Now that the Coalition is sitting pretty in the Senate, the government has the ability to entrench its position through self-interested changes to electoral laws. Will they go for it?
All eyes are on the regular post-election inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Its preliminaries have been the subject of much greater interest than usual. And fears of a Republican-style partisan assault on democratic norms have hardly been discouraged by the committee’s chair, James McGrath, who came to the post shortly after Malcolm Turnbull’s demise last year.
One of McGrath’s early forays into the realm of electoral matters was a stint on Boris Johnson’s campaign for the London mayoralty in 2008, which came to an abrupt end after he asserted that African-Caribbean residents concerned at Johnson’s colourful pronouncements on racial issues could “go if they don’t like it here”. His disregard for liberal sensitivities got another workout on the weekend, when his social media followers were treated to a post boasting about a dead cockatoo caught in the roof rack of his car.
More substantively, McGrath’s big ticket reform proposal going into the inquiry has been for the abolition of proportional representation in the Senate. This has won enthusiastic endorsement from Nationals including Barnaby Joyce.
The idea is that each state should be broken into six provinces served by two senators each, which at a normal half-Senate election would produce a dynamic little different from elections for the lower house.
The result would be a Senate at least as dominated by the major parties as the House of Representatives, at a time when those parties are only able to command two-thirds of the national Senate vote between them.
Worse still, Joyce in particular sees in the scheme a means to return to the days of over-representation of rural areas, which would make Coalition majorities in the Senate (such as that which produced the 1975 crisis) the normal state of affairs.
The one saving grace of this idea is that there is no chance of it happening. Any such move would be bitterly opposed by Labor and the minor parties in the Senate, and can accordingly be dismissed for now as a cost-free exercise in virtue signalling to the Nationals base.
Another notion floated recently by McGrath is that parliamentarians who quit the party for which they are elected should forfeit their seats. The Liberals especially are keenly sensitive to this issue, having suffered Cory Bernardi’s departure shortly after his election to a six-year Senate term in 2016, and Julia Banks’ move to the crossbench after the coup against Malcolm Turnbull.
This notion might be worth considering in the Senate, where voting is expressly structured around parties, and vacancies are filled by the party for which an outgoing senator was elected.
However, depriving constituency MPs of their freedom of action is alien to the principles of representative democracy. It’s also difficult to see how party renegades could be prevented from skirting the issue by simply ignoring party discipline without actually resigning.
Far more likely is a change to the rules governing pre-poll voting, after barely more than half the votes at the May election were cast on election day.
Concern about the impact of this development on the democratic process has been widely expressed (Crikey’s Bernard Keane being a rare dissident), but it’s notable that all the MPs who have raised concerns through inquiry submissions have been from the conservative side of politics.
This reflects a theme evident in the United States, where Republicans have sought to limit early voting to discourage low-income, pro-Democrat constituencies who lack flexibility with their work schedules.
However, Australia largely negates this issue by holding its elections on Saturdays, and state elections in most cases run well enough with two- rather than three-week pre-poll periods, which would seem a defensible reform for the federal sphere. McGrath has also expressed support for voter identification laws, but more explicit voter suppression measures would likely fall foul of the High Court, which has been notably more activist in this area than its US counterpart.
However, the fact that radical surgery for the Senate is being publicly contemplated raises questions as to what appetites the Coalition might develop should it enjoy a still stronger position in the Senate after another election win in 2022.
If the Coaliton had any any historical perspective they would not entertain fiddling with the Senate. Prior to PR Governments could more easily gain Senate landslides. Imagine the mental state of Coalition members if a future ALP government were to achive what has eluded them since 1949.
Also I’m no constitutional lawyer, but it has been argued that the relevant clause in the Constituition states that geographic representation was only “until the Senate provides” and that the Senate can accordingly not now revert from election of Senators at large.
A constitutional question. Can the Parliament (through electoral legislation) create new categories of ineligibility to retain one’s seat (such as quitting one’s party) or are such categories restricted to those outlined in section 44 and 45 of the constitution?
The senate status or position is now a talking point, usually of resentment if out of power. To have a Harradine like position was disgusting, yet, senate positions have usually reined in excessive ego power weilding by a pushy government. This government, a coalition of conservatives ranging from active ratbags to passive hacks, gained c. 41.5 % of first preference votes, but did fairly well in the senate. The Greens, who more than double the vote of the country party, get poor representation in a modern democracy, so we should try to be honest and aim for whole or partial proportional representation on European lines. The losers in a narrow election feel robbed, deprived, under represented. Our constitution is notoriously difficult to alter and the cunning stunts of backroom operators are now fully geared to machinations required to acheive desired results. It’s a good time for donors, media maggots, backstabbers, crooks, liars, putting money to use to reward greed and control.
Whole or partial proportional representation is something I can dream about ..but alas , a pipedream that is over powered/over shadowed/out dreamed by the Australian dreaming of winners and losers..I remember a particular Little John Howard speech where his speech writer put in a mere passing line referring to ‘an egalitarian streak somewhere in the Australian make up’..That small passing egalitarian streak has become a mere smudge , a faded blob/blot of a smear, no longer a relevant part of the national psyche ..There are large sections of losers in Australia and their manufactured presence has benefited the large sections of winners..But I don’t think too many of the losers come calling nor knocking on Crikey’s door
…… Can you get more “unrepresentative swill” than McGrath and Cousin Jethro? But dog love ’em for trying.
Now “proportional representation” in the House of “Representatives” – there’s a plan worth consideration. What odds they’ll go for that?
About as likely as going for full optional preferential.
“ However, Australia largely negates this issue by holding its elections on Saturdays“. Really? That’s interesting news to the third or so ( and growing) of the Australian work force who work casual on call and don’t have weekends or public holidays off.