The days of the Senate representing the states have long passed. It is difficult for many to comprehend that it was originally established as a States’ house and senators were supposed to represent the interests of their state, not a political party.
So reform of the Senate is overdue.
The House is selected by preferential ballot by electorate, where each electorate is as near as possible equal in population. This seems reasonable – after all it is about representing constituents in the Parliament.
Yet the Senate has a proportional representation system corrupted by a fixed allocation across States.
I propose that the Senate continue to be selected by proportional representation – but across the country. That is, there would be 76 senators selected across Australia according to total votes. If you get 27 per cent of the votes, you get 27 per cent of the seats in the Senate.
As near as possible, using data from the AEC, here is my calculation of the composition of the Senate that would have been elected under this proposal. When the final results are in, I should be able to list the names of the Senators that would have been elected under this methodology.
Coalition: 29
Labor: 27
Greens: 10
Family First: 2
Australian Sex Party: 2
Liberal Democratic Party: 1
Australian Shooters Party: 1
Democratic Labor Party: 1
Christian Party: 1
Democrats: 1
One Nation: 1
Total: 76
Is this better than the status quo?
Given those results it seems better in principle than outcome. As an ACT resident I strongly endorse reform of the senate (2 senators on 3 year terms for our 350k, vs tasmania’s 12 for 6 years for 450kppl)
I wouldn’t want to see several of those minor parties have a say/veto, but then again it happens already, and with more attention on the senate, we’d likely see some shifts in voting outcomes (at the expense of minor parties)
Would it give us better policy? Certainly having the LDP in would be great (and sex party couldn’t hurt, though no idea their economic views), but like the US senate would probably descend to a slow moving pork filled boondoggle.
Ppl hate the major parties, but they are nationally focused parties who get things accomplished.
Andrew Carr
1 Sep 10 at 9:44 pm
This arrangement would be better for the minor parties. The preference system has returned some erratic results (I’m thinking of Fielding in particular). Minor parties without any lower house representation might find that they are little more than rubber-stampers.
THR
1 Sep 10 at 9:53 pm
I agree it would be a worthwhile reform.
OK, but get realistic – do you really think WA, in particular, or Tasmania, will go along with this reform? Never happen. They’d rather secede. Your best practical bet is to split some of the larger states to make it more representative.
Tim Quilty
1 Sep 10 at 10:06 pm
It’s not impossible to change. A referendum requires a majority of votes in a majority of states. I’m sure some of the people on the Gruen Transfer could sell to the Tasmanians the benefits of fewer politicans. And voters in the other states could push it through.
I’m not a lawyer, but couldn’t you have a referendum to remove the wording of s128 of the Constitution:
“No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representative, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.”
Which could pass without the support of (say) Tasmanian voters. And then have a second referendum to reduce the proportion of Tasmanian Senators (again without the support of Tasmanian voters)?
Samuel J
1 Sep 10 at 10:14 pm
Never happen. They’d rather secede.
Tasmania will never cecede. They’re like surly teenagers still living with Mum and Dad. If they seceded they’d have to earn a living all by themselves. They could start by making use of all that lovely untouched forest they’ve got.
daddy dave
1 Sep 10 at 10:23 pm
sex party couldn’t hurt, though no idea their economic views
The best approach for a single issue party in the senate would be to vote on things that interest them and abstain from the others, unless it’s part of a vote trade.
daddy dave
1 Sep 10 at 10:25 pm
I agree with Daddy that Tasmania would never secede. It would need to increase taxation and cut services or it would be unviable.
Samuel J
1 Sep 10 at 10:53 pm
Tasmania might stay, but WA will be off. It’s not like the eastern states over there. They seriously think they’re different and being ripped off by the federation. And you’d almost certainly have WA, SA & Tas block voting against any such move at referendum…
Tim Quilty
2 Sep 10 at 6:55 am
I don’t know about being different, but we are certainly being ripped off.
We would survive just fine without the eastern states, although it would make for a more boring cricket + football season.
Yobbo
2 Sep 10 at 7:40 am
The way to keep the small States represented is simply to weight their votes, and keep the Senate vote as a national list.
I reckon the Senate then should be 100, the House 200, regardless if we go to the weighted votes or not.
“Minor parties without any lower house representation might find that they are little more than rubber-stampers”
The first President of Australia, Biran Harradine, would disagree.
.
2 Sep 10 at 8:02 am
“They seriously think they’re different and being ripped off by the federation.”
Can’t remember where I read this, or the details, but one argument against that is it took until the late 1970s before the net flow of funds started coming from WA instead of going to WA. Before that it was the eastern States being “ripped off”.
Jarrah
2 Sep 10 at 8:19 am
Yes, but they wanted to fund themselves for a while. Once their trade issues were solved, their tax base grew considerably. Not a coincidence!
.
2 Sep 10 at 8:21 am
The LDP and the two ASPs appear to have 4 senators. That’s very interesting. The Australian Sex Party were very well organized for a bunch I’ve never seen before in my life.
I presume it’s been funded by people who own strip-joint, make or sell porn etc.
Adrien
2 Sep 10 at 12:40 pm
We would survive just fine without the eastern states, although it would make for a more boring cricket + football season.
That’s okay. When you wrench yourself away we’ll replace the season temporarily with a civil war. It won’t be boring.
Adrien
2 Sep 10 at 12:42 pm
dd
Actually there are a lot of issues that a seemingly single-issue party – like the Sex Party – could vote on including the net filter, health policy, PBS medications, copyright and other media-related issues, gender issues, licensing issues, drug policy, crimes, and many more.
Nic Xenephon’s pokie issue similarly could cover a raft of related issues.
Peter Patton
2 Sep 10 at 1:22 pm
frankly I’m pissed off from hearing that the DLP may get a senator up thanks to LDP preferencing. I’ll probably never vote LDP again if this happens.
jtfsoon
2 Sep 10 at 1:29 pm
I think the ideological breakdown of the Senate runs this way.
Mainstream Conservatives: (Tories): 29 across 4 parties)
Social Conservative Issue Agents: 5 (across 4 parties)
Anti-Government regulation agents: 4 (across 3 parties)
Mainstream/Far Left: 37 (across 2 parties)
Small l liberals: 1.
That’s actually not a good picture for the Right. All this hubris about the ALP being doomed…
Adrien
2 Sep 10 at 3:02 pm
There is a chunk of Liberal protest vote tied up in the Greens, Adrian, so that picture may not be as long term dire as you suggest for the right. Although I think you shouldn’t be counting ON as a conservatve party – they’re left wing.
Tim Quilty
3 Sep 10 at 7:39 am
Jason, I wasn’t privy to the inner workings of preference negotiation, but I believe that, other then straight out trading to give us a chance in NSW, our Victorian preferences were intended to get the Sex Party up. But obviously the DLP did better preference deals then Sex.
But hey, that is the Micro-party game. The Lib-Dems will rely on DLP preferences to get a senator up next time around. On our senate results this time we may be competitive in more then one state at the next election. We need to swap preferences with almost any micros to get there, that it just how it has to be.
Libs go to the christians, Labor to green…
Tim Quilty
3 Sep 10 at 7:56 am
frankly I’m pissed off from hearing that the DLP may get a senator up thanks to LDP preferencing. I’ll probably never vote LDP again if this happens.
The LDP’s preferences went to the sex party, which then went to Labor.
The DLP got up on the basis of preferences from One Nation and the Christian Fundy parties.
If you want to blame someone, you should (as usual) blame the shooters party whose preferences would have elected an LDP senator, but who have steadfastly refused to preference the LDP for personal reasons.
If the shooters had preferenced the LDP, the sex party would have been excluded before us – sending us their preferences and putting the LDP at the top of the pile and electing the 6th senator.
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/svic-results.htm
Not sure why everyone jumps to the conclusion that the LDP is at fault for everything that goes wrong in Australia
Yobbo
3 Sep 10 at 7:59 am
If only Yobbo. Gillard and Abbot are uninspiriing intellectual rust buckets.
.
3 Sep 10 at 9:04 am
Put this on the open thread but probably more appropriate here.
The LDP’s preferences went to the sex party, which then went to Labor.
The DLP got up on the basis of preferences from One Nation and the Christian Fundy parties.
No Yobbo you are wrong the LDP preference went to the DLP.
From your link. Count 24. When the Sex party was excluded
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/svic-results.htm
“50,065 (1.76%) votes originally from Liberal Democrats (LDP) distributed to Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia (John MADIGAN) via preference 10. “
Given the count finished with the DLP at 8.11% and the Libs at 7.49% then the 1.76% of the vote certainly did push the DLP over the Libs.
Steve Edney
3 Sep 10 at 10:03 am
OK, Steve, and again I’ll say – any time the Libs are interested in Lib-Dem preferences, they can talk to us…
Tim Quilty
3 Sep 10 at 12:50 pm
Yobbo Says: If you want to blame someone, you should (as usual) blame the shooters party whose preferences would have elected an LDP senator, but who have steadfastly refused to preference the LDP for personal reasons.
Why would the shooters go to the LDP over the DLP.
The DLP candidate in Moreton is a champion small bore.
The Petrie candidate is also well known.
I would have thought the DLP would have been favoured first by the Shooters.
Besides the LDP is somewhat over the top on some of their social issues and Shooters are more conservative in their thinking.
If they were to favour a party you’d think it would be the DLP or the Nationals.
Tony Zegenhagen
15 Sep 10 at 3:43 pm