 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Save Our Senate
Greens (WA) Detailed Policy 2004The Prime Minister, John Howard, has described the Senate as a house of obstruction, and is looking for ways to resolve the deadlocks facing Parliament. Under the current system, the only way to resolve deadlocks between the two houses of Parliament is to apply section 57 of the Australian Constitution. If the Senate twice blocks a government bill, the Prime Minister has the power to call a double dissolution election followed by a joint sitting of Parliament to attempt to break the deadlock.
The Prime Minister has suggested two options for change [1]. The first would allow a joint sitting of both houses to consider a deadlocked bill without the need for an election. If an absolute majority of Members and Senators at the joint sitting voted in favour of the deadlocked bill, it would become law. The second option (the Lavarch option) would allow a joint sitting of both houses after an ordinary general election.
The Prime Minister's suggested reforms of the Senate would only increase the power of the Executive (that is, his own power) and weaken democracy in this country. As Senator Bob Brown said, "This is Mr 43 per cent wanting 100 per cent of the power," referring to the Coalition polling 43% of the Senate vote in the 2001 election.
The framers of the Australian Constitution wisely accorded nearly co-equal powers to the House of Representatives and Senate in order to protect the democratic rights of all Australian citizens and produce effective yet accountable government [2]. The Australian Constitution clearly sets out three separate arms of government: the Executive (the government), the Judiciary (the courts) and the Legislature (the Parliament). A weakened Senate, such as that proposed by the Prime Minister, would unquestionably restrain the role of the Legislature and dangerously amplify the power of the Executive [3].
The Greens (WA) support the following principles:
The Senate is the most effective system of review in our democracy and has been vital in passing legislation with crucial amendments to government Bills. Contrary to the governments claims, the Senate has passed over 95% of government bills since the last election [4].
The Senate has a mandate from the people of Australia to act as a check and balance to the power of the Executive. The role of minor party and independent Senators has been at the heart of the Senate's independent contribution to the legislative process. The Senate provides a forum for discussion and leads to a consensus style of politics in which compromise and the accommodation of different points of view is the norm. [5]
A joint sitting of Parliament without an election would give the Executive almost total control over the Legislature, and therefore greatly reduce democracy in Australia. The government would not accept even the most basic of amendments to its legislation because it could pass a bill in the form it wanted more easily in a joint sitting.
A double dissolution election is always a constitutional option for the government. If the Australian people want the party in government to have a majority in the Senate, they will give that party a majority through the election process.
The Senate gives a voice to the people of the smaller states, helping to balance their relative lack of representation in the House of Representatives. Senators can use the Senate to bring their particular state-based concerns to national attention. [5]
The system of proportional representation used to elect the Senate much more accurately reflects people's votes, and gives those who do not vote for a major party a voice in Parliament. The introduction of proportional representation for Senate elections in 1949 has done more to enhance the operation of parliamentary democracy in Australia than any change since federation. [5]
We need to review the voting system in the House of Representatives, and consider implementing proportional representation, which provides a far better representation of the views of the Australian public. This kind of reform has been effective in New Zealand.
Federal governments should have fixed terms tied to the terms of Senators and set election days, except in the case of supply being blocked by the Senate or a vote of no confidence in the government in the House of Representatives.
The Greens (WA) will use their position in the Senate to:
express opposition to and inform the Australian public of government wrong-doing;
force the major parties to be accountable for their positions; and
maintain the role and the strength of the Senate in the parliamentary process.
If the government's reform proposals were in place today: [3]
all of Telstra would already be sold;
all media ownership restrictions would have already gone;
universities fees would be through the roof;
workers rights would be destroyed; and
Medicare would be a historical relic
References
[1] Howard, J. (8/10/03). Ministerial Statement. Retrieved from http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?id=817049&table=HANSARDR
[2] Costar, B. (ed.) (2000). Deadlock or Democracy? The Future of the Senate. Sydney: UNSW Press.
[3] The Age (June 8 2003). Senate reform "an assault on democracy" - Greens.
[4] Australian Parliament Website. Retrieved from http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/work/statistics/Index.htm
[5] Sharman, C. (1999). The Representation of Small Parties and Independents in the Senate - Australian Journal of Political Science, Vol 34, No. 3, pp. 353-361.
