought through what comes next, or they have and they're not saying.
The crossbench wasn't consulted at all?
Not on the substance, no. They knew something was coming, but they weren't in the room when decisions were being made. That's a pretty clear signal about whose interests are being centered.
What does Purcell actually want instead?
A proportional system like they use in New South Wales or Western Australia. Something that genuinely opens up representation without accidentally handing everything to the big players.
And the timing—before the election—that's suspicious?
It looks like it. You change the rules right before voters go to the polls, you reshape the parliament before anyone can react. That's not how you build trust.