Losing our democratic checks and balances through habit and apathy

At a recent well-attended Politics in the Pub session, in Sydney, three speakers devoted their talks to the Senate, the theme for the evening. Two represented new web campaigners for new policy (New Matilda and Get Up) and the third speaker represented the newly formed Third Voice Alliance. Public interest could be measured by the many in the audience who asked further questions and made comments.

Post 2004 federal election analysis suggests that a majority of voters resent the fact the control of the Senate has moved unexpectedly to the Howard Government. If voters want to restore the balance of power that was previously exercised by minority parties they will need to “decouple” their House of Representatives vote from their Senate vote.

Going back over the last six federal elections only about 3 per cent of major party voters do this. Habit, apathy and the major parties How-to-Vote advice appear to be the major reasons.

A public education campaign pointing out the benefit of exercising voters’ options should be undertaken by the organisations concerned, the minor parties themselves and by the many voters who are disenchanted by the major parties. Merely tight preferencing between minor parties is not an adequate strategy to democratise the Senate.

It is virtually impossible to elect minor party candidates to the House of Representatives. The electoral system is grossly biased in favour of the major parties in that house. However, it is entirely possible to elect a Senate with a much larger segment of reformist minor party and independent senator representation.

Major party Senate candidates are actually appointed by their party rather than elected by the voters. Major parties can count on two to three quotas in each state (in a half senate election) as a result of the habitual vote for that party and standard party advice. The Senate election outcome will therefore be decided largely by that coupled vote.

However, this nexus can be broken provided voters realise that it is not necessarily in the country’s or their interest to accept that major party’s advice. As a result of proportional representation, the electoral system for the Senate since 1949, they have a range of additional options for the Senate. If half the voters were to break that claimed nexus then the Senate could suddenly emerge as a chamber reflecting the democratic power of the people.

Whichever major party would win the election the views of the Senate would shape government policy significantly. It could even become the more influential legislative chamber and be a catalyst for major reforms not achievable otherwise.

After all, the Australian constitution bestows real power on the Senate, in Section 53:

“Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws”, the qualification being that “the Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden to the people”.

A list of achievable reforms through a Senate controlled by progressive minor parties and independents, conceivably saving massive amounts of money, could include the following:

• stronger controls over government advertising, foreign investment, foreign treaties and trade agreements;
• regulating imports of agricultural products;
• initiating referendums on constitutional change, for example, fixed four-year parliaments;
• introduce rules on political donations and public funding of elections;
• change the electoral system itself;
• launch a review of security legislation;
• introduce a human rights bill;
• sign the Kyoto Treaty;
• curb the excessive remuneration of senior executives;
• ensure a fair IR system;
• bring on the republic;
• start the debate on a restructure of Australia, and so on.

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.

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.

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.