|
PM, Australia
August,
2003
Summary: The Australian Prime
Minister has suggested a measure that would reduce the powers of the
Senate.
PM, Australia
Howard's
Senate plans
By Rafael Epstein
August,
2003 MARK COLVIN: The Prime Minister has raised the possibility of
a referendum at the next election, to strip the Senate of some of
its power to block legislation. He says his idea is similar to one
floated by former Labor Attorney-General Michael Lavarch. Both
propose a joint sitting of Parliament to vote on legislation blocked
repeatedly by the Senate. But there are differences, as Rafael
Epstein reports. RAFAEL EPSTEIN: The Prime Minister has a raft of
bills that have been blocked by the Senate. Under the current rules,
he could call a double dissolution election where every seat in the
Senate and the House of Representatives is up for grabs. After
that, there's a joint sitting, where every Senator and member of the
House of Representatives sits in the same chamber and votes on the
previously blocked bills. Now, he's proposing a referendum to change
that system. As he told Channel 9, one idea he'll air is from former
Labor Attorney-General Michael Lavarch. JOHN HOWARD: Mr Lavarch's
proposal was that you provide an option for the Prime Minister to
call a joint sitting, rather, immediately after an ordinary
election, that is an election for the House of Representatives and
half the Senate if legislation has been twice blocked in the
previous Parliament. Now, the subtle but important difference
between that and the raw proposal I raised provides a mix of the
current procedure, which involves an election to be interposed
between the rejection and the passage at a joint-sitting. The only
difference is that it's an ordinary election. RAFAEL EPSTEIN: But
that is not what Michael Lavarch is proposing. Mr Lavarch wants a
joint sitting after the re-election of the whole Senate ��� very
similar to the current double dissolution election that John Howard
currently wants to get rid of. The difference is important because
Senate seats are won under proportional voting. A party gets a
number of seats based on the percentage or proportion of votes it
receives in each state. Under a full senate election, because 12
senators and not 6 would be elected from each state that halves the
amount of votes needed to gain each seat. The ABC's electoral
analyst Antony Green. ANTONY GREEN: It means that you'll probably
get two minor party candidates from every state. RAFAEL EPSTEIN:
What likelihood is there then, that a Government could go to an
election, have an election for all of the Senate and all of the
House of Representatives, yet come back and when there's a joint
sitting ��� when all the senators and members of the House of
Representatives sit together ��� they might not have a majority, they
might not have the numbers? Is that a possibility? ANTONY GREEN:
That's a possibility. I mean, it's a possibility if we have a double
dissolution next year that John Howard would strike that possibility
��� he doesn't get a big enough majority in the House to get the
numbers at a joint sitting. RAFAEL EPSTEIN: So, Michael Lavarch's
proposal is very different to John Howard's because all of the
Senate is voted out or has to be voted on each time and that could
dramatically alter the composition of a joint sitting? ANTONY
GREEN: I'm not too convinced whether that is the case. I think, in
fact in moving to electing the whole Senate at once may result in
there also being some need to change the electoral system in the
Senate. Under the current system, with full preferential voting and
ticket voting, you can get the situation that occurred in the New
South Wales Upper House several years ago, where a candidate with a
very low vote got elected because of preference deals. You can
probably guarantee in every state there'll be one candidate elected
who no one's every heard of, because of the way preferences work.
That's because we're electing too many, with 12 senators, in using
this system. If the Michael Lavarch path of electing the whole
Senate at a time is taken, I think it's also probable that they'll
have to change the electoral system in some way. RAFAEL EPSTEIN:
The Labor Party is unlikely to back Mr Howard's idea, a fact that
the Prime Minister says will stop him moving forward with it. In
1988, a referendum pushing for a very similar proposal to Michael
Lavarch's was opposed by the Liberal Party. They said it would give
too much power to the Prime Minister and weaken the Senate. MARK
COLVIN: Rafael Epstein. |
