• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Keeping themselves honest:

Coalition control of the Australian Senate

by Simon Longstaff

One of the real surprises of the recent Federal election was the election of enough Liberal and National Party Senators to give the Government control of the Senate for the first time in twenty-four years.

The return of government control of the Senate raises some interesting ethical questions – especially for those who make up the majority in the upper house. These questions arise in response to one of the unintended consequences of the role played by parties like the Australian Democrats, the Greens and influential independents like Senator Brian Harradine.

When, in 1977, Don Chipp resigned from the Liberal Party of Australia to found the Australian Democrats, he did so with a characteristic piece of rhetorical flourish: his new party would ‘keep the bastards honest’. In proclaiming this purpose for this new reformist party, Don Chipp created one of the great ‘brands’ in Australian political history. Whatever else the Democrats might stand for over time, their defining purpose seemed to be clear. Australians responded warmly – allowing Chipp to draw on what seems to be a national suspicion of those in authority.

However, with the Australian Democrats elected to ‘keep the bastards honest’, it was no longer strictly necessary for Liberal and Labor Senators to accept this role themselves. In a sense, the job of keeping the Senate politically ‘honest’ could be outsourced to a specialist team.

It is worth recalling that prior to the formation of the Australian Democrats there existed a proud tradition of Senators exercising a considerable degree of independent thought (and sometimes action) in relation to contentious questions of the day. This tradition was not simply an echo of the idea built into the Australian Constitution, as the price of Federation, that the Senate should be the States’ house – with Senators owing primary allegiance (over political party) to their States of origin. Beyond that, Senators recognised their role as members of a genuine House of Review – required to act as something more than a ‘rubber stamp’ for legislation supported in the House of Representatives.

For all the good work done by minority parties, and especially the Australian Democrats, there is a real possibility that they effectively ‘let off the ethical hook’ a succession of ‘government Senators’, whatever the political complexion of the government of the day. After all, why not play safe with your political career and stick with your party – knowing all along that the Democrats, Greens and independents could be relied upon to 'save you from yourself’? This may explain the otherwise inexplicable silence of Coalition and Labor Senators on contentious matters about which people would normally expect even modest levels of public debate.

All will change in July 2005. For the first time in nearly a quarter of a century, Coalition Senators will be entirely responsible for ‘keeping themselves honest’. As such, they will bear the brunt of responsibility for how well the Senate performs as a genuine House of Review. The big question is therefore this: after twenty four years of operating without full responsibility, do Coalition Senators have the skills and dispositions to play a sufficiently independent role – as did their predecessors when the parties of government last enjoyed majorities in the Senate?

The exercise of responsible, independent judgement is a skill only acquired and honed with practice. One of the principal lessons to emerge from the twentieth century's disastrous experiments with different forms of totalitarianism is that the capacity to exercise independent thought and choice is quickly lost under conditions of external control and diffused responsibility.

The test of the Coalition Senators’ capacity will come soon enough. In particular, we should look to see whether any speak or vote against Government policy during debates in the Senate as they have done on rare, but important, occasions in the past. The excuse that otherwise silent or ‘disciplined’ Senators will have engaged in robust debate within the party room is unacceptable.

Having gained control of the upper house, processes of debate and review need to be seen in public. The party rooms should not be allowed to continue as a private (and secret) shadow Parliament.

I do not wish to encourage dissent for its own sake. Rather, I believe that it is only through the public display of independent thought that political parties (of all persuasions) will be able to make a convincing case for why they should be trusted with control of both Houses of Federal Parliament.

discuss this article

---