Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Losing our democratic checks and balances through habit and apathy

By Klaas Woldring - posted Wednesday, 15 November 2006


The list could well be much longer of course. Having diverse representation in the Senate introduces the real possibility of different alliances of parties on particular issues, now stultified by the major party rigidity and the often-dysfunctional adversarial culture.

Some would say, “but that could make government unworkable”. Not at all, it would give the power of government back to the people who voted freely for a democratic Senate, exercising their existing voting right.

The single-member electoral district system for all lower houses, except Tasmania’s, combined with compulsory voting, have resulted in a duopoly of the major, often look-alike parties.

Advertisement

The ramifications of this virtual two-party tyranny are far reaching, resulting in mediocrity, lack of innovation, me too-ism, and a near-total dominance of party executives over our legislators.

Until the 2004 federal election the Senate has certainly proved to be a house of value defending Australia’s parliamentary democracy. The inquiries into the “Children Overboard” scandal following the Tampa’s rescue of refugees, the plight of tortured Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers, and the investigation of treatment of Australian prisoners in Guantanamo Bay’s detention centre, are only some recent examples of that reality.

The significance of upper houses as countervailing institutions confronting the two-party tyranny troubling Australian politics tends be either overlooked by voters and or deliberately downplayed, and even rubbished by mainstream media. Yet, for those who have studied the subject, there is little doubt that they can be redeeming features, which should be deployed to launch a major reform agenda.

For example, the recent career of the Independent member of the South Australian Legislative Council, Nick Xenophon is instructive. At the 1997 South Australian election, Xenophon stood for the South Australian Legislative Council under a “No Pokies” ticket, advocating the reduction and abolition of pokies. He received 2.9 per cent of the vote which, combined with preferences from other parties, made him the first Independent ever elected to the upper house.

During his time as a sitting member, Xenophon has been an activist for a range of issues besides the elimination of pokies: speaking out on essential services, the environment, taxation and perks for politicians. Xenophon stood again for the 2006 election. He ran a campaign described by some commentators as “anti-political” and received more than 20 per cent of the vote - nearly as high as the Liberals.

It was enough to not only to re-elect himself, but also to elect the second No Pokies candidate, Ann Bressington. This series of events led some commentators to call Xenophon the new "third force" in South Australian politics. His is an exceptional case because the South Australian Upper House is not elected by proportional representation.

Advertisement

In contrast the New South Wales Legislative Council, comprising 42 members (MLCs), are elected through proportional representation. Currently 11 MLCs represent minor parties or are independents. Their record of scrutinising and improving legislation is excellent but in 1999 an Act was passed, following the so-called Tablecloth election, to make it much more difficult for minor parties to register in the future. Both major parties supported that legislation, as could be expected. Moves are afoot now at the federal level to make life for small parties more difficult as well.

The key to voters being able the use Senate much more effectively is undoubtedly the proportional representation electoral system.

Many democratic countries have this as their electoral system, often even entrenched in their constitutions, for example, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Switzerland, France (changed), Portugal, Spain, Greece, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and Malta. Proportional representation was also introduced in South Africa in 1994 and in New Zealand in 1999.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

7 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Klaas Woldring is a former Associate Professor of Southern Cross University.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Klaas Woldring

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Klaas Woldring
Article Tools
Comment 7 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy