It only took one Bill being defeated in the Senate for the hand-wringing to start about mandates and legitimate government actions being frustrated by an obstructionist Senate.
Paul Kelly went into hyperbolic overdrive in The Australian, going even further than Paul Keating in some gratuitous Senate bashing. Apparently, the new government is being “undermined by a grossly undemocratic chamber”, with “its vested interests, (set to) inflict much damage on Rudd.” Horror is expressed at the fact that half of the Senate’s members “were elected as long ago as 2004”, as though this fundamental Constitutional provision – a check and balance also used in the US Congress – is somehow illegitimate.
It is true that Stephen Fielding was elected on an historically low 2 per cent primary vote in 2004, but he was still legitimately elected (due to a preference decision of the ALP at the time). In any case, Stephen Fielding only shares 1/38th (or 2.6%) of the responsibility for blocking legislation. 37/38ths of the responsibility lies in the hands of the Coalition Senators, all of whom were also legitimately elected and have every right (indeed a responsibility) to vote against legislation which they believe to be flawed.
If the 38 Senators are unable to give a convincing argument for their decision and appear to be acting out of political expediency, it is likely be to their political detriment down the track. All sides can and no doubt make their cases as to the validity of their position and the hollowness of the opposing view. That’s what political debate and democracy is supposed to be about.
While the system which elects the Senate is not perfect, it is demonstrably more democratic than that which elects the House of Representatives (and this which decides the government), as it more closely reflects the diversity of opinion in the electorate. If Labor had got over 50 per cent of the primary vote, it could possibly be argued they had the majority of the electorate willing to accept whatever they put forward. But they didn’t come close – barely getting above 40 per cent in the Senate – so it is a bit rich calling the Senate undemocratic whenever it decides not to pass a piece of legislation.
Paul Kelly even has a go at blaming the media (which always amazes me when it comes from senior journalists), inferring it is due to some latent anti-Howard bias!
“From 1996 Labor championed the Senate and legitimised its delays and defeat of Howard’s bills. Labor and the media depicted the Senate as heroic defender of the public interest against Howard, an idea now entrenched.”
It is not the media or any political party which legitimises the Senate’s willingness to oppose government legislation, it is the Constitution and the electorate. It is nothing to do with the Howard era. As Keating (and Hawke and Fraser before him) was all too aware, the Senate has the authority to oppose legislation. Indeed, the Democrats blew a fatal hole in their legitimacy in the eyes of the electorate by not using their Senate votes to oppose legislative measures they had previously criticised.
This Senate bashing is nothing new of course. We’ve just had a bit of a break from it in the last three years, when the Coalition was able to reduce the Senate to a rubber stamp. I often wonder what such critics think the Parliament is actually supposed to do, if they genuinely believe it is illegitimate to oppose government legislation. I thought it was the first thing students learned when taught about our system of government – that governments (i.e. the executive) proposed laws and parliaments considered then and decided whether to pass them.
The same themes are put forward by Coalition voices following the weekend elections, with another Independent elected to the House of Representatives, and a hung parliament a certainty in Western Australia. Former Nationals’ Leader, John Anderson, argued that electing independents risks “unstable federal parliaments”. It’s certainly not surprising for a major party figure to try to argue this, but it really should be shot down for the anti-democratic nonsense that it is.
Since the 1990s, almost every state in Australia has experienced minority government at one time or another. Nowhere is it explained why a government having to get the support of others to get legislation through the Lower House makes anything inherently “unstable”. Indeed, at the moment New South Wales looks more unstable than any of the minority governments we have seen in recent times.
It is about time we got over this idea that it is some sort of crisis every time a government is unable to get a single piece of legislation passed by a house of parliament. Either we elect a dictatorship every three years, or we encourage the Parliaments we elect to do their job and properly examine proposed laws. Perhaps it is the electorate’s desire to see its politicians do more than be obedient cogs in major party machines – lining up unquestioningly to wave through whatever law the government puts forward – which is behind the weekend’s strong performances of Independent candidates and parties like the WA Nationals which announced their willingness to act independently of the major parties. Maybe if the major parties allowed their MPs a bit more ability to vote according to their beliefs, the electorate might see less need to vote for independents.
17 Comments
The voice of reason, as always
Andrew I agree that Paul Kelly’s analysis was absurd.
However, I agree with John Anderson that electing independents risks unstable Government. Heck, look at the Italians. So many minor parties/independents that they are constantly at the ballot box electing new governments.
Consensus politics is invariably slow to arrive at decisions and it can make it near impossible to govern and pass essential reforms for the future of the nation.
Whilst I appreciate that you yourself are from a smaller party which had a colourful history of negotiating with the major parties; I for one do not want to see a situation where our two-party system is diminished. It is the bedrock underpinning our unbridled political stability for the last century.
I understand your point about Italy, Generic, but I think ’stability’ for its own sake is over-rated. (and I can’t get past the fact Italians keep electing Berlusconi to power, which I find so unfathomable that everything else about the consequences of their electoral system seems minor by comparison.
That doesn’t mean I think instabilty is a good thing, but rather that minority government does not in itself mean instability. There is ’stable’ majority government in NSW at the moment, but it doesn’t seem to be doing terribly well.
The mian reason I chose to get involved in a smaller party so many years ago was because I felt the two party system offered very little choice or diversity. However, the vast majority keep voting for one or the other of them, so I accept most people disagree with me. No system is perfect of course, but I think ours would be improved if there was less rigid party discipline and more scope for major party MPs to act on the basis on their own beliefs.
As a second generation Italian, I would have to agree with you Andrew – the country is a political basketcase (and has been for a long while).
Furthermore, I have a number of expat European friends (Danes and Germans) who aren’t really convinced that a two-party political system such as ours is ‘as democratic’ as multi-party systems. They argue that a greater degree of political pluralism more accurately represents the views/beliefs of the federal constituency.
Perhaps we should just do away with the current 2PP and preferencing scenario? Wouldn’t that provide greater transparency, responsibility and independence to the minor parties (and prevent glitches like Sen Fielding)? Or, why not merge the Senate with the underwhelming state governments? What more would truly represent the will of the people than electing representatives who campaign on state issues to a federal position
Andrew
You raise a god point about stability too. It is easy to find straw men to justify positions on various political issues. But often there are also constructive examples too. Minority and coalition governments have worked effectively in many northern european countries which are both stable and prosperous.
As for this particular case though, while I agree that Kelly’s analysis was flawed, I have a deeper concern about Fielding’s election: lack of scrutiny. It was Labor’s own fault that he got elected with 2% of the vote. But my real concern is lack of scrutiny of his party and its position on many issues. I suspect because nobody gave them a chance of election little attention was paid to Family First in the 2004 campaign. They tried to position themselves as another democrat- style central balance of power party. But they are not. Their voting record clearly shows a strongly conservative stance, especially on many social isues that they did not flag in the election. The reasons Fielding gave for voting against the luxury car tax were transparently false, furhter udnermining his credibility (not teh legitimacy of his election, as you point out).
Andrew, you might criticise their decision to elect Berlusconi repeatedly, but you forgot the fact they elected Romano Prodi for a while and he resigned in short order after he had lost the confidence of the parliament (as is often the case in Italy). Berlusconi has actually been a figure of stability in an otherwise ridiculous political system.
What about Belgium? They were without government for 8 months whilst the alliances were negotiated. It’s absurd. In Germany, the two diametrically opposed parties had to form a coalition!
All this leads to is a group of parties who sell themselves out in order to get some power. There are no principles.
I take your point about NSW, but the people of NSW keep re-electing the idiots there. But the greens and independents have still done well. I tend to think that our system is a reasonable balance between pluralism and stability, it’s not as starkly two-party as the United States, and it is not as pluralistic as some European countries. Thus we have one of the most stable and endearing democracies in the world.
Generic P – my Berlusconi comment was partly tongue in cheek, but I guess my point is that if repeat doses of Berlusconi is what is required to deliver stability, then it shows that stability might not be the be all and end all in the way it is often portrayed in corporate media.
Belgium certainly has big problems at the moment, but I think the problems with forming a government are more a reflection of what seems to be a very deep existential crisis when it comes to what ‘Belgium’ is – in that sense I think you could say the Parliament/(non)government is reflecting the country. Far from ideal, but not a problem which could resolved just by a ’stable’ government which was not able to address the underlying problem.
As for Germany, a Grand Coalition has happened before in a number of German states. I don’t think its accurate to say the two German major parties are ‘diametricaly opposed’ (not are the two Australian major parties in my view), but in any case it seems to have delivered stable government.
And while the USA makes it harder than here for anyone outside the two main parties, it allows immensely greater individual freedom within those parties. I dont know if I’d like to see Australian poliics go quite as far as the USA in that regard, but I think we could move a fair bit in that direction without any great harm – even if it did mean a slightly greater risk of “unstable government”
Anything other than a strong majority for a single party “risks unstable government”, but (a) even though it might risk it, it often doesn’t happen, and even when it does the electorate usually self-corrects soon enough, (b) stable government is no guarantee of good government, and (c) governments held together by coalitions of competing interests can often (though not always) do better despite (or maybe because of) the potential instability.
You should take another look at the election results. The system and method used by the AEC for the senate seriously distorts the proportionality of the count to the extent that the Queensland result did not reflect the voters intention. There are two main shortfalls in the way the senate vote is counted.
1. The calculation of the surplus transfer value where major party ticket votes are increased value at the expense of minor party supported candidates. The current method calculated based on the number of ballot papers not the value of the ballot paper. (Surplus divided by the number of ballot papers) Problem with the current senate rules is that some ballot papers hold a fractional value that is less then other ballot papers as they are distributed High in quantity but low in value. This can and does work against all parties (Although it favours them indirectly on some occasions). Western Australia recently changed the way they count their upper-house vote introducing what is referred to as the weighted Gregory transfer method (Surplus divided by the candidate’s total value of votes times then value of each ballot paper). One vote one value.
2. The way in which we redistribute preferences allocated to candidates that are excluded from the count. The principle should be that votes for excluded candidates a should redistributed as though that candidate did not stand. BUT again this is not how the system works in the senate.
Analysis of the 2007 Senate vote has shown that the Queensland senate results did not reflect the voters intentions. The system seriously distorted the outcome of the election. If you recount the Queensland ballot on the basis that there is only seven candidates remaining in the count the results are 3 Liberal, 2 Labor and 1 Green.
The current method of counting the Senate election is out of date. It was designed to facilitate a manual counting process.
The Australian Government us currently reviewing the system in place and hopefully they will address these issues. The ITEM has requested the SEC to provide a report. The AEC is fully aware of the shortcoming in the system itself BUT has yet to address the issue. A cone of silence and attitude of you do not mention it no one will know it is broken. A bit like ignoring the need to check you brakes or service your car.
I am sure Bob Brown is concerned about this. BUT as it does not always favour or disadvantage the Greens. Analysis of the Victorian results shows that had One Nation preferenced the Liberal Party ahead of the ALP the Greens would have been elected The method used in calculating the Surplus Transfer Value gave the Greens an additional 7,000 bonus votes, 7,000 votes that changed the results of the election. 7,000 Votes above and beyond what they should have been allocated.
In the realistic hypothetical outline above the Greens would have been elected in Victoria not on merit but as a result of the distortion built into the system and method of counting the vote.
In Queensland it was the other way around. The Queensland result was decided by the way the AEC distribute preferences from excluded candidates.
More information Change that Counts -click here
Here is the link http://blogs.crikey.com.au/bartlett/2008/09/11/senate-bashing-makes-a-welcome-return/#comment-12
re suggestion of a double dissolution.Why would labor want to call a double dissolution. It did well in the last election and can only improve on its position in the next election. A double dissolution would only put at risk the possibility of the government secure a majority in the senate and would increase the opportunity for minor parties to retain the balance of power. A double dissolution is not on the cards under any circumstances. Hopeful dreaming on behalf of the author as they see this as their best and only hope of political resurrection.
“democracy@work”, I am sure a different method of counting Senate votes can produce different results, especially for the final seat in a close contest, where small changes can create different outcomes. But it is a big leap from that to saying the Qld result “seriously distorts the proportionality of the count” and “did not reflect the voters intention.”
The Greens got their best ever vote in Queensland, but it still was not enough with preferences from other progressive and left leaning preferences, to build up a quota. There may be some validity in your case for how surplus transfer values are calculated, but it shouldn’t desguise the case that there still isn’t a clear quota worth of votes for progressive/left leaning candidates outside the major parties.
As for your comment on a double dissolution, I’ve stated previously why a double dissolution would leave Labor would a better Senate scenario. The maths alone make this almost inevitable, as the number of Coalition seats would fall further (which not increases the certainty of the cross-benches retaining balance of power, but would make it easier for Labor to only have to negotiate with the Greens to secure passage of legislation). Your suggestion that there is a possibility for the “govenrment to secure a majority in the Senate” is nonsensical – there is no chance of this under either a half- or full-Senate election.
As for your snark about a double dissolution suiting my hopes of a “political resurrection”, firstly I’d have to want to do that, secondly I’d have to find a party that would want me and thirdly I’d have to gain pre-selection. At the moment I’m spending my energy exploring all the things I might find interesting now I am free of Parliament, not directing my attention at how I might get back in there again.
I do not think you have analyzed the results of the election. The only reason why the Greens lost the right of representation was due to the distortion in the process count. If you adopt the principle that each ballot papers should be treated in the same manner and that when a candidate is excluded from the count the ballot should be counted as though that candidate did not stand. Then yes the system did not reflect the voters intention. By your logic a first past the post multiple cross system would reflect the voters intentions.
My analysis of the vote has been confirmed by three independent analysts including the British Electoral Reform Society, who under took a count using Meek’s method. All Analyses showed that the Greens should have secured the sixth Senate seat. Next you will be trying to justify the calculation in the surplus Transfer value based on the number of ballot papers as opposed to the value of the vote. WA realised that process was seriously flawed which is why they adopted a calculation based on the value of the vote not the number of ballot papers. All they need to do now is address the flaw in the way preference votes excluded candidates are distributed. With the use of computer based technology there is not justification for the distortion in the count. None.
RE: Double Dissolution
I would like to see your maths on your claim that Labor would do better in a double dissolution at the next election. The Labor Party did better then expected in the last election WHY would they want to hold a double dissolution. Way too risky. Not on the cards.
PS I do not believe the government has a chance of winning control of the Senate in their own right, But they have less a chance of retaining the gains made in 2007 if there is a double dissolution. Labors worst result was in 2004 its best result in 2007. Logic has it that as the 2004 crew are up for grabs next why risk the gains of 2007.
I suggest that your recount the vote by excluding all other candidates except for the top 3 Labor and Liberal/NP tickets and the Greens number one. The Greens secured a quota. More information and deails of the count here
2007 Queensland Senate Election
Comparsion Count Summary Report
IDCanidateTicketWRIGHTMEEKAEC
23MACDONALDJ-1348286345559345559
24BOYCEJ-2349882345559345559
25BOSWELLJ-3363509345559345559
33WATERSM-1351484363089311914
38HOGG, O-1348609345559345559
39MOOREO-2351059345559345559
40FURNERO-3305705328023 372947
Non-Transferable373Remaining5155
Exhausted970
Gain/Loss126
Sum241890724189072418907
Sorry HTML Table not switched on. below csv data
2007 Queensland Senate Election
Comparsion Count Summary Report
“ID”,”Canidate”,”Ticket”,”WRIGHT”,”MEEK”,”AEC”
“23″,”MACDONALD”,”J-1″,”348286″,”345559″,”345559″
“24″,”BOYCE”,”J-2″,”349882″,”345559″,”345559″
“25″,”BOSWELL”,”J-3″,”363509″,”345559″,”345559″
“33″,”WATERS”,”M-1″,”351484″,”363089″,”311914″
“38″,”HOGG, O-1″,”348609″,”345559″,”345559″
“39″,”MOORE”,”O-2″,”351059″,”345559″,”345559″
“40″,”FURNER”,”O-3″,”305705″,”328023 “,”372947″
“”,”Non-Transferable”,”",”373″,”Remaining”,”5155″
“”,”Exhausted”,”",”",”",”970″
“”,”Gain/Loss”,”",”",”",”126″
“”,”Sum”,”",”2418907″,”2418907″,”2418907″
My apologies n cutting and pasting I swapped MEEK column for WRIGHT Column.
I assume you are familiar with MEEK and the AEC systems
Meek is an approximation non-linear counting method whist Wright is a linear counting method. Wright is similar to the WA system except that when a candidate is to be excluded the vote is reset and the count starts again as though the excluded candidate had not stood. The method of calculating the surplus transfer value is based on the value of the vote not the number of ballot papers.
Both Meek and Wright better refect the intention of the voter whilst the AEC system seriously distorts the outcome of the election. The wrong person/Party was elected in QLD. As much as I am pleased the ALP had gained an additional seat I can not say or claim that it did so on the basis of merit. The only reason they won three seats was due to the distortion in the way the AEC counts the vote, Your from QLD you should be concerned about this issue.