1998_07_july_senate power

John Howard is finding the Senate too powerful, just as Gough Whitlam did in 1975.

At the weekend it rejected Howard’s Telstra Bill, even though the Bill contained a clause that it could not come into operation until after the next election, so if Howard won it would become law, otherwise it would lapse. As things stand even if Howard wins the next election, the Bill will not become law.

The question of Senate power has been dogging Australian politics for 25 years. It is now worse. With the rise of One Nation we will have minor parties on both the left and right, making a permanent majority impossible and the temporary majorities to secure legislation very difficult and probably dependent on silly deals.

The constitutional is now out of harmony. We have a House of Representatives where there are virtually no MPs but those elected under the banner of Coalition or Labor. But we have a Senate where minor parties will always hold the balance of power.

The two-party mentality of the former results in a winner-take-all, us-and-them attitude. That attitude rubs off and imbues the Senate. But to be workable the Senate needs to be more give-and-take.

To resolve this impasse, either the House of Representatives should have proportional representation which would result in multiple parties being represented and the replacement of two-party antipathy with more constructive compromise along the European model, or we could go the other way and reduce the power of the Senate to make the place governable under a two party-system.

The former would probably never happen. But various attempts have been made at reforming the Senate. Indeed, it could be subjected to a conspiracy of the major parties to push through electoral changes that would make it almost impossible for minor parties to get seats.

A better way would be to develop constitutionally the Howard Telstra model. Perhaps the Senate should be able to block legislation, but only for the remainder of the current term. Then the Government could either accept compromises, or it could go into the subsequent election carrying the rejection legislation. The people would get a chance to see the fine detail of the legislation. If the Government were returned, the rejected legislation should become law.

There would be no need for double dissolutions. The term of the House of Representatives could be fixed and concurrent with half-Senate elections. No early elections.

No doubt Opposition Leader Kim Beazley will be saying if you want a GST and Telstra privatised, then vote for John Howard. Well, the Constitution should say and mean the same thing. At present, with the Senate’s huge power a vote for anyone can mean anything.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *