Parliamentary Reform “Parliament is the least democratic of our institutions – except for all the others” Greg Craven (with apologies to Winston Churchill)

Why Reform? Society evolves and changes – generally by becoming more complex. Our parliament needs to adapt to the society that it governs… To avoid becoming archaic and out of date To remain effective and efficient To retain the confidence of the people

Why Reform? The criticisms contained in the “Decline of Parliament Thesis” can be addressed by… Improving the legislative function Enhancing the representative function Enabling the House to hold the Executive accountable Facilitating debate

How to Reform? Section 50 of the Constitution allows each House to make its own rules (Standing Orders), so the parliament can reform itself without the need for a constitutional referendum Standing Orders are loosely worded and open to interpretation – a strength & a weakness Sessional Orders are adopted for a particular session only – they allow parliament to experiment with new ways which may then be adopted into Standing Orders Public pressure & reports of commissions on reform

House of Representative Reforms Most reforms focus on… Changes to processes and procedures Reducing the level of party control of the House

House of Representative Reforms Proposed reforms include… A more independent Speaker Funding the Opposition Longer sitting times Reducing Partisanship (e.g. More use of conscience votes)Reducing Partisanship Modifications to Question Time Expanded use of committees (reflecting Senate practice)Expanded use of committees More chances for citizen participation Broader representation Improved codes of conduct for MHR’s and Ministers The Blewitt Reforms Senate Reforms Problems with Reform

The Speaker In Australia, the Speaker is chosen by the Government and retains allegiance (though not too obviously) to the Government In the UK, the Speaker is appointed “permanently”, they resign from their party and the Opposition does not run a candidate in the Speaker’s electorate (ensuring their re- election). Thus the Speakership is a worthwhile promotion in itself, not a stepping stone to greater office In Australia the Speakership is often seen as a stepping stone on the way to ministerial office – for which you need to impress your own side! NEXT

The Speaker The Australian Speaker’s power is limited… He / she can only ask Ministers to answer questions-on-notice, not compel them. Some questions have gone unanswered for up to 18 months! Australian Speakers attend the Party Room / Caucus meetings of their party. NEXT

Why Reform of the Speaker is Unlikely The position is politically powerful for the Government of the day. It would require the Government to agree to reform the position. They have too much to lose. The office of Speaker is jealously guarded by both major parties To adopt the UK system - where the Speaker is unopposed in his / her electorate reduces the entitlement of those constituents to representation A simple and effective reform that would enhance the independence of the Speaker would be to have them NOT attend Party Room / Caucus meetings BACK TO MENU

Funding the Opposition An effective opposition means an effective government – it makes government more accountable and less sloppy Government is in charge of how much money the Opposition is granted. They use this power to deny adequate resources to the Opposition Increased funding would allow the Opposition to employ researchers, access administrative resources and dig deeper into Government business This is unlikely because Governments fear effective Oppositions who might use Parliament to embarrass the Government BACK TO MENU

Longer Sitting Times The Federal Parliament sits for about 60 days a year and considers 2.3 bills per day on average. The UK Parliament sits about 160 days a year and considers 0.4 bills per day Increasing sitting days would reduce workload and allow TIME for parliament to carry out its legislative and debate functions more effectively BACK TO MENU

Committees The Senate provides a model of an effective committee system that could be copied for the House. Suggestions… Reorganise committees to reduce partisanship Special committees to analyse expenditure Select committees to inquire and introduce legislation themselves – bypassing cabinet All party committee to control agenda of parliament Select committee to increase community participation (like the Senate) Committees could conduct opinion polling to make legislation more responsive It interesting to note the current attempt by the Howard Government to change the Senate Committee system by reducing the number of committees from 16 to 10 and ensuring the a Coalition senator chairs each committee BACK TO MENU

Reducing Partisanship In the UK Parliament, members have much more freedom to vote according to conscience or in the interests of their electorate – even though there’s a strong party system. How is this so? Important legislation is considered a “virtual vote of confidence” – so members vote on party lines Other legislation is not considered as a “virtual vote of confidence”. This allows members to break ranks and cross the floor without politically damaging the Government NEXT

Reducing Partisanship Phillip Adams has suggested the following… All matters clearly set out in the election campaign have been “mandated” by the people and the members of the Government party should vote on party lines to enact the policies On all other matters, MHR’s should be free to vote as they wish because the Government cannot claim a mandate and the members should act in their constituents interests This is a modified version of the British model NEXT

Reducing Partisanship Introduction of secret ballots in the parliament This would reduce party bloc voting because party whips could not tell how members voted BUT It reduces accountability – because the electors cannot tell how their representative voted either BACK TO MENU

Question Time Increase length of Question Time Limit “Dorothy Dixers” – adopt the Canadian practice of limiting questions without notice to non-government members only Allow the Opposition 2 questions for every Government question Allow supplementary questions in the House (as is the case in the Senate) Enforce strict rules on the form of the answers (just as there are strict rule on the form of the questions) – so ministers must answer the question BACK TO MENU

Codes of Conduct The fact this is talked about at all reflects the low esteem with which the community holds parliamentarians 84% believe politicians lie at election times 95% believe that debate is about point scoring rather than “running the country” Parliamentary Privilege is seen as open to abuse (Penny Easton Affair in WA & Senator Heffernan’s allegations against High Court Judge Michael Kirby) Howard introduced a Code of Ministerial Conduct in 1996 to reduce conflicts of interest BACK TO MENU

The “Blewett Report” Reforms 1994 The Main Committee of the House: Parallel to the Consideration in Detail stage of the legislative process stage Acts as “second chamber” chaired by a Deputy Speaker Made up of Government & Opposition members Handles less contentious legislation whilst the House continues its normal business Handles 2 nd Reading and Consideration in Detail stages of legislation referred to it May handle motions & consider committee reports All MHR’s are members No divisions can occur – matters that cannot be decided “on the voices” are referred back to the House Advantage = allows 2 streams of legislation to be processed at the same time Verdict = SUCCESSFUL NEXT

The Blewett Reforms Greater use of Standing Committees to consider legislation In the 1980’s the House adopted Senate-like legislative committees but they’re relatively ineffective Question Time Extended to 45 mins or 16 questions (the recommendation that supplementary questions be allowed was not adopted) A roster of questions so all Ministers are asked questions – not just the PM & senior Ministers Advantage = more opportunity for scrutiny & debate Verdict = LIMITED SUCCESS NEXT

The Blewett Reforms These reforms were criticised because… They didn’t include proposals to reform the role of the Speaker They didn’t ensure committees would be effective at scrutiny of legislation and executive action They didn’t address the problem of inadequate time Disadvantage = failed to really address the root cause (executive dominance) Verdict = FAILURE BACK TO MENU

The Problem with Reform There is really only one thing preventing effective reform The Government must agree and it is the principal loser in any increase in the power of Parliament This is a strong disincentive for real reform – especially of the House BACK TO MENU

Senate Reform The Senate is controversial for a number of reasons … The criticisms of upper houses generally as obnoxious or irrelevant to democracy apply to the Senate (especially when hostile or rubber stamp) It was at the centre of Australia’s worst political crisis in 1975 Its “independent” role as a “balance of power House of Review” has drawn criticism because of its unrepresentative nature and the accusation that minor parties and even independents that represent very small sections of the community can veto the will of the majority NEXT

Senate Reform Any reform aimed at making the Senate a genuine States’ House is probably unrealistic – you can force electors to vote for “state candidates” and what are “states’ interests” anyway? It much more realistic to enhance the Senate’s House of Review function NEXT

Senate Reform Remove the power to defeat legislation (like the House of Lords) but increase the investigative powers by… Increasing the powers to compel members of the executive to answer questions under oath Requiring Senate approval for High Court and ambassadorial appointments etc (like the US Senate) – diluting executive power over these appointments Requiring Senate approval of major foreign policy actions such as declarations of war etc (as is the case in the US) thus limiting executive power over such critical decisions These reforms reduce the legislative role but increase the checks & balances “review” role of the Senate NEXT

Senate Reform Other reform suggestions… Remove the power to block supply – removing the “obnoxious to democracy” accusation Abolish the nexus clause – decoupling the 2 Houses Force the whole Senate to face re-election with the House – increasing accountability Require minor parties to achieve 5% of the vote before getting any seats (as happens in Germany) – preventing very small minorities from vetoing the majority will Exclude Ministers from the Senate – enhancing separation of powers by keeping the executive separate from the House of Review BACK TO MENU

Senate Reform Howard’s proposals… Alter the voting system to disadvantage minor parties – this received little support & is unlikely even now the Coalition has a majority in the Senate Amend s.57 of the Constitution to remove the need for an election if a bill is twice rejected – a joint sitting could be held without an election (this would resolve more deadlocked bills) – would require a referendum (unlikely) Force the Senate to pass “mandated” bills – policies that were presented at the previous election and voted on by the people – requires a referendum (unlikely) Change the Senate Committee system by reducing the number of committees from 16 to 10 and ensuring the a Coalition senator chairs each committee (likely because it only requires executive dominance of the Senate – no Constitutional reform)