The following articles were published in "The Guardian", newspaper of
the Communist Party of Australia in its issue of Wednesday, October
15th, 2003.
Contact address: 65 Campbell Street, Surry Hills. Sydney. 2010 Australia.
Phone: (612) 9212 6855 Fax: (612) 9281 5795.
CPA Central Committee: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"The Guardian": <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Webpage: http://www.cpa.org.au>
Subscription rates on request.
******************************
Howard's Power Grab
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.
by Bob Briton
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 no 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.
****************************************************************************
--
--
Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archived at http://www.cat.org.au/lists/leftlink/
Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop
Sub: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsub: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
