The Senate – two sides of an argument

Mysteryman said :

HiddenDragon said :

Whatever the reasons at the time our Constitution was drafted, I can see no good reason now why a Senator’s term should be twice (or longer) that of an MHR’s.

So you don’t know why the system is the way it is, but you can’t see why it should stay that way?

There is probably a more eloquent way to say this, but here goes…

Our Senate functions very well as a house of review, despite the insistence of certain Riot-ACT contributors. If the Senate did not have half-Senate elections and six year terms, governments would obtain majorities in the Senate far more often than they currently do. That could result in a complete failure of the Senate to be able to hold the government accountable. Perhaps you remember the Howard government gaining control of the Senate in 2005? Imagine that scenario every election.

Half Senate elections and six year terms prevent the Senate from being completely repopulated every election, and preserves the character of the Senate as a “continuing house”. Doing so helps the Senate maintain its ability to hold the government accountable by maintaining a degree of carry-over from previous parliaments.

None of what I recall reading in Quick and Garran, La Nauze, Roger Joyce’s biography of Griffith, the Convention Debates etc. persuades me that the arrangements for the Senate are still optimal or even necessary. Your argument is essentially that the people – or at least those who are eligible to vote and do so in a valid manner – are rash, fickle and need to be saved from themselves.

GrumpyMark said :

I agree with @watto23 (#1 above) I would much rather a flawed Senate than a single government controlled lower house (irrespective of which party controls it). As these days governments cannot be trusted to keep their election promises and tend to cater to their backers rather than the interests of the country.

I just wish there were more Senators like Nick Xenopohon who actually considers the true merit of legislation before casting his vote. I may not always agree with how he chooses to vote but at least I can follow his logic in choosing how to cast his vote.

Xenophon does come a cross as a truly independent and thinking senator. I know he is a strong anti-poker machine advocate. I can see where he is coming from and agree they do little good for society, except that the clubs use the money to fund local sports and other community groups. He is apparently starting a new party NXT (Nick Xenophon Team). Wonder if we’ll get a candidate in the ACT election to try and nab the marginal liberal senate seat (I think the Labor senate seat would be too difficult, but either seat would be good for the ACT if it wasn’t Labor or Liberal)

justin heywood said :

Mysteryman said :

Our Senate functions very well as a house of review, despite the insistence of certain Riot-ACT contributors. If the Senate did not have half-Senate elections and six year terms, governments would obtain majorities in the Senate far more often than they currently do. That could result in a complete failure of the Senate to be able to hold the government accountable. Perhaps you remember the Howard government gaining control of the Senate in 2005? Imagine that scenario every election.

Half Senate elections and six year terms prevent the Senate from being completely repopulated every election, and preserves the character of the Senate as a “continuing house”. Doing so helps the Senate maintain its ability to hold the government accountable by maintaining a degree of carry-over from previous parliaments.

So if a Senate is so vital to democracy it must be absolute bedlam in those jurisdictions that don’t have them.

But it isn’t true, is it. The senate is an anachronism left over from when the states were at least as important as the nation itself.

In my view, the main point of the OP is that for better for worse the nation elected a coalition government; and to have the government of the day – any national government – seriously entertaining the self-serving musings of the likes of Lambie (and others of a similar ilk), who have minuscule support, indicates that the system is not working well.

I argue that despite the good intentions of those who set up our federation, our country has changed from a splintered collection of competing states into a mature country. Our political setup needs to change as well.

Jurisdictions like QLD, maybe? Or the ACT? I’d argue that both of those uni-cameral parliaments have a recent history of poor of really decisions being made by a government with no upper house to hold them accountable. The Stanhope government was a prime example of one that needed to be held accountable but wasn’t. As is the Newman government.

I’d argue that the Federal system works perfectly well, and the cross-bench is a prime example of that. We currently have somewhat of an anomaly regarding the Senate composition, but that doesn’t mean the system is broken or unnecessary. I think future elections will see candidates more carefully consider how their preferences are allocated and I’d be very surprised if we had a similar outcome next election. But even if we did, I don’t think having some non-major party voices in the chamber is the problem people are making it out to be. The cross-bench is forcing the government to consider competing points of view and in some cases amend it’s legislation. If that’s not keeping the government in check, I don’t know what is. And I’d rather that than a single party doing everything they want without resistance. I think it provides for better law making.

We haven’t even touched of the significance of Senate committees, another important part of the Federal parliament. I’m not going to get into it now, though. Needless to say that the people who make the decisions understand it the importance of the Senate.

Mysteryman said :

Our Senate functions very well as a house of review, despite the insistence of certain Riot-ACT contributors. If the Senate did not have half-Senate elections and six year terms, governments would obtain majorities in the Senate far more often than they currently do. That could result in a complete failure of the Senate to be able to hold the government accountable. Perhaps you remember the Howard government gaining control of the Senate in 2005? Imagine that scenario every election.

Half Senate elections and six year terms prevent the Senate from being completely repopulated every election, and preserves the character of the Senate as a “continuing house”. Doing so helps the Senate maintain its ability to hold the government accountable by maintaining a degree of carry-over from previous parliaments.

So if a Senate is so vital to democracy it must be absolute bedlam in those jurisdictions that don’t have them.

But it isn’t true, is it. The senate is an anachronism left over from when the states were at least as important as the nation itself.

In my view, the main point of the OP is that for better for worse the nation elected a coalition government; and to have the government of the day – any national government – seriously entertaining the self-serving musings of the likes of Lambie (and others of a similar ilk), who have minuscule support, indicates that the system is not working well.

I argue that despite the good intentions of those who set up our federation, our country has changed from a splintered collection of competing states into a mature country. Our political setup needs to change as well.

HiddenDragon said :

Whatever the reasons at the time our Constitution was drafted, I can see no good reason now why a Senator’s term should be twice (or longer) that of an MHR’s.

So you don’t know why the system is the way it is, but you can’t see why it should stay that way?

There is probably a more eloquent way to say this, but here goes…

Our Senate functions very well as a house of review, despite the insistence of certain Riot-ACT contributors. If the Senate did not have half-Senate elections and six year terms, governments would obtain majorities in the Senate far more often than they currently do. That could result in a complete failure of the Senate to be able to hold the government accountable. Perhaps you remember the Howard government gaining control of the Senate in 2005? Imagine that scenario every election.

Half Senate elections and six year terms prevent the Senate from being completely repopulated every election, and preserves the character of the Senate as a “continuing house”. Doing so helps the Senate maintain its ability to hold the government accountable by maintaining a degree of carry-over from previous parliaments.

Whatever the reasons at the time our Constitution was drafted, I can see no good reason now why a Senator’s term should be twice (or longer) that of an MHR’s.

A full Senate election with each House of Representatives election, with Senators’ terms to commence straight away, would surely reduce the scope for a Government’s agenda (even when they have put it to the people in reasonable detail before and during the election campaign) being frustrated by an obstructionist Senate.

A change to the Senate voting system which reduced somewhat the scope for Senators to be elected with a tiny first preference vote would also be useful – as things stand, we might as well just fill 10% of Senate seats by plucking random people off the street.

The point about the Senate no longer being a house of review is quite valid. However, to some extent the issue is that the major parties have perverted that review process by forcing Senators to vote along party lines rather than being able to exercise an independent vote which considers the interests of the people they represent. Parties such as PUP and the Australian Motorists Party only have candidates elected because enough people become disenchanted with the major parties that their protest vote actually leads to a skewed result based on cascading preferences flowing away from the major parties.

So, I agree that the matter of proportional representation as it applies in the Senate leaves a lot to be desired when considering the primary vote actually received by some of those elected.

However, it is also worth noting that a similar “preferential anomaly” occurred at the last ACT election. According to the AEC website, Simon CORBELL attracted 2.1% of the primary votes cast in the electorate of Molongolo. His Labor Party running mate Meegan Fitzharris attracted 2.9% of the primary vote.However Meegan Fitzharris is not sitting in the Assembly as Mr Corbell was the beneficiary of preference distribution. Furthermore in the federal House of Reps seat of Fairfax (again quoting from the AEC website), Clive Palmer received 26.49% of the primary vote and his Liberal Opponent, Ted O’Brien, received 41.32% of the primary vote. Yet due to preferences, Clive Palmer – when he bothers to turn up – sits in the House of Reps.

I, for one, hate the concept of allocation of preferences, as ultimately it forces me to vote either Liberal or Labor, depending on which of these I place higher on my voting paper – except on the odd occasion when a non-main stream candidate gets up.

I’d prefer voting to be a 3-2-1 system a la the Brownlow medal count. So my first pick gets 3-points, second gets 2-points and third gets 1-point and the winner is the candidate with the highest aggregation of points. In the event of an overall tie, the candidate with the most first preferences would win. In the case of the Senate (and states/territories where there are “multiple winners”) it would be a matter of going down the list until all positions are filled.

Such a system would do away with the confusion over above and below the line voting and having to put a number against every candidate if below.

I’m sure this system is flawed as the authorities must have considered it and rejected it for some reason but I’d like to know why.

I agree with @watto23 (#1 above) I would much rather a flawed Senate than a single government controlled lower house (irrespective of which party controls it). As these days governments cannot be trusted to keep their election promises and tend to cater to their backers rather than the interests of the country.

I just wish there were more Senators like Nick Xenopohon who actually considers the true merit of legislation before casting his vote. I may not always agree with how he chooses to vote but at least I can follow his logic in choosing how to cast his vote.

The whole purpose of giving all states an equal number of senators is to stop the larger states, like NSW and VIC who have a greater representation in the House of Reps, from governing in their favour at the expense of the smaller states.

As such, it works very well. Calling for changes to the voting system demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Senate’s purpose. John – our Senate, while modelled somewhat on the House of Lords, functions very differently. You should look into the differences. I think you’d be surprised.

Fixing the Senate voting system would fix most of the problems here.

Get rid of above the line voting and allow people to only enter their preferences to whatever number they wish rather than having to number them all.

As for Tasmania, that a problem with a much harder solution. How about each state gets 6 guaranteed senators and the rest are then allocated proportionally by population?

Kate Lundy is hardly an ornament to the Senate in any case. She’s the minister fully responsible for that “Darkest Day in Sport” fiasco in early 2013. She went straight to ground and hasn’t been seen in public since – other than, curiously, backing Ricky Muir’s Motorists’ Party. She won’t be getting on the boards of any companies that are involved in Australian team sports! Or any of their sponsors!