No. I am opposed to Labor's newest attempt to stamp out minor parties and dominate the game. At least minor parties have a chance at winning At Large seats. They won't after the amendment, as Labor and perhaps TPP conspire to gerrymander seats to keep and sustain their majority.
This whole thing was initiated by 2 TPP members and the President.
If there is a structural advantage to be gained by changing the method of election for these seats, I certainly don't see how it is for the largest party - which is horribly, unevenly dispersed throughout the country - to be taken out of a national contest and having its influence cut into five mismatched pieces. This is why I've remained lukewarm and relatively neutral to the outcome all along: I have no idea how it'll play out. I can't fathom how this radically benefits anyone to a large degree; if it does, then it'll likely be TPP or parties like it that follow - that's why you see near unanimous support from them and mixed support from everyone else.
AFAIK, this was a multi-partisan effort and one that I thought was a very, very bad idea in the original form that emerged from the committee. The provisions in the amendment since its inception have been drastically improved, which makes it more palatable than before. All I know is that the party of which I'm a member always survives and will find a way to do so in any new dynamic as well. I don't disagree with the premise of who it'll hurt, but you might want to point your fingers elsewhere as to who it might help.
Poll
