"Crean joins PM in plans to hobble the Senate", read the Australian Financial Review's headline on October 9. The Labor Party's rapid cave-in on the federal Coalition's plans to nobble Australia's more representative federal house of parliament is a disgrace.
ALP leader Simon Crean is prepared to support the second of two proposals by Prime Minister John Howard — to make it easier for the government to hold a joint sitting of the two houses to pass legislation rejected by the Senate — as long as two further demands are accepted.
At the moment, if the Senate rejects a piece of legislation three times, the government can call a "double dissolution" election, and then, if re-elected, hold a joint sitting of the House of Representatives and Senate to achieve the numbers to pass the legislation.
Under Howard's proposal, which Labor supports, an election could be called after a bill has been rejected twice by the Senate, and it would not need to be a double-dissolution election.
Double dissolution elections are much more democratic than ordinary elections. Because the whole Senate is up for election (instead of just half, as in a normal poll), the percentage of the vote needed for a senator to be elected is halved. This means that the senators elected more accurately reflect the voters' preferences and the big parties' unfair advantage is lessened.
According to political commentator Malcolm Mackerras, writing in the June 10 Australian Financial Review, a 42% vote for the Coalition in the next federal election will give it 38 senators — 50% of the chamber. In contrast, a double-dissolution election will deliver the Coalition 33 senators, or 43% of the chamber, for the same percentage of the popular vote. The difference would be picked up largely by the Greens.
Howard's fear of more Greens senators being elected and reduced government representation are the main reasons that he does not want to call a double dissolution over his Medicare or higher education legislation, despite his high popularity.
But instead of exposing Howard's undemocratic move, the ALP has simply suggested amendments — one of which will make Howard's proposal significantly worse.
Not content with making it easier to force legislation through the Senate, Labor wants to take away its power to block supply. Blocking supply is the only mechanism currently available to the Senate to force the government to the polls.
Labor's second proposal is for fixed parliamentary terms of four years between elections. While fixed terms would help undermine a government's ability to manipulate the date when elections are held, increasing the maximum period between elections from the present three years to four is aimed at decreasing the frequency of elections and therefore of the accountability of governments to the voters.
The big business media has welcomed Labor's decision to back Howard's main proposal, describing it as "making it easier for governments to implement policy". What is left unstated, however, is that it will make it easier for Coalition and ALP government's to implement policy that is unpopular with the majority of voters, but welcomed by a minority — the corporate elite and the rich.
The corporate media, not surprisingly, has uncritically reported Howard's statement that "small parties representing a minority" can obstruct the working of the Senate. But that is a crock.
Legislation only gets held up in the Senate if one of the major parties joins the Greens, Democrats and independent senators to oppose it. The Greens, Democrats and independents can't stop bills with bipartisan big-party support. That only happens if the parties that a majority of Australians voted for oppose the legislation.
A less powerful Senate would lessen the pressure on the ALP to block unpopular legislation. It would give Labor the ability to posture in opposition as being against legislation that the corporate bosses want passed without incurring as much wrath from them.
There is nothing democratic about a joint sitting of parliament. It favours the House of Representatives, which is elected on a single-member constituency basis, disenfranchising voters who support any but the most popular candidate in their electorate. Howard's proposal should be opposed outright if it is put to a referendum.
From Â鶹´«Ã½ Weekly, October 15, 2003.
Visit the