Is there a problem with the Senate?

In these times of ongoing economic reform, the Senate has provided an important means for upholding issues of concern. One has only to note how the Democrats softened the impact of industrial relations reform from 1997 to 2005 by offering support to the Howard government as long as a “no-disadvantage” test was maintained. Wise advice indeed given the Howard government’s unpopularity after it removed the “no-disadvantage” test in 2005 after winning a Senate majority.

Certainly, there are examples of disproportionate power held by minor parties or independents. One remembers Senators Harradine and Colston defying majority public opposition to support the Howard government’s partial privatisation of Telstra in exchange for greater funding and services in their home states (Tasmania and Queensland) and other policy measures.

But Fielding did uphold his right to express and support a certain view. Quite simply, it is hardly undemocratic for a Senator to want to ban alcohol advertisements during daytime sporting broadcasts given that there is supposed to be restrictive rules on alcohol ads during non-sporting programs until children are in bed.

Further, negotiation between Labor and Fielding and other non-Coalition senators resulted in the acceptance of Labor’s small business definition of 15 full-time staff from July 2009, although just for a transitional period of 18 months when the definition will revert to 15 or fewer staff and include full-time, part-time or casual staff.

We all make our judgments about the role that should be played by the Senate, particularly when there are times when only a few Senators hold the balance of power. However, minor parties and independents are only powerful when a clear majority of the Senate decides to support or oppose legislation. This is hardly undemocratic, although small opposition parties or independents may have vastly different agendas for opposing certain legislation.

In the end, Australia’s parliamentary system, though not perfect, holds its own with most in regard to reconciling the contradiction between votes lodged, seats won, and representation.