Is the Senate a safeguard or a handbrake on democracy? (Australia)
The ability to dismiss, alter and permit a set of laws that will ultimately change the lives of millions is always going to be a complex and difficult task. By allowing control over the decision-making process to be shared between the governing party and the senate, the Australian 'Washminister' system can be said to be more democratic than most governing systems. This essay determines whether the Australian Senate acts as a safeguard or a handbrake on democracy. It looks at the history of the senate, the voting systems used and the problems they caused, and questions the distribution of power within the senate. In particular it focuses on the reasons why critics have called for reform of the senate, and the possible ways in which it can be modernized. Central to this argument is the senate's capacity to dismiss, pass or amend bills. One of the more controversial cases here is that the opposition may reject proposals in a bid to stifle the government and not because of the impracticality of the bill. The constitution makers sought to limit the power of the government by providing a Senate with the capacity to reject, amend or pass legislation. With the ability to limit the supply of money bills to the governing body, the senate pr
An example showing the distortion between votes won and seats eventually collected being the surprising result of the One Nation party, winning approximately 9 per cent of the votes cast, giving it the highest national vote after the major parties. (Helen Coonan, Source B) In the end, due to the flow of preferences, One Nation won only one Senate place in Queensland. By contrast, the Australian Democrats, after their primary votes fell from 10.8 per cent in 1996 to 8.5 per cent in 1998, won two more Senate seats and will now hold the balance of power in the new Senate. (Helen Coonan, Source B) Minor parties elected by primary votes will hold the balance of power, making it almost impossible for the governing party to hold a majority in the Senate. While this stops the government having too much control, it can also lead to an abuse of the Senate's powers; "Given the frequent absence of a government majority in the Senate, it would be open to the major defeated party in the Senate to simply exploit the surrogate mandate of a minor party...." (Hugh Emy, Source B) By ensuring that neither of the major parties holds a majority, it means that decisions will be made at best by compromise, and in the event of a deadlock, a delayed response to what might be a matter of national and international importance. Another way of reforming the Senate would be to amend the constitution to alter parliamentary terms. If all senators were elected at the same time, as occurs in Western Australian Legislative Council elections (Current Issues Brief 10 1998-99), it would increase the chance of one party gaining control after the election. This method would ensure that only senators currently voted in time with the general election would be in place, rather than having senators leftover from the last elections, hopefully eliminating any previous biases. The Senate itself is not the handbrake on democracy; rather it is the vulnerability of the Senate to be manipulated into voting against a government for no other reason than to cause irritation.
Some common words found in the essay are:
Helen Coonan, Australian Senate, Peter Costello, Issues Brief, Rodney Smith, Bennett Politics, Source Minor, , Emy Source, Preferential Voting, helen coonan, balance power, issues brief 10, issues brief, current issues, brief 10, 10 1998-99, major parties, majority senate, current issues brief, brief 10 1998-99, power senate, coonan source, helen coonan source, scott bennett politics,
Approximate Word count = 1622
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
