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

Should we have by-elections?

By Crispin Hull - posted Friday, 8 August 2008


Should we have by-elections? Last week Mark Vaile formally resigned from Parliament creating a need for a by-election in his seat of Lyne.

The by-election will be held on the same day as that of the seat of Mayo vacated by Alexander Downer. They follow the by-election in June in Gippsland caused by the resignation of Peter McGauran.

Perhaps Peter Costello will leave, causing a by-election in Higgins.

Advertisement

Maybe Lyne will fall to an independent like other New South Wales National Party seats, but all the others are safe. And even if Lyne changes hands it will not affect the Government.

We can expect a lot more by-elections in the future, now John Howard has left the prime ministership.

Howard held a tight rein on by-elections because he had a good sense of political history. In his 11 years, he allowed just one resignation-causing by-election: that in the seat of Ryan held by his former Defence Minister John Moore in 2001. The Liberals lost that by-election to Labor and Howard never allowed another one.

All the other by-elections in his term were cause by death or Labor resignations except the one caused by a finding of the Court of Disputed Returns in Lindsay which Jackie Kelly won in 1996.

If you wanted to vacate a Coalition seat in the Howard years, you had to wait till a general election.

Howard knew that a political party is three times more likely to lose a by-election caused by a resignation than it is to lose one caused by death.

Advertisement

Even so, a major party is still very unlikely to lose a by-election to the other major party. As for a by-election causing a change of government, it has never happened in the federal sphere.

It happened once in Queensland in 1996, but that was not so much a by-election as a re-run of the original election in the state seat of Mundingburra after a ruling by the Court of Disputed Returns.

So it makes you wonder why we do not have the same process for the House of Representatives as we have for the Senate. If a Member dies or resigns he or she is replaced by a person of the same party.

There are arguments both ways. In favour of a change is that it would save a lot of money and effort. It would also stop pork barrelling. Pork barrelling is bad enough at a general election. At least it is diffused among quite a few marginal seats. But when only one seat is up for grabs, the political leaders’ largesse knows no bounds.

However, it may be that allowing the party to nominate a new Member without facing an election makes the process too easy for someone to leave without completing their terms.

History bears this out. The Constitution was changed in 1977 to allow for party replacement for the whole of the remainder of the six-year term. Previously, the State Government could replace a dead or resigning senator until the next half-Senate election when there would be a by-election if the term of the replaced senator would have otherwise continued for a further three years.

Since then, there have been about 50 senate vacancies as against only 40 in the House of Representatives, and the Senate is only half the size of the House.

So fear of a by-election might put a slight brake on Members leaving. That was certainly the case in the Howard years. Only one Coalition Representative was allowed to resign in the Howard years, against 16 senators.

But you have to put against that the lame-duck problem.

Do we want to force people to stay in Parliament beyond their use-by date? It is hardly fair to the voters. MPs do more than just make up the numbers to form a government. They also attend to a lot of representation work - helping people (even those who did not vote for them) in tussles with bureaucracy or fights for improved services.

Maybe Howard shot himself in the foot by putting the lid on by-elections because the team had to “carry” the forced-to-stay-put MP; there was less new blood; and the electorate missed a chance to let off steam.

You may argue that having the party choose the new Member is not democratic, but in fact that is what happens nearly all the time.

Since Kim Beazley senior (against whom our new Chief Justice Robert French, then in his early 20s, ran against one election) ran successfully in the by-election caused by the death of Prime Minister John Curtin in 1945 we have had 87 by-elections.

In only eight of them did the seat change from one major party to the other. The seat changed to independent or minor or between Coalition parties on the five other occasions when a by-election saw a seat change hands.

So in 74 out of 87 by-elections since World War II the major political party picked the new Member anyway.

We may as well formalise it and adopt the Senate system in the House of Representatives as well. Admittedly, it would require a change to the Constitution - and one would hope in a clause much shorter than the 843 words it took to spell out the Senate system in 1977.

The case for having party replacement in the House of Representatives is probably stronger than the case for the Senate. In the House the new Member gets the balance of only a three-year term, not a six-year term as in the Senate. So it is less “undemocratic” because the replacing Member faces an election pretty quickly anyway.

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

A version of this article was first published in The Canberra Times on August 2, 2008.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 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

Crispin Hull is a former editor of The Canberra Times, admitted as a barrister and solicitor in the ACT and author of The High Court 1903-2003 (The Law Book Company). He teaches journalism at the University of Canberra and is chair of Barnardos Australia, the children’s charity. His website is here: www.crispinhullcom.au.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Crispin Hull

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

Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy