Enhancing the House of Review
I would love to see the following change to the very structure of Australia’s Separation of Powers:
My argument for this proposal can be found over the fold.
At present in Australia the separation of powers is deliberately blurred. The executive is drawn from the legislature.
This allows for responsible government, an executive accountable to the legislature. But as we’ve seen in recent political history, what it can also do is make the legislature subservient to the executive.
The modern argument for the existence of the Senate has little to do with it’s original role as a states house. Instead Australians value it “more than free beer” because of the important role it plays in moderating the legislation that comes out of a house of representatives dominated by the government.
Unfortunately, following the 2004 federal election, we find ourselves in the situation where one political party controls both Houses of parliament, and a single individual has found themselves with an almost unlimited writ to do whatever the hell they please.
This has left all of us on “the left” cursing the notion party discipline pioneered by that most left wing of institutions*, the Labor party.
But John Howard’s power over the parliament is not born simply out of party membership, there’s something more to it.
Consider the United States Congress. It is an institution often dominated by one party or another, and yet legislation is not dictated by the leader of that party in anything like the way it is in Australia. Party members may express there sympathies with one grouping or another, but there are many examples of these party members acting more like independents and less like the foot soldiers of the organization that got them elected.
In short, there is a reason that John Howard is so powerful, and it has to do with his position in the parliament.
It’s called patronage.
John Howards ability to select ministers is the basis upon which he keeps the members of his political party in line. It is the rare member who will jeapordize their future career by offending the person responsible for their career prospects.
This influence of a man seated in the lower house creeps into the House of Review through the appointment of senators as ministers.
The proposal above would be modest in it’s effects. I would dearly love to see a House of Review that owed just a little less loyalty to the person in command of the lower house.
The line of text I propose would create a firewall against Prime Ministerial influence over the House of Review. Party membership or no, Senators who are not concerned about currying favor with the Prime Minister and his party in order to ensure future prestigious positions in the executive, are more likely to act as the reviewers of government legislation, rather than it’s uncritical defenders.
*sarcasm
Stories the server thinks are related:
Posted: by Kieran May 20th, 2007 under Proposed Legislation, constitution.
Comments: 10
Comments
Comment from Rebecca
Time: May 20, 2007, 2:23 pm
While I very much wish our Senate was as independent as that of the US, it isn’t quite as simple as you’re making it.
People run for the Senate in the US because it is seen as being more senior to being in the House (meaning better, not worse, career prospects), and because neither house has any direct linkage to promotion. This would mean two things: Senators could still be bought off with the promise of a lower house seat, and anyone with much aspiration would be more likely to push for House preselection, thus enhancing the likelihood of getting a house full of deadshits (like the SA Legislative Council).
The fundamental problem with getting a more independent Senate, however, lies in the problem of candidate selection. In Australia, the party still controls who gets on the election ticket, so if you vote against their line, you’re very likely to get dumped at the next election. In the US, the control of that process lies with the regular supporters of the party, meaning that you’re far more, rather than less, likely to vote against the party line if your constituents dig that idea. Until we get rid of the whole preselection process, we’ll be stuck with this situation.
Comment from Dave Bath
Time: May 20, 2007, 5:42 pm
One of the problems for the elections of Senators is the simplistic form of above-the-line voting.
If people could vote preferentially across the top of the form, which would be more democratic than the existing “follow the (often unpublished) party preferences”, yet take less time and less likely to be informal than full “below the line” voting, we would get a Senate that better reflected voter’s wishes.
As to the proposed firewall, I personally need to give this more thought. Remember that Gorton was a Senator, and he did a lot of good according to both left and right.
Comment from Kieran
Time: May 20, 2007, 5:48 pm
Bec, would you support a US style primaries system?
Comment from Kieran
Time: May 20, 2007, 9:56 pm
While I very much wish our Senate was as independent as that of the US, it isn’t quite as simple as you’re making it.
I don’t see this as being the be all and end all of ensuring the independence of the senate, however formalizing the role of the senate as a house of review, seperate from the executive power, would be a step in the right direction.
Senators could still be bought off with the promise of a lower house seat, and anyone with much aspiration would be more likely to push for House preselection, thus enhancing the likelihood of getting a house full of deadshits
Even now Senators can be bought off with lower house preselection, it’s the only avenue to Kirribilli.
That said, I don’t believe that Australia is so devoid of good people that we would de doomed to a house of dead shits simply because a Senator’s future would be as a legislater and not as a member of the executive.
The fundamental problem with getting a more independent Senate, however, lies in the problem of candidate selection.
I agree that one of the core powers the party holds over its members is the threat of disendorsement.
But other than adopting the “two elections” farce that is the primary system in the United States, what alternative is there? Banning political parties from funding or endorsing candidates for the Senate? Abolishing tickets?
Surely the right of a group of people to organize and campaign is something we would not like to see the state interfering in?
Pingback from The Dead Roo » Get rid of Australia
Time: May 21, 2007, 1:14 pm
[…] Enhancing the House of Review 4 Kieran, Kieran, Dave Bath, Rebecca […]
Comment from Rebecca
Time: May 21, 2007, 5:57 pm
I’m actually entirely in favour of the American-style primary system. It is the foremost reason why the American system has its independence; a politician who wants to get re-elected must look first to their constituents, and only after that to the needs of the party.
It allows the actual supporters to choose the candidate. Branch stacking and power grabs by party executives are gone. Since they have no chance of surviving a primary, there is virtually no chance of a hack making it into parliament unless they actually do something notable. Further, it means you actually get a candidate suitable to the electorate; a conservative electorate will get conservative Labor and Liberal candidates, and a liberal electorate will get liberal Labor and Liberal candidates; it is thus far more representative.
Back to the topic of this proposal, however - I really wouldn’t underestimate the potential for upper houses to become full of deadshits if you take out the opportunities for promotion. The Senate and the NSW Legislative Council are far better houses of review for the fact that they have a long history of being full of intelligent and capable people who may well go on to better things. Compare that to upper houses like those in South Australia and Victoria, where being in the upper house has traditionally been a be-all-and-end-all in itself - the members of the major parties are, almost without fail, complete deadshits.
Comment from Ronald Raygun
Time: May 21, 2007, 8:34 pm
I agree with the spirit of separating the two houses. Governments are made and unmade in the lower house so it makes sense that government ministers must be MHRs.
In the Qld Greens, Senate preselection is voted on by all members of the party rather than an executive council. The idea that incumbent Senate candidates are beholden to their voting records on government legislation really sits badly with me. The Senate was designed as a house of review for government programs with the idea that no party (government or opposition) would hold a majority and that the Senators would act in the interests of the states.
I would argue that the Senate would be more illustrious than government as the power and responsibility to decide which bills are passed would attract people of higher intellect, powers of reason and feeling of social responsibility. Perhaps for current Senators (who can certainly gain Cabinet posts) their choice of house rests on whether they feel they can convince 15% or 51% of the people that they deserve a seat in Canberra.
Comment from Dave Bath
Time: May 22, 2007, 12:49 pm
The problem of ministerial appointments might be solved, without the need for primaries (which just corrupt the political process even more because of the $$ involved) by a second voluntary election that selected ministers (from whichever party, or independents, the voter chose) from those who were in the new parliament, with the previous PM acting as caretaker in the interim.
Perhaps the “ministers” this way could choose the new PM from among them.
Whatever the model, it still begs the question about improving the mechanism of constitutional evolution. It’s pretty ineffective now.
Kieran’s ideas are incredibly radical because they approach things from the point of view of what government should be from first principles. But that’s the application of principles of civil law to government, and we (and other english-speaking countries) are mired in common law traditions.
Pingback from The Dead Roo » Senate Reform: Ban the Parties?
Time: July 22, 2007, 4:54 pm
[…] who enjoyed “Enhancing the House of Review” might be interested in this at South Sea Republic, which is in responce to a Crikey article […]
Comment from Ronald Raygun
Time: August 30, 2007, 11:15 am
Digging up an old story here.
I posed the Question to Senator Brandis (Minister for the Arts) at last night’s Socratic Forum and he says while it’d address the problem of the Senate not acting as a house of review, the imbalance in power would have to be made up by strengthening the Senate committees’ powers. I don’t think he was in favour of this from the way he said it but it was definitely interesting to see an SC, Senator and Minister elucidate on what was needed from the perspective of a particular reform idea.
Bartlett didn’t get a chance to answer but I’ll probably email him about it to get his perspective.
Write a comment