Evaluating the House of Representatives

What is Parliament? Parliament… Is the focus of law making Derives its authority from the people Expresses community will Represents all sectors and interests Debates issues in spirit of compromise

The Hybrid Australian Parliament Modelled on the Westminster Parliament from England Adopted elements of the US system Essentially it is a responsible system within a federal context. Thus it is a compromise design. It has strengths from both systems but also it has weaknesses that spring from a mismatch of the two parent systems. Eg of weakness – Parliamentary Sovereignty (a key component of the Westminster System) is not possible in Australia because of the High Court and the existence of sovereign states.

Australian Bicameralism The 2 Houses are co-equal in power (another key difference from Westminster), necessitating the “nexus clause” and a process for resolving conflict (double dissolution). A powerful upper house was a key cause of the Constitutional Crisis of 1975. Each House is ascribed different functions by the Constitution. H of R = the Popular House and the House of Government Senate = the States’ House and a House of Review Each House has a different electoral base

Issues With the Australian Parliament Parliamentary Sovereignty: Compromised in Australia by the existence of a written constitution, the High Court, sovereign states and, arguably, the GG’s reserve powers Role of Conventions: 1975 revealed a weakness in the Australian model. Many conventions were broken. The idea that the upper house has a role in the determination of who governs is a fundamental change

The House of Representatives Functions reviewed: Legislative Representative Responsibility Forum for debate Education & socialisation In Australia, how does practice fit theory?

Legislative Theory & Practice Parliament should initiate, deliberate and pass bills Bills originate from government & ordinary MP’s drawing on a variety of sources. Thorough scrutiny and amendment ensures bills are of high quality Practice Cabinet initiates most bills based on party policy and expert advice Private Members’ Bills are rarely successful Opportunity for deliberation is limited by cabinet control of Standing Orders & use of gag, guillotine and flood-gating Lack of scrutiny results in poor legislation Much legislative power is delegated to the Public Service

Representative Theory & Practice Four views of representativeness Delegates who act to express the will of the electorate Trustees who act in the best interests of the electorate Partisans who act to support party policy Mirrors of society – groups in society are reflected in the make up of the parliament Practice The single member preferential system benefits major parties– it is therefore good at expressing majority will but poor at providing a voice for minorities Members are partisans under party discipline (more so for ALP) Standing Orders provide limited time (petitions, grievances etc) for members to act as delegates or trustees Members are strongly representative of the male middle class from farming, legal & educational backgrounds. Few blue collar, small business, indigenous and female viewpoints are expressed More Women are gaining seats (about 23%)

Responsibility Theory & Practice Parliament “makes the Gov’t” Government must hold the confidence of the House Ministers are Collective Responsible as a whole for government action and can be dismissed as a group by a motion of no-confidence Ministers are Individually Responsible for their departments and their personal conduct and can be dismissed by a censure motion Practice Party discipline and the majoritarian electoral system leave little room for parliament to make the executive Motions of no-confidence are easily defeated along party lines and serve more to highlight government misdemeanours Censure motions are also easily defeated and serve only to embarrass the gov’t. Individual ministers only resign when they become a political liability to the government

Debate Theory & Practice Standing Orders provide the following… Question Time Address in Reply Matters of Public Importance Urgency Motions Adjournment Debates Private Members’ Business All provide opportunities for debate Practice Executive dominance and the government control of Standing Orders limit opportunity for debate Recent Analysis show the following time allocations… Government Business = 51.9% Opposition = 18.2% Private Members = 15 % Other 8.85%

Summary of Theory & Practice The House of Representative is clearly unsuccessful in living up to the theory of the ideal parliament. The “Decline of Parliament Thesis” is the argument that executive dominance is the cause of this BUT, how realistic is the theory anyway? The ideal parliament has probably never existed – even in the pre-party era

The House of Representatives Today Parties, voting systems and voter behaviour have resulted in a “bear-pit” parliament It is highly adversarial between a strong government & strong opposition Point scoring with an eye on the next election is a major activity in the House

The House Today BUT it is not all bad. We must take the House on its merits as a “modern” parliament and not idealise and romanticise the parliaments of the past. The House, with its strong parties, does the following very well… Provides one of the world’s oldest and most stable systems of representative government Presents clear policies that can be linked to a mandate – hence are democratic Passes legislation efficiently – a modern society is complex and needs a growing volume of law to govern it. The House is excellent at passing law quickly

The House Today One of the criticisms of the “Decline of Parliament Thesis” is that parliament has ceased to be a deliberative institution. However, much deliberation still occurs but it is in the Party Room or Caucus of the major parties. Recent Party Room action by Petro Georgiou is an example. The parties themselves have come to replace much of the original functions of the “ideal parliament” – whilst parliament itself has become the arena of “party battle”.

The House Today Whilst the “Decline of Parliament Thesis” makes some valid criticisms it tends to emphasis the negative and fails to account for the positive role of parties as representative, deliberative institutions. It also relies too heavily on an illusory “Golden Age” of parliament that never really existed. The fact is that the House is a “modern” legislative institution – an arena in which the parties present themselves.