Bills Digest No. 57 1999-2000
Constitution Alteration (Proportional Representation in the Senate) 1999
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced
and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have
any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine
the subsequent official status of the Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Constitution Alteration (Proportional Representation
in the Senate) 1999
Date Introduced: 24 August
1999
House: Senate
Portfolio: Private senator's
Bill
The purpose of the Constitution Alteration (Proportional
Representation in the Senate) 1999 is to amend the Constitution so as
to ensure the continuance of proportional representation as the method
of election for all State and Territory Senators.
Senate election voting methods
Despite calls at the time of Federation for the use of
proportional representation, Australia has in fact had three voting methods
for the Senate:
- First-past-the-post (until 1919)
- Preferential voting (until 1948)
- Proportional representation (Single Transferable Vote).
The first two methods often gave absurd majorities, such
as the 1919 election which saw the Nationalist Party (46.4%) win 18 of
19 seats, whereas the ALP (42.8%) secured just a single seat. There was
a clear need for some voting method which would more accurately reflect
voters' wishes.
Proportional representation was introduced to achieve
greater proportionality, and has worked as designed, giving representation
to parties in broad reflection of their popular support-in 1998, the Coalition
and the Labor Party each gained 37% of the vote and 17/40 Senate seats.
The difficulty of gaining a majority
In the first three proportional representation elections,
the Coalition and the Labor Party shared all seats, something they have
failed to achieve in the seventeen elections since. This has been a consequence
of the emergence of significant minor parties and a number of popular
independents, and the use of proportional representation has reflected
their emergence by their winning of seats in the upper house. In fact,
the major party vote has steadily declined, and the number of non-major
party Senate seats has increased-12 of 40 (30%) in 1998, for instance.(1)
The ability of non-major party candidates to win Senate
seats was reinforced in 1984 when the Senate was increased in size. This
lowered the electoral quota of votes needed to win seats in State election
contests from 16.7% to 14.3%.
When these developments are added to the fact that the
normal Senate election is for only half of the State seats, it can be
understood why it has become almost impossible for the Coalition or the
Labor Party to gain a Senate majority. Labor won five House of Representatives
elections in 1983-93, but could not secure a majority, and even though
the Howard Government won the last two House of Representatives elections,
it is still two seats short of controlling the upper house.
Party responses
The party responses to this position have been diametrically
opposed. A number of suggestions have come from the Liberal and Labor
parties for altering the Senate's electoral arrangements. The proposals
have varied, but have had one aim in common-the reduction of the number
of seats won by non-major party candidates.(2) The minor parties, by contrast,
have spoken strongly in favour of the retention of proportional representation
for Senate elections. The Australian Democrats, for example, made a pledge
during the 1998 election to 'oppose any attempt to change the Senate voting
system as an attack on the very basis of the Senate's role as a House
of Review and as an attack on representative democracy'.(3)
The Constitutional provisions
The significance of threats to alter the voting method
can be seen in the fact that such a change only needs parliamentary approval.
The relevant sections of the Constitution are as follows:
- s.7 states that the Senate shall be 'directly chosen by the people
of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one
electorate'.
- s.9 states that the Parliament 'may make laws prescribing the method
of choosing senators, but so that the method shall be uniform for all
the States'. This means that there is no need to amend the Constitution
to alter the voting method.
The history of Senate electoral arrangements indicates
how easily Parliament can replace proportional representation with another
method, just as it did in 1919 and 1948.
This is a proposal to amend the Constitution by 'entrenching
proportional representation as the method of electing the Senate'.(4)
The amendments are contained in Schedule 1 of the Bill.
The Constitution (s.7)
This section of the Constitution contains basic provisions
concerning Senators, including provisions concerning their election.
Item 1 of the Bill amends this section to stipulate
proportional representation as the method to be used in all elections
for the Senate. It also removes Parliament's power to alter this method
except by constitutional amendment.
Item 1 also removes the special (and redundant) provisions
governing the election of Senators for the State of Queensland.
The Constitution (s.122)
This section of the Constitution enables the Commonwealth
Parliament to provide for the representation in the Commonwealth Parliament
of any territory surrendered to it by a State, or by authority of the
Queen.
Items 3 and 4 amends this section so as to ensure
that territory Senators would also be chosen by proportional representation.
This Bill appears to be quite straightforward in its
proposal to entrench proportional representation as the method of election
for Senate elections. Were it to be passed, however, the fact that it
does not specify any particular variant of proportional representation,
might mean that its impact would be less than hoped for by the proponent
of the Bill. Such an amendment would not prohibit alterations to the actual
system of proportional representation, such as electoral thresholds or
making some votes non-transferable.
- For the decline in major party support, see Scott Bennett, 'The Decline
in Support for the Major Parties and the Prospect of Minority Government',
Research Paper No. 10, Department of the Parliamentary
Library, Information and Research Services, 1998-99.
- Scott Bennett, 'Should the Australian Electoral System be Changed?',
Current Issues Brief No.
10 1998-99, Department of the Parliamentary Library, Information
and Research Services, 1998-99, pp. 4-6.
- See e.g. Australian Democrats, The Choice 1998. A Stronger Senate,
A Better Government, p. 6.
- Senator Harris, Second Reading Speech, Senate, Debates, 24
August 1999.
Scott Bennett
9 September 1999
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to Senators and
Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care is taken to ensure
that the paper is accurate and balanced, the paper is written using information
publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are
those of the author and should not be attributed to the Information and
Research Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues
contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and
for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal
opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary
or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with Senators
and Members
and their staff but not with members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 1999
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act
1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, including information storage and retrieval
systems, without the prior written consent of the Parliamentary Library,
other than by Members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their
official duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, 1999.
|
