Prime Minister John Howard has warned that if the Senate knocks back his proposals to change the unfair dismissal laws and to privatise the remainder of Telstra he will put up the Bills again and again.
Mr Howard has a right to feel frustrated at the Senate obstruction. It is easy for the Opposition to argue that more than 95 per cent of legislation goes through, but it is not a numbers game. Much legislation is uncontentious. Much gets passed but details in it are obstructed because the Government agrees with the amendments with reluctance rather than see the legislation get defeated. The remaining legislation is often the legislation that really matters. It is the contentious stuff that distinguishes the parties. So despite the numbers, there is an argument that the Senate is being obstructive. Moreover, it is being obstructive in the face of at least a tacit approval of the legislation by the people. The Government was voted back in while this legislation – defeated in the previous Parliament – was on the table.
On the other hand, it would be difficult for the Opposition Labor Party to allow the legislation through without admitting that the Senate is no longer a weapon to defeat critical parts of Government policy that it feels abhorrent to its constituency. It would be letting its supporters down.
In the face of this obstruction, some senior Liberals have canvassed reducing the power of the Senate by allowing Bills knocked back three times to be submitted to a joint sitting of both Houses – where government numbers would give it safe passage. That would make the Senate a rubber stamp as a legislative house. Its only remaining value in keeping the Executive in check would be through its committee system
Also from the Liberal side in the past week came a proposal to extend the current three-year term to four years. Opposition Leader Simon Crean thought the idea a good one. Longer term gives a betters chance for good government away from the demands of electoral gratification, the theory runs.
The trouble with extending the present term to a maximum of four years is that it does not solve the problem. It would still be open to a Prime Minister to call an early election. Furthermore, a four year term poses difficulties for the Senate. Senators have a fixed six year term with half of them being elected every three years, usually in unison with the election for the House of Representatives. So extending the term of the House would mean extending senators terms to eight years. Mr Crean says this would be acceptable.
Mr Crean makes the point that before any reform proposals can go forward politicians must engender greater trust. That is true. Australian voters are unlikely to endorse a proposal to extend politicians’ terms to make them less accountable.
The role of the Senate, the length of the term, whether the term is fixed or whether the Prime Minister retains the power to set the election date are important constitutional questions.
There would be merit in having a constitutional forum of some sort to canvas possible changes to the constitution outside the artificially imposed deadlines of the centenary of federation. Change should happen only if it will improve the system of government. The changes suggested this week indicate that the Constitution is broken in parts, despite its underlying strength.
The greatest difficulty will be in getting whomever is in Government avoid using the exercise for whatever short-term political advantage that is available at the time.