Suchergebnisse

Senate reform has once again found its way into national conversation. A discussion paper released by the Prime Minister in early October represents the latest in a long history of national discussions on the topic of resolving deadlocks between the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate has been an the subject of considerable debate starting from the federation conferences of the 1890's. At the time of Federation in 1901 , the Senate was seen as encompassing the dual role of a 'house of review' and a 'states house'. It was believed that the Senate would aspire to these roles as it grew through history. Sadly, the Senate never became a 'states house' and has only recently played the role of 'house of review' due to the rise of a robust Senate Committee system. Alfred Deakin had predicted before federation that a strong two party system would develop in Australia, preventing the Senate from fulfilling either of its intended roles. He was right. A combination of factors, including a switch to proportional representation and an increase in the size of the Senate in 1949 to 10 Senators, and 1984 to 12 Senators per state has ted to a upper house that is not likely to be led by a governing majority. In recent times, the Senate, led by the opposition parties have obstructed and frustrated the governments legislative program.· In 1975, the refusal of the Senate to pass Supply led to a constitutional crisis and the downfall of the Whitlam Government. In the last decade, the Senate has been referred to as 'unrepresentative swill' and a 'house of obstruction'. Both of these terms represent the frustration that successive Prime Ministers from both of the major parties have had with a Senate that they do not control. This frustration has once again culminated in the prospect that the deadlock provisions under section 57 of the constitution will be changed. The Prime Minister has re-suggested two proposals, both of which provide for a joint sitting of parliament without the need for a double dissolution. Both suggestions would require a referendum to undertake the necessary constitutional changes. This paper suggests two alternative measures that do not require a referendum, but could potentially serve the same function - to eliminate the occurrence of bicameral deadlock. The first suggestion is to cut party ties in the Senate by banning ministerial positions from being held in the upper-house. An enhanced committee system would provide an alternative career structure for Senators who would be rewarded for hard legislative work. Associated electoral reforms would also help to cut party loyalty . in the Senate allowing for the easier negotiation of government legislation. The second suggestion is one revived from Billy Wentworth's maiden speech in 1950. It is simply to change back to a system of first past the post voting in the event of a double dissolution election. The resulting winner takes all effect would be a deterrent against obstruction for obstructions sake. Only a party which was sure it had the majority of voters on side would be prepared to allow a double dissolution to occur.