As another bill supporting marriage equality prepares to enter the Parliament next week, we thought it’d be a good time to look at the parliamentary oddity that is the conscience vote. Labor’s Tanya Plibersek seems to be calling on Prime Minister Tony Abbott to allow his party one (as is his sister), but what is a conscience vote exactly, and when are they used?
What is a conscience vote?
A conscience vote is when party members are free to vote on a bill according to their own moral, political, religious or social beliefs, rather than having to vote according to a party line. In most Westminster parliaments, party members are bound to vote in a bloc, with party discipline strictly enforced by the appointed whip. While some choose to break party discipline and cross the floor, party members risk significant punishment for doing so. A conscience vote removes the possibility of party members crossing the floor when voting on contentious issues, by allowing them to vote according to their own personal beliefs. The decision to allow a conscience vote is made by the party leader. The main argument for conscience votes is that they allow parliamentarians the opportunity to better express the pluralism present in society, while critics believe too many conscience votes would make governing nearly impossible.
When are they used?
Conscience votes are generally used when an issue comes before the Parliament that involves a matter of significant moral, ethical or religious importance. In Australia, conscience votes have been allowed on issues relating to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, reproductive and scientific research, divorce, homosexuality and drug reform. Conscience votes may also include issues on which the parties do not have a formal policy, such as parliamentary procedure and parliamentary privilege. A leader might decide on a conscience vote due to pressure from the media, the public, lobby groups, or even his/her own backbench.
When have they occurred in Australia?
Australian marriage laws were made uniform following a conscience vote in 1961 under Liberal prime minister Robert Menzies, while in 1973 homosexuality was decriminalised after a conscience vote allowed by Gough Whitlam. The death penalty was subject to a conscience on vote on three occasions, in 1968, 1970, and finally 1973. More recently, Australian territories were prevented from introducing euthanasia laws in 1997 when a bill was passed by conscience vote after being introduced by the Liberals. Human cloning was prohibited after a 2002 conscience vote on the issue, while controversial abortion drug RU486 was the subject of a conscience vote in 2006. Former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard allowed a conscience vote on same-sex marriage in 2012 — the only one in the Rudd-Gillard era — while Abbott forbade his party members from doing the same. The bill failed to pass, but with acceptance of same-sex marriage spreading around the world, it was only a matter of time before it returned to the Parliament.
How often do they occur?
Not very. Since 1948, Australia has had only 33 conscience votes in federal Parliament. Some leaders are more partial to them than others: Gough Whitlam held eight during his brief tenure as prime minister, while Paul Keating held none during his time in office from 1991 to 1996. Menzies held five in 16 years, John Gorton six in three years, Bob Hawke three in nine years, and John Howard five in 12 years. On average, conscience votes occur in Australia at the rate of around once every two years — less often than solar eclipses.
I’ve posted numerous times that only the Labor Party enforces caucus decisions with the threat of expulsion, etc., being used to drag members into line; but Crikey continues to ignore this important point.
And the Liberal party does what Norman, kisses the culprit? Nope, just dumps them next time. I wonder why you subscribe unless it is to whinge on behalf of the right.
More seriously, perhaps the lack of a conscience vote simply represents the absence of a conscience amongst the MPs? Abbott’s front bench don’t have one and there is evidence that at least some on the other side are similarly lacking.
Whether or not you’re aware of it, old greybeard, ALP members have been harshly disciplined numerous times including automatic expulsions for not obeying caucus decisions, or even nominating for a position without the relevant ALP Powerbrokers’ permission.
Only an idiot would suggest the Liberal Party might, as you did, “kiss the culprit” who doesn’t follow the herd.
I’ve explained previously why I subscribe. Originally it was because in theory at least Crikey aimed at analysing important issues seriously. But since your emotive blinkers prevent you from understanding I neither “whinge” nor hold views which are rational Left, I shan’t hold my breath waiting for you to see (even part of) the light.
The one constant, unequivocal and absolute fact relating to your contributions on Crikey Norman is that you do indeed whinge. You can deny it as much as you wish but whinge is exactly what you do. The OED definition of the word describes your behavior perfectly.
I suspect MAC TEZ could be too nervous to phone a friend, so if any posters know who his friends might be, and there’s someone among them with the knowledge – and courage – to help Mac see the light, please urge them to come to his aid. He clearly has difficulties with basic concepts such as whinge. It appears he has access to an OED, but that isn’t much help to him unless he’s helped to understand what the word means.
Once he’s mastered that, we can perhaps look forward to him providing the most egeregious example of a whinge he has discovered in others’ posts.
Best of luck in any efforts made to enable Mac to throw a truly challenging [metaphorical] grenade into this thread.
P.S., whatever you do DON’T mention his spelling of behaviour.