Howard's Power Grab

by Bob Briton

The Howard Government has flagged its intention to tear down the 
remaining obstacle to its dictatorial agenda — the Senate. Last 
week it released a paper in which it gave vent to its frustration 
at the Senate's rejection of several pieces of anti-people 
legislation and promoted two models which would gut the Senate's 
role and give the government virtual dictatorial powers.

Resolving Deadlocks: A Discussion Paper on Section 57 of the 
Australian Constitution is a dishonest document that argues 
that the current arrangements allow minor parties and 
independents to hold the government to ransom. "In practice, the 
minority has assumed a permanent and absolute veto over the 
majority", it says.

This is a lie. The Coalition Parties do not represent the 
majority. In 1996, the Coalition received 47.2 percent of the 
vote; in 1998, they got 39.5 percent and in 2001, their vote was 
43 percent.

In reality, if Coalition Senators combine with their Labor 
counterparts — as they usually do — the government's bills have 
a relatively smooth passage through the Senate. It is only when 
Labor joins with non-government forces to form a MAJORITY in the 
Senate that problems arise for the government and its "reform 
agenda".

Contrary to the impression being pedalled by the government, this 
is a relatively rare occurrence. Since 1973, less than 3 percent 
of government legislation has been blocked. Of the1305 bills 
presented by the Howard government, only 36 have been voted down 
or "laid aside" by the Senate. This represents less than 3 per 
cent of all legislation. In fact, the Senate has been respectful 
to a fault of the legislative program of this most destructive 
and reactionary government.

Furthermore, the government would be hard pressed to claim that 
the Australian people have given them a mandate to carry out the 
measures currently being held up by the Senate.

No call

There is no call from the community to deny access to disability 
pensions, to sell off the remainder of Telstra or to make PBS 
prescriptions more expensive, or to exempt small businesses from 
unfair dismissal legislation, for example.

The government's discussion paper uses its attempt to deny 
workers employed in small businesses any right to resist an 
unjustified sacking — as an instance of the wilfulness of the 
Senate in frustrating the will of the people!

The government is protesting that, if the present arrangements 
continue, "the will of the electorate[!] will remain subject to a 
veto for which there is no practical resolution". For this group 
of fanatics, discussion, negotiation and compromise are clearly 
not "practical". Howard wants the Senate to be a rubber stamp and 
a mere talking shop with now power as a "house of review".

Howard's solution is to have the Governor-General call a sitting 
of the joint houses of parliament — when legislation has been 
rejected twice by the Senate — without the need to call a 
double-dissolution election. One model would allow for this 
during the term of the government, the other after a federal 
election in the event that the Senate continues to block the 
legislation in question.

Government's hopes

The Government hopes to enlist the support of the ALP for these 
constitutional changes. Resolving Deadlocks goes to great 
lengths to illustrate a history of bi-partisan support for an 
assault on the Senate. As far back as 1959, a committee including 
Gough Whitlam and then Liberal Minister Alec Downer recommended 
changes to section 57 of the constitution to achieve the desired 
effect.

Paul Keating, when Prime Minister, described the Senate as 
"unrepresentative swill". The fact is that the Senate is more 
representative than the House of Representatives.

Today, the ALP has not expressed principled opposition to 
Howard's proposals. Simon Crean's reported objections are that 
the models do not call for fixed four-year terms of parliament 
and for the removal of the Senate's power to withhold supply from 
the government of the day. The withdrawal of supply was used by 
Malcolm Fraser to bring down the Whitlam Government in 1975.

Even if these proposals were agreed to by Howard they would not 
prevent him from getting his way and establishing a dictatorial 
conservative regime in Australia. The ALP leadership is once 
again, missing the point and looking for a "soft" compromise with 
the conservatives.

The Democrats are working on proposals involving plebiscites. The 
Greens have come out in clear opposition to the threats to the 
Senate and have committed themselves to a campaign against them.

Bob Brown said in a press statement: "This is Mr 43 percent (the 
Coalition was elected to office in 2001 with 43 percent of the 
vote) wanting 100 percent of the power. He won't get it. 
Australians are keen on democratic checks against governments and 
will defend the Senate."

Defeat Howard's power grab

A campaign must be built to defend the Senate against this latest 
power grab. The widespread opposition to a Howard Government 
power grab shows that it can be defeated. The Senate more 
accurately reflects the political will of the electorate than 
does the House of Representatives.

The feature of the Senate that has made it more representative 
and given it real standing in the community is that since 1949 it 
has been elected on the basis of proportional representation. 
This has allowed the election of candidates who represent a wider 
range of public opinion than is the case in the House of 
Representatives where single members represent electorates.

Opposition

For some time, about 25 per cent of the Australian electorate has 
voted consistently for candidates other than those of the two 
major parties that dominate the House of Representatives. The 
voting system for the lower house causes the worst distortion and 
injustice and excludes almost totally points of view held by a 
quarter of Australian voters. This situation is a scandal and 
calls for more urgent reform. It is the voting system for the 
House of Representatives that needs reform — not the Senate.

The Communist Party believes that the method of election of 
members to the House of Representatives should be changed to one 
of proportional representation. The CPA advocates adoption of a 
model like that used in Tasmania which has also been adopted in 
the ACT. It provides for larger electorates which each elect four 
or five representatives (instead of the present single member) 
from each of these electorates while also retaining the 
preferential voting system.

The Party supports compulsory voting and measures to ensure that 
all candidates get equal free access to the media and other 
measures to break the monopoly of pro-corporate parties over the 
federal parliament.

The CPA's proposals have been published in a booklet entitled, 
Proportional Representation — A more democratic voting 
system available from SPA Books 65 Campbell Street, Surry 
Hills. 2010 Price $1 posted.