BY ALISON DELLIT
On June 9, Prime Minister John Howard revealed his utter contempt for democracy. In proposing to de-fang the Senate, Howard wants to ensure his government's ability to force through unpopular legislation without having to go to an election.
Howard proposed that the constitution be changed to abolish the requirement for a simultaneous election of both houses of parliament before a joint sitting of the two houses can be called to vote on legislation rejected by the Senate.
At the moment, if the Senate twice refuses to pass a legislative bill approved by the House of Representatives, both houses of parliament can be dissolved. After the subsequent election, a joint-sitting of parliament can vote on the disputed legislation.
Because the government tends to have a much bigger majority in the House of Representatives than in the Senate, joint sittings make it more likely that the government's legislation can be passed — provided the government is returned to office in the double-dissolution election, which has rarely happened.
Howard is not the only politician to have it in for the Senate. His proposal has been endorsed by NSW Labor Premier Bob Carr and former Labor PM Gough Whitlam. In 1994, Labor PM Paul Keating proposed to replace the Senate with a body elected through the less democratic first-past-the-post system that operates for the House of Representatives.
While there have been differences on the details, the corporate media, big business leaders and Labor and Liberal politicians have united in calling for some of the Senate's powers — particularly the power to block the government's money supply — to be removed.
This is based on two big lies — that the Senate is less democratic than the lower house and that it can permanently stop a government from functioning.
Australia's ruling elite started really loathing the Senate in the last 20 years, as the number of small-party senators has increased. Around 25% of Australian voters now cast ballots in favour of small parties and independents, and that percentage is increasing. Voters are sick to death of big business politics, and look increasingly for alternatives.
Because the lower house is so undemocratic, however, this is not reflected there. Single-member electorates — enormous in size — ensure that only the candidate with the funds and logistical support to get the highest vote is elected.
The Coalition managed to win a lower-house majority, and therefore government, in 1998 when more voters preferred an ALP government.
Because the Senate is elected on the basis of each state constituting a multi-member electorate, its composition reflects more closely the intentions of voters, and a small number of Greens, Democrats and independents can get elected. Even then, the small number of senators elected by each state results in a bias towards the big parties, which get more senators per vote than the small parties and independents.
So when Howard claims it is "impossible" for a Coalition government to get a Senate majority, he is flat-out lying. It is possible for the Coalition to get a majority of senators, if most people vote for its ticket. But they don't.
The majority vote for a non-Coalition party, whether that is the ALP, the Greens or the Democrats. This is because most voters want regressive legislation blocked by the Senate. In trying to get around the Senate, Howard is trying to get around the will of the majority of voters.
Of course, the small-state gerrymander in the Senate is a problem. But this could be solved by increasing the number of senators for the more populous states, so that voters in NSW and Victoria have their votes more accurately reflected.
As for the claim the system is "unworkable" — there is a mechanism for resolving stand-offs between the two houses of parliament. Howard could hold a double-dissolution election. He currently has four triggers for this.
But this get to the real motivation for Howard's proposal — the Coalition is likely lose more from such an election than it gains. This is not because the Coalition will lose ground to Labor — the pathetic nature of the "opposition" makes this unlikely.
Rather it is because, unlike normal elections when only half of the Senate is elected, all Senate positions are put up for grabs in a double dissolution election.
According to political commentator Malcolm Mackerras, writing in the June 10 Australian Financial Review, a 42% vote for the Coalition in the next federal election will deliver it 38 senators, 50% of the chamber. In contrast, a double dissolution election will deliver the Coalition just 33 senators, 43% of the chamber, for the same percentage o the popular vote. The difference will be picked up largely by the Greens.
This could be Howard's worst nightmare — a Senate in which a left-wing alternative has some real bite.
So, rather than submit to an election which might strengthen the Senate's ability to stop attacks on union rights, health, education and other social services — attacks most people want stopped — Howard is trying to take power away from Australia's most democratically elected federal parliamentary house.
In calling for the government to be "allowed to govern" without a pesky Senate, Australia's ruling elite is calling for the right to ram through policies that so blatantly benefit it at the expense of the majority that the party advocating these policies could not win an election. This attack on democracy should be resisted and defeated.
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, June 18, 2003.
Visit the