Beyond the Campaign: The Constitutional Questions Behind South Australia’s 2026 Election

By Mark Neugebauer

Vice-President of Australians for Better Government (ABG)

As South Australians approach the March 2026 state election, public debate is narrowing around leadership, polling momentum, and cost-of-living pressures.

Of course those matter, but this election is unfolding under altered constitutional conditions, and that deserves closer attention.

For the first time in our state’s history, South Australia operates with a legislated First Nations Voice to Parliament, elected separately and structured on the basis of Aboriginal ancestry.

In earlier analysis of these reforms, I wrote:

“In a democracy where authority flows from the people, reforms should enhance fairness rather than divide Australians along racial lines.”  See South Australia’s Uluru Statement: Recognising History Without Redefining Equality

Whether one supports or opposes the Voice, the constitutional reality is clear:

South Australia now operates with two representative pathways influencing governance.

This election is therefore occurring within a different democratic architecture than the last.

That is not a minor procedural change, it’s a structural one, and worth considering further

One Parliament, Two Democratic Mandates

Members of Parliament are elected by universal franchise one person, one vote.

The First Nations Voice, however, is elected by a restricted franchise and empowered to make formal representations to Parliament and the Executive.

In South Australia’s Uluru Statement, I argued:

“Equality before the law is a permanent principle; temporary challenges should not be met with permanent changes to how voters are represented.”

South Australia’s Constitution can be amended by parliamentary vote without a referendum. That legal authority exists.

But when structural changes alter representation itself, the question becomes not merely what is lawful, but what is legitimate.

This election therefore takes place under what can reasonably be described as a dual-pathway democratic structure:

One Parliament.
Two representative mechanisms.

That reality warrants open scrutiny and careful discernment, not dismissal.

Debate Access as a Democratic Test

Public debate is again compressing toward a two-party contest

In examining media dynamics previously, I wrote:

“A healthy democracy is not one where everyone agrees. It is one where disagreement is visible, debate is robust, and voters are trusted with the full range of choices before them.”  See Why South Australian Elections Feel Like Two-Horse Races, Even When They Aren’t

That principle applies directly to the structure of leaders’ debates.

If parties such as Pauline Hanson's One Nation are polling strongly, and the Australian Greens maintain parliamentary presence, then limiting debate platforms solely to:

• The Australian Labor Party

• The Liberal Party of Australia

would fail to reflect the electorate’s actual diversity.

Broadcasters and major media outlets should commit to hosting a four-leader debate including Labor, Liberal, One Nation, and the Greens.

Equal scrutiny strengthens legitimacy.

Exclusion, even if procedurally defensible, risks reinforcing the perception that competition is being managed rather than openly contested.

Democratic confidence depends on visible contest.

Funding Structures and Competitive Renewal

Campaign finance rules intersect with visibility and viability.

As previously noted:

“When funding mirrors existing power too closely, it creates a closed loop.”  See The High Cost of Entry: Why SA’s Funding Rules Risk Freezing Democracy

Media exposure reinforces funding.
Funding reinforces organisation.
Organisation reinforces exposure.

None of this requires malicious intent, it requires only structural advantage.

Stable systems are important, but democracies must also remain permeable to renewal.

If electoral systems reward incumbency more than competition, confidence erodes quietly over time.

A Reflection on Compelled Political Preference

There is another question worth considering.

South Australia requires compulsory attendance at elections and compulsory preferential voting for the House of Assembly.

Voters must rank every candidate, even those whose principles they fundamentally reject.

Is democratic legitimacy strengthened when citizens are required to positively preference candidates whose values they cannot, in conscience, support?

Or should voters be permitted to express support only where genuine alignment exists?

Compulsory attendance is one form of civic duty.

Compelled preference raises a different philosophical question, one about conscience, consent, and the authenticity of political choice.

In an election already shaped by structural change, that question is worth thoughtful reflection.

Before We Vote

In a previous piece, I wrote:

“Democracy is not sustained by blind trust, nor by constant suspicion. It is sustained by citizens who are willing to ask questions calmly, listen carefully, and hold power to account.”  See South Australia, Before We Vote: Power, Accountability, and the Questions That Matter

That remains the central point.

This election is not only about which party forms government.

It is about:

• Whether constitutional structures reflect equal civic status

• Whether debate platforms are genuinely open

• Whether funding rules preserve competitive renewal

• Whether citizens feel their vote expresses conviction rather than compliance

Australians for Better Government was formed around precisely these structural questions. As its prospectus explains,

“Australians for Better Government (ABG) is a non-partisan think tank and lobby group dedicated to improving the way we vote, the structure of our Government and the wording of our Constitution.”  See Australians for Better Government Prospectus

These are not abstract concerns. They go to the foundation of democratic legitimacy.

If the issues raised here, constitutional architecture, debate access, funding fairness, and the integrity of voter choice, resonate with you, I encourage you to examine ABG’s research and reform proposals and engage thoughtfully with the broader conversation. See Australians for Better Government Mission

Democracy is strengthened when citizens understand not only who governs, but how governance is structured, and when they participate in that conversation with seriousness rather than cynicism.

Before we vote, we should examine both.

By Mark Neugebauer

Vice-President of Australians for Better Government (ABG)