Current Issues Brief no.1 2002-03
Free Votes in Australian and some
Overseas Parliaments
Deirdre McKeown and Rob Lundie
Politics and Public Administration Group
27 August 2002
Contents
Introduction
Definitions
Why are free votes called for?
Which issues have had a free vote?
Free votes and the party system
Free votes and Australian political
parties
Australian Labor Party
Liberal Party of Australia
National Party of Australia
Australian Democrats
Australian Greens (The Greens)
Independents
Practice in some overseas parliaments
United Kingdom
Canada
New Zealand
United States
Conclusion
Table 1: A select list of issues on
which free votes have been allowed in Australian and some overseas parliaments
Table 2: Free votes allowed by the
ALP and the Liberal Party in the Australian Senate and the House of
Representatives
Table 3: Free votes in some overseas
parliaments
Endnotes
In the Australian political party system members of
parliament (MPs) nearly always vote in parliament along party lines. On the
occasions when members do not they either abstain from voting, cross the floor
to vote with the opposing parties or are allowed a free or conscience vote by
the party.
The term conscience
vote is most commonly used in Australia to describe votes on moral and social
issues such as abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment (life and death
issues). The term may also include issues on which the parties do not always
have a formal policy such as parliamentary procedure and parliamentary
privilege, where the term free vote is more appropriate. As the term 'free
vote' can be used to encompass a conscience vote, it will be used throughout
this paper. It is also the term commonly used in other Westminster parliaments.
Political scientist Professor John Warhurst has suggested
that there is 'really no such thing as an absolutely free vote.
Parliamentarians are never free, in any meaningful sense of that term, to do
whatever they like. They are never really free from their community
responsibilities or from their personal values or from their political
parties'.[1]
The decision of the major parties to allow members a free
vote on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Cloning Bill 2002 has
raised again the issue of free votes in the Commonwealth Parliament. A
newspaper report on the current parliamentary debate described the Bill as:
... capturing the attention of all parliamentarians. All who
wish to speak may do so; there is no party line to tow; the minds of MPs are
being exercised and community feeling, via direct contact with each MP, is
having an impact beyond the broad polling and political interest in other
debates.[2]
This paper surveys past and present practice in Australian
political parties in allowing free votes in the Commonwealth Parliament, the
practice in some overseas parliaments, and the conditions under which free
votes are allowed. It does not analyse free votes in Australian state
parliaments. The paper also provides some data on issues on which free votes
have been allowed in Australian state and territory parliaments and some
overseas parliaments (see Tables 1, 2 and 3, pages 16–19).
In Australia, unlike the United Kingdom (UK) and Canada, there has been very little analysis of the impact, frequency or use of free votes
in parliaments. It is an area that would benefit from further research. A
Canadian study on the voting behaviour of Canadian MPs on an abortion bill
suggested that a 'complete understanding of the parliamentary free voting
dynamic will require more non-British examples'.[3]
When MPs vote according to their conscience they may do it
under two circumstances:
-
Crossing the floor—'the act of a member of parliament who refuses to
vote with his or her own party in a particular division, and crosses the floor
of the parliamentary chamber to join the political opponents and vote with
them. Such actions are rare in Australia due to the strong party discipline
exercised on members of parliament'.[4] This is a highly political action, taken
in defiance of the party, which can affect a member's career.
-
Free vote (or conscience vote)—'a rare vote in parliament, in which
members are not obliged by the parties to follow a party line, but vote
according to their own moral, political, religious, or social beliefs'.[5]
In Westminster parliaments the decision to allow a free vote
is a political one and is not a subject on which the Speaker can be asked to
rule. The free vote can apply to one party, more than one party or all parties
represented in the parliament.
It is common for Australian commentators to confuse the
concepts of free votes and crossing the floor because both actions involve the notion
of voting according to conscience. For example in June 2002 New South Wales
(NSW) Opposition Leader John Brogden allowed Liberal members a free vote on the
extension of a heroin injecting room trial in Sydney. The Sydney Morning
Herald reported that Mr Brogden '... crossed the floor of the chamber and sat
with the Government'.[6]
Mr Brodgen did vote with the Government but because he was free to vote
according to his conscience his action did not involve the political act of
crossing the floor.
The reasons for calling for a free vote on an issue are
varied but may include the following:
-
To accommodate a member's personal philosophy or beliefs which make it
very difficult or impossible to support party policy and a free vote is
preferable to abstaining or crossing the floor.
-
To embarrass or destabilise the other side. The party leader may
announce that he or she will allow a free vote and challenges the other side to
do the same. For example, the Leader of the
Opposition, the Hon. Simon Crean, called on the Prime Minister to allow his
party a free vote on the issue of the use of human embryos for stem cell
research. Mr Crean said 'I've allowed a free vote on this and I hope the
Prime Minister follows suit'.[7]
-
To gain publicity or support for a particular stance on an issue. On 11 August 2002 four federal MPs and three church leaders addressed a rally in Sydney opposed to the use of human embryos in stem cell research. The Research Involving
Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, which would permit this
use, is currently being debated in the Commonwealth Parliament.[8] The MPs and church leaders
hoped 'to make an 11th-hour exhortation to a crowd of about 950 to
lobby their MPs to vote against the bill in a conscience vote later this month'[9]. A newspaper report the
following day noted that 'there were no speakers in favour of the legislation
to further that debate'.[10]
-
To force an issue. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) has claimed that the
Government's aim in suggesting amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act was to
divide the Labor Party on the issue. In June 2001, Labor Shadow
Attorney-General Robert McClelland said that the Party believed that the
Government had dropped plans to restrict single and lesbian women's access to
IVF treatment 'because there is not further political advantage in it. ... [the
issue] was brought on initially very much as a divisive issue and now it's seen
that it's failed in its attempt to divide the party'.[11]
-
To defuse tensions within a party and avoid a damaging split within the
party. David McGee, Clerk of the New Zealand House of Representatives, has
described conscience issues as 'fractious, stimulating, moving and confusing by
turns. They remain a necessary safety valve to handle those issues which cannot
appropriately be treated as party matters'.[12]
Free votes have been allowed on:
-
'Life and death' issues such as abortion, euthanasia and capital
punishment.
-
Social or moral issues such as family law, homosexuality, drug reform,
war crimes and gambling.
-
Human reproductive and scientific research issues such as in vitro
fertilisation and stem cell research.
-
Parliamentary procedure and privilege issues and standing orders.
See Table 1, page 16,
for a select list of issues on which a free vote has been granted in Australian
and some overseas parliaments.
Free votes may also be
allowed on parts of a bill but not its entirety as suggested by Liberal
Minister for Ageing, the Hon. Kevin Andrews, with regard to the stem cell
research legislation. In April 2002 Mr Andrews said 'that doesn't mean there
will be conscience votes on the entire package of the legislation or on whole a
raft of other provisions in the Bill. I suspect it will be fairly narrow ... I
suspect when we come to it that the issues will be fairly narrowly defined'. [13]
There is also a convention in the UK Parliament that free
votes are granted on all private members' bills.[14]
Free votes are not usually allowed on economic issues or
issues that have a significant impact on the budget although 'until 1936 tariff
proposals were free votes in both Houses in the Australian Parliament'.[15]
Free votes are generally not allowed when a party has a
definite policy on an issue. For example, although capital punishment is an
issue that usually attracts a free vote, the ALP does not allow its members
such a vote because the party has already adopted an anti-death penalty policy.
It is not uncommon for members to be allowed a free vote
and, as in the case of the stem cell research bill, for the leaders to declare
their positions.[16]
John Warhurst has suggested that in this case a free vote is never
straightforward 'because backbenchers are still faced with the prospect of
disagreeing with their leaders. It is much easier to conform'.[17]
In this situation it is possible that a de facto 'party view' could emerge for
members to 're-coalesce around'.
Free votes may not be allowed on administrative amendments
or provisions of a bill even though there could be a free vote on the substantive
provisions of its parent Act. In 1985, the Minister for Resources and Energy,
Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans, when asked if the Government would allow a
free vote on amendments to the Family Law Act as had been allowed for in the
original Act, said:
I am sure there is a very big difference between the
substantive provisions of the Family Law Act which govern the basic ground
rules for marriage and divorce and those provisions in the Act which concern
the administration and enforcement of payments made under it. I doubt very much
whether the latter would ever be construed as an appropriate subject matter for
a conscience vote.[18]
Free votes are not common in the Australian Commonwealth
Parliament. At the time of writing the last free vote for all major parties was
in 1996 (see Table 2, page 17).
Any player in the political process may call for a free vote
on any issue. This includes the public through petitions, letters to the editor
and talkback radio; the media; special interest and lobby groups; individual
MPs; Independent MPs; and the parties themselves.
It is usually the party leaders, the party room or, in the
case of the ALP policy on abortion, the party's National Conference who decide
whether or not a free vote will be allowed on an issue.
The Australian
Democrats and some Independents have called on the major parties to allow a
free vote on all issues, arguing that all issues considered in Parliament
require the application of conscience.[19] This system is possible in the United States where votes do not bring down the government. The Budget deadlock between Democrat President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress that led to the 1995
shutdown of the US Government did not bring down the President. But a Westminster government would never have survived this situation.
In the Westminster system every vote is seen as a vote of confidence in the government of the day.
A government must win all votes on the floor of the House. In free votes
members of parliament rather than the government make the decisions and if more
free votes were allowed it would be members rather than government that should
be held accountable. [20]
If political parties
agreed to a relaxation of the rules governing confidence there would be a
possibility of more free votes. In theory this would mean that 'no longer would
defeat of government bills be tantamount to a motion of no-confidence, so
government MPs would be able to vote against their party without fear that such
a vote would bring down the government'.[21]
However, a Canadian
political scientist has suggested that one compelling reason for not increasing
the number of free votes is the impact this would have on the Westminster
system of government. 'To expect much greater use of free votes would be to
demand massive changes in the processes of representation and decision making
in the parliamentary system.'[22]
Strong party discipline is largely accepted as necessary to
ensure stable parties and government. The major parties use various means to
enforce discipline including criticism, demotion, withholding promotion or
endorsement at the next election, or the extreme step of expulsion from the
party.
On most issues that
come before Parliament, the significant debate takes place in the party room,
not on the floor of the House during the passage of legislation. In his
valedictory speech Labor Senator Barney Cooney suggested that:
... the party room in a certain way is the most essential part
of the work that we do in this place because we come here ... with predetermined
positions. We have to; otherwise the system would not work. But the party room
is a place where we can do something, where people can get up and can come to
different conclusions.[23]
Similarly former Liberal MP Fred Chaney was of the opinion
that 'the failure of many members to have a view that they were prepared to
articulate and argue for within the party forum was far more of a problem than
excessive party discipline'.[24]
The party system is so
strong that even when a free vote is granted on complex or major issues the
outcome of the vote may not change. The Clerk of the New Zealand House of
Representatives observed that 'members tend to act in accordance with caucus
decisions as part of their covenant with the electorate which returned them to
the House as members of a political party'.[25] In the British Parliament an examination
of voting patterns produced a similar situation, showing that 'the suspension
of the whip on such votes does not diminish the primacy of party in structuring
the outcome'.[26]
In a recent study on
the voting behaviour of Canadian MPs on Bill C-43, which attempted to establish
a federal abortion law, the authors found that:
... in general, Canadian MPs felt at greater liberty to vote as
their consciences dictated when their votes mattered least ... when voting was
most visible and outcomes most important, Canadian MPs re-coalesced around
their parties.[27]
Another interesting aspect of this Canadian study was the
conclusion that previous findings from the UK House of Commons 'are
generalizable beyond the UK'.[28]
There does not appear to be evidence of public agitation in Australia for the introduction of more free votes in Australian parliaments, although
within the ALP there have been calls for a greater use of free votes. These
calls were particularly strong in 2001 on the Government's proposed amendments
to the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 which, if passed, would
have allowed the States to withhold access to assisted reproductive technology
for single women and lesbians.
Two Labor Senators published a dissenting view to the Senate
Legal and Constitutional Committee's report Inquiry into the Provisions of
the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000. In their report Senator Jacinta Collins and Senator John Hogg referred to the general issue of free votes which,
they said:
... will need to be addressed more broadly by the Parliament
than has been the case to date. In the past, when Australia was a more
homogeneous society and the major political debates were on economic issues,
divisions in society were reflected by the divisions between the parties. The
position is less clear cut. Australia is a very diverse society and many issues
before the Parliament are of a social or moral nature rather than an economic
one. Divisions within society on such issues are reflected within parties
rather than between them and this should be acknowledged through more frequent
allowance of conscience votes.[29]
On the same subject, Mr Joe de Bruyn, National Secretary of
the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association and a member of the ALP
National Executive, said that 'the issue of a conscience vote should be
reviewed "as a matter of urgency"'.[30]
Table 2, page 17, shows the position of the major parties on
issues on which a free vote was allowed in the Commonwealth Parliament since
1955. The Liberal Party has at various times tolerated dissent in the form of
crossing the floor. The ALP pledge makes it very difficult for the party to
tolerate members who cross the floor to vote against party policy.
The ALP has a formal pledge which binds all Labor members to
support the Party Platform and accept the collective decisions of the Caucus.
The colonial labour parties first adopted the pledge in the 1890s. The current
version has not varied greatly from the pledge taken by federal Labor members
in 1902 which read:
I hereby pledge myself not to oppose the candidates selected
by the recognised political labor organization, and if elected to do my utmost
to carry out the principles embodied in the Federal Labor Platform and on all
questions affecting that Platform to vote as a majority of the Parliamentary
Party may decide at a duly constituted caucus meeting.[31]
In the first 25 years after Federation senators and members
of all parties expected free votes on Customs Tariff Bills and votes were more
often cast according to personal beliefs or state loyalties than along party
lines.[32]
A Labor Party caucus resolution of 5 June 1901 stated:
That the members of the [Labor] Party have a free hand on the
Tariff bill, or on any motion directly affecting the fiscal issue, but on all
questions affecting the platform shall be bound by the majority vote of the
caucus[33]
Labor Party members have often defended the implications of
being bound by the pledge and in 1915 W. M. Hughes asked:
If we believe in certain principles, ought we not to do what
we can to give effect to them? And if we are not ashamed but rather glory in
our course, why should we not openly testify to its virtue and solemnly pledge
ourselves to stand by it?[34]
Labor Party members have not been allowed a free vote on
issues covered in the party platform and, by the 1920s as the platform expanded
and included more detail, 'few issues were now outside the platform and the
members voted together on almost every occasion'.[35]
In 1925 John Curtin listed some of the issues on which
members were not bound to vote according to party platform:
the continuance or abolition of the supply of liquor is but
one of them: the questions of lotteries, totalisators and bookmakers at
racecourses are others; professional or amateur sports is also for those
interested a controversial issue concerning which Labor says nothing.[36]
Abortion is one issue on which caucus members have been
allowed a free vote. The 1984 National Conference decided that:
Conference resolves that the matter of abortion can be freely
debated at any State or federal forum of the Australian Labor Party, but any
decision is not binding on any member of the Party.[37]
The Party's approach to other issues such as euthanasia and
stem cell research have not been decided at National Conference but rather by
the Parliamentary Party. The rules of the Australian Labor Party make it clear
that the Federal Parliamentary Party has the authority in properly constituted
Caucus meetings to establish the collective attitude of the Parliamentary Party
to any question or matter in the federal parliament, subject to:
no attitude being expressed which is contrary to the
provisions of the Party Platform or any other decision of National Conference
or National Executive[38]
The Liberal Party does not have a pledge which binds members
to a party line. However, since the days of the early anti-Labor parties and
the formation of the Liberal Party in 1944 there has been a tension between the
need to inculcate discipline and the principles established in the first
Liberal Party platform of 1909 that 'all representatives of the people should
be directly and solely responsible to the people for their votes and actions'.[39]
This tension has led to periods of open dissent in the party
characterised by members crossing the floor. It has not often resulted in
members being granted a free vote on an issue.
When Robert Menzies created the Liberal Party in 1944 'the
concept that an individual parliamentary member had the right to a conscience
vote became central to party lore. Menzies did not particularly like real or
potential internal dissidents. But he tolerated them ...'.[40]
The importance of the individual member was supported by William McMahon in 1954 when he said that the 'Liberal party member is not prepared to surrender
his personal judgment to the Party machine or to the corporate Parliamentary
Party'.[41]
Under Prime Ministers Sir Robert Menzies and Malcolm Fraser the Liberal Party tolerated members crossing the floor on issues of conscience
but during the 1980s this 'reached a point where the image of party disunity
had become an electoral problem'.[42]
In 1983 Liberal Party President John Valder attempted to set clear guidelines
on the issue of personal freedom and party loyalty. The Valder report stated:
... it is important that it be recognised by all Liberal
Parliamentarians that the general expectation is one of loyalty and support for
the Party in the Parliament, and that crossing the floor is to be regarded as
an exceptional act. It is a right which should be exercised only under the
following conditions:
where the issue is one of personal conscience, and not merely
a difference of policy or political judgement; and
where the member informs his parliamentary Leader and his
Party colleagues beforehand of his intentions.[43]
Although the report acknowledged that there were occasions
when a Liberal member may decide to cross the floor, Valder viewed party unity
as an essential part of the political process. The report stated:
The effective performance of its leadership role requires
that the Liberal Party maintain the highest degree of unity inside and outside
Parliament, once decisions of the Party have been made.[44]
In an interview with The Age newspaper in 2000, Malcolm Fraser suggested that the traditions of the Party had changed and noted that:
Going back a long while—in the Menzies days to the end of my
time—the party respected the right of people to exercise the conscience vote if
they felt really strongly about something.[45]
Senator the Hon. Amanda Vanstone referred to the Party's
approach to free votes and conscience votes when she said in the Senate:
There are rare occasions when the Liberal Party has a free
vote. But I might remind you, Senator, that the Liberal Party is a party that,
nonetheless, does—not necessarily willingly always—tolerate members who cannot
in their own conscience abide by the team decision and cross the floor. I,
myself, have done so in the past. It is not a very pleasant experience, but it
is one thing the Liberal Party tolerates that the people over here never will.[46]
Like Liberal Party MPs no pledge of any kind is required of
National Party federal MPs.[47]
Nevertheless, as with the Liberal Party, the National Party
does expect its MPs to support party policy. The National Party Federal
Constitution states that:
Candidates endorsed to election to the Australian Parliament
by Affiliated Parties or the Federal Management Committee shall abide by this
Constitution and support the policies of the National Party of Australia as
espoused by the Federal Parliamentary National Party.[48]
The Party's website outlines the relationship between the
Parliamentary Party and the organisation:
The National Party does not rigidly impose the policy of the
Party adopted through State and Federal Councils and Conferences on its
Parliamentary Parties. However, the Parliamentary Parties are required to
follow the policy of the Party as far as possible, and the Parliamentary
Leaders are required to report to their respective Organisational Executives if
there are occasions when they will not or cannot adopt a policy position that
is consistent with that of the Party. The reason for this relative freedom is
because Parliamentarians have to make policy decisions almost on a daily basis,
and in light of changing political circumstances.[49]
The independence of the federal party has developed, in
part, to allow MPs flexibility in dealing with the Liberal Party in coalition.
There may be occasions when National Party MPs are required to accept policy
decisions at odds with National Party policy.[50]
The Australian Democrats' Constitution states that members
should adhere to party policies but, where their views or duty to their
electorates conflict with them, they may vote according to their conscience.
However, when this occurs members are required to explain themselves in writing
to their Division Executive.[51]
While the Democrats' Constitution allows members a free vote, in reality this
right is exercised on only rare occasions. Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, explained why this was the case:
I have mentioned on record my commitment to conscience votes,
because in the Australian Democrats we have a conscience vote on every issue.
It is true that that conscience vote is rarely exercised because on almost 99.9
per cent of occasions we agree. We are bound by like-minded policies and
commitments to social justice, accountability, democracy, environment, et
cetera.[52]
Since the election of the Coalition Government in 1996 the
Australian Democrats have split their votes on only four issues: the GST, the
Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996, interactive gambling and HIH Insurance (order for
the production of documents). Only the Euthanasia Laws Bill was a free vote for
members of the other parties.
Founder of the Australian Democrats, Don Chipp, recently
reaffirmed the Party's approach to free votes when he said:
One of the things that I emphasised when I formed the
Democrats was any person had the right to criticise party policy at any time.
Everybody had the right, no, the obligation to vote according to conscience,
not according to party dictates.[53]
The Charter and National Constitution of the Australian
Greens states that an elected member of parliament will support the
policies of the Greens except where:
in the opinion of the elected member, their duty to the
constituents is in conflict with The Greens' national policy then elected
Members may vote according to their duty to their constituents ... and where
the views of elected Members are in conflict with The Greens' policy, then the
elected Member may vote according to their conscience.[54]
Members of Parliament who recognise a conflict between their
conscience or duty to the electorate and The Greens' national policy or who
vote against national policy are required to submit a statement accounting for
their position to their electorate, the State Council of their home State and
the National Council.[55]
Since 1 July 2002 the Greens have had two representatives, Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle, in the Senate. Press reports suggest that on the stem cell research
bill 'the two Greens are the surprise converts to the no case and the only
party not allowing a conscience vote'.[56]
Senator Brown was also reported as saying that he was keen to see some
regulation of stem cell research and his final vote would depend on the shape
of the legislation when it reached the Senate.[57]
Independent members of the House of Representatives, Peter
Andren, Bob Katter, Tony Windsor, and in the Senate, Senators Brian Harradine,
Meg Lees, and Shane Murphy, have by definition a free vote on all issues. These
members and senators do not have a party organisation or party room through
which policies must be filtered. Dean Jaensch has described all decisions taken
by independents in the South Australian Parliament as 'taken without a party
"security blanket"'.[58]
United Kingdom
British Labour MP Richard Crossman described the
mid-Victorian House of Commons as a place where 'the private Member was
genuinely free to defy the Whip, genuinely responsible to his own conscience
and his constituents and genuinely at liberty, within wide limits, to speak as
he wished. It was this independence of the private member that gave the Commons
its collective character and made it the most important check on the executive'.[59]
The growth of party discipline and the decline of the power
of the individual member in the House of Commons is reflected in the proportion
of 'true two-party votes'—that is, divisions in which the great majority of
each party were on opposite sides. The proportion of these votes 'rose sharply
in the [eighteen] nineties, and reached a new peak in 1903'.[60]
The beginning of the twentieth century also saw parties organised 'into formal
bodies, with regular meetings, elected officers, written rules in some
instances.'[61]
In response to the Liberal Government's 1906 Education Bill
the British Labour Party introduced a Conscience Clause into its constitution.
This clause allowed members who felt that, in conscience, they could not comply
with a majority decision of the Party (in the case of the Education Bill,
official Labour Party policy was to support secular education) to be absolved
from doing so. Initially the Clause was open to a wide interpretation but, in
time, came to be used more narrowly:
By the late 1920s most members of the Party seemed to have
regarded it as a concession designed primarily for the use of Roman Catholics
and temperance men and others with religious or semi-religious scruples ... and
the issues upon which conscientious conviction was then generally felt to be
acceptable were Religion, Temperance and Armaments or War.[62]
In 1929 the Party introduced standing orders which stated
that membership of the Parliamentary Labour Party involved accepting decisions
of the Parliamentary Party, though recognising that Members had the right to
abstain on grounds of conscience.[63]
The practice of giving free votes on moral issues is
established to the extent that MPs now:
possess the firm conviction that certain issues are
conscience issues and that they are entitled to vote according to their
consciences on those issues. A party which uses the whip for those issues will
have to cope with the indignation, resentment and possible rebellion of its
MPs.[64]
The use of the whipping system in the UK Parliament has
given MPs some room to dissent on votes the party has deemed to be routine or
of moderate importance. Whips indicate the importance the party attaches to a
vote by underling the items of business once, twice or three times. Failure to
comply with a three-line whip, the most important, is usually seen as a
rebellion against the party and may eventually result in disciplinary action,
such as suspension from the parliamentary party. In the case of a two-line
whip, attendance is required unless a pair has been arranged and for a one-line
whip attendance is optional.[65]
In Australia, members may, as an extreme measure, abstain from voting but
unless members are allowed a free vote all other votes are subject to an
implicit three-line whip.
Party whips who bully or 'whip' MPs into line are often
blamed for the high level of party cohesion but some observers argue that the
whips are not responsible for this situation. An analysis of free votes in the
UK House of Commons from 1979 to 1996 suggests that conscience issues:
are more likely to cut down party lines than across
them. It is, even on conscience issues, more likely that the majority of one of
the major parties will be found in the 'aye' lobby facing the majority of the
other in the 'noe' lobby. Similarly, it is rare to find one vote where both
major parties are significantly split.[66]
Canada
Party cohesion has been one of the main features of
parliamentary life in Canada and as a result free votes are relatively rare. In
the Canadian system of representative government the individual member is
considered the weakest link in the process.[67]
The dominance of the party system can be partly attributed to the small number
of safe seats in the Canadian House of Commons, about twenty per cent. As a
result 'usually forty to sixty per cent of members will be serving their first
term'.[68]
New members rely on the party to provide advice, support and direction while
they are members of parliament. In this situation dissent from the party line
is very unlikely.
The first free vote in Canada was in 1946 when the Liberal
Government, supported by the opposition, proposed a free vote on a supply
motion on milk subsidies. Free votes have also been allowed by most parties on
major issues such as the national flag debate in 1964, a number of debates on
capital punishment, on the abortion issue and on the prevention of
discrimination against homosexuals. Because the National Democratic Party had
adopted party policies on capital punishment and abortion, NDP members were
expected to support these policies and were not given a free vote.
Party discipline has been criticised for limiting the power
of individual members in the Canadian Parliament much more than in the UK House
of Commons. It has also been suggested that the prominence and high visibility
of the US congressional system, with the independence and power of individual
members of Congress, is the impetus behind many demands for reform of the
Canadian parliamentary system, including more autonomy for members.[69]
The 1991 Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future found that
participants supported greater use of free votes and the relaxation of party
discipline which was 'perceived as a major constraint on the effectiveness of
elected officials in representing constituents' views and in controlling a
government agenda which may be out of touch with citizens' concerns.'[70]
In a major policy speech during the 1993 federal election
campaign, Prime Minister Kim Campbell announced a series of sweeping reforms
designed to empower MPs. The package included more free votes in the House of
Commons.[71]
The package was not implemented because the Government was not returned to
office and subsequent governments have not introduced the proposals for reform.
New Zealand
Until the first 'party' government was elected in 1891, all
votes in the NZ House of Representatives were in a sense free votes. Since the
formation of parties, free voting has survived for issues such as liquor
licensing, abortion, homosexual law reform, the abolition of capital
punishment, gambling and the compulsory use of seat belts.
New Zealand governments recognise the importance of free
votes as they 'invariably make the services of the Parliamentary Counsel Office
available to members wishing to propose amendments on a bill which is subject
to a free vote, for there is every likelihood that some private members'
amendments to such a measure will be carried into law'.[72]
Select Committees may also follow the lead of the House in
treating an issue as a conscience issue and allow members of the committee a
free vote.
United States
The US congressional system is based on different structures
of power and representation compared with those in the Westminster
parliamentary system. In the US power and responsibility are diffused through
many legislative and executive bodies[73].
Members of Congress negotiate freely for support on votes. They cast their
votes according to a range of influences including constituency interest,
ideology, interest groups, the party and the President. Party is only one area
of influence competing for members' commitment and it is often difficult for
members to decide on a course of action when their party or committee leaders
are divided.
The US system allows sectional interests a strong voice in
decision making, 'but it also creates difficulties in articulating a more
general national and public interest'.[74]
The means for promoting the national interest are not well developed as strong
local politics can often derail a national issue.
The issues facing members of the fortieth Parliament are
very different to those dealt with by members of the first Commonwealth
Parliament 101 years ago. The issues will change rapidly over the coming
decades. This makes it difficult to predict the subjects on which a free vote
will be allowed in the future, although it is likely that developments in
biotechnology will continue to raise 'conscience' issues that will attract a
free vote.
In 2002 federal MPs will have a free vote on the use of
human embryos in stem cell research.[75]
This legislation is one part of a cooperative approach that also
envisages the states and territories enacting similar legislation. At least
three state premiers have indicated that they will allow government members a
free vote.[76]
This appears to be the first time that free votes will determine the outcome of
a cooperative legislative scheme.
Australian Democrat Senator Andrew Bartlett recently called
for a free vote in the debate on Australia's involvement in a possible conflict
in Iraq. He said:
On really serious issues like this, and you don't get much
more serious in many ways than Australia committing itself to war, then
parliamentarians should have that right to voice their own well-informed
conscientious beliefs.[77]
In response to a recent e-mail poll conducted by The
Sunday Age which asked federal members of Parliament 'would you support
Australian military involvement in a pre-emptive US-led strike on Iraq?'[78]
most of the 38 respondents either expressed outright opposition or the need to
await a United Nations decision.[79]
On ABC radio the Labor Member for Sydney Ms Tanya Plibersek (who had answered
No) was asked what she would do if the result of the vote in the ALP party room
was contrary to her view. Ms Plibersek responded:
There are certain times when Labor Party members have a right
to a conscience vote and they are always in things that are considered life and
death matters such as euthanasia and abortion and I think sending our troops
off to war is another area where you are talking of life and death.[80]
For some members the issue of war has strong ethical, moral
and conscience aspects. For others budgetary, and defence and foreign policy
implications will be of paramount importance. Yet despite similar calls in 1991[81]
for a free vote on Australia's involvement in the Gulf War the issue of war has
never been granted a free vote.
This issue illustrates the complex nature of free votes and
the conflicting influences that must be considered by parties in deciding
whether or not to grant members a free vote.
Table 1: A
select list of issues on which free votes have been allowed in Australian and
some overseas parliaments
|
Issue
|
Commonwealth, State*, Territory* or Country
|
|
Abortion
|
Cwth, SA, Tas., WA, Qld, UK, NZ, Canada, NSW, ACT
|
|
Euthanasia
|
Cwlth, NT, UK, NSW
|
|
Death penalty
|
Cwlth, Vic., UK, Canada
|
|
War crimes
|
UK
|
|
Homosexuality
|
Cwlth, SA, Qld, UK, NZ, NSW
|
|
Sex discrimination
|
Cwlth
|
|
Sexual relationships royal commission
|
Cwlth
|
|
Prostitution
|
SA
|
|
Family law
|
Cwlth, UK
|
|
Human fertilisation and embryology
|
UK
|
|
Stem cell research
|
UK, Cwlth, (Vic, WA, SA proposed)
|
|
Racial discrimination
|
Vic
|
|
Republic
|
Cwlth
|
|
National flag
|
Canada
|
|
Censorship
|
UK, SA
|
|
Defamation
|
UK
|
|
Drugs
|
NSW
|
|
Gambling
|
SA, UK, NZ
|
|
Hunting and wild mammals protection
|
UK
|
|
Liquor licensing
|
SA, NZ
|
|
Shop trading hours
|
NZ
|
|
Milk subsidies
|
Canada
|
|
Corporal punishment in schools
|
NZ
|
|
Dismissal of a judge
|
NSW
|
|
Fluoridation of Canberra water supply
|
Cwlth
|
|
Daylight saving
|
Qld, UK
|
|
Road safety
|
UK
|
|
Tariffs
|
Cwlth
|
|
Televising of Parliament
|
UK
|
|
Members' salaries and allowances
|
UK
|
|
Standards in public life
|
UK
|
|
Election of the Speaker
|
UK
|
|
Parliamentary Committee membership
|
UK, NZ
|
|
Parliamentary privilege
|
Cwlth
|
|
Parliamentary procedure
|
Cwlth
|
|
New Parliament House
|
Cwlth
|
*The list of free votes in Australian state and
territory parliaments is based on information supplied by state and territory
parliamentary libraries. The list is not comprehensive.
Table 2:
Free votes allowed by the ALP and the Liberal Party in the Australian Senate
and the House of Representatives[82]
|
Year
|
Type
|
Issue
|
Party
|
|
1955
|
Report
|
Privileges Committee—Browne and Fitzpatrick case
|
Labor
Liberal? (no Liberal member voted against the motions proposed by Prime Minister Menzies)
|
|
1959
|
Bill
|
Matrimonial
Causes
|
Labor and
Liberal
|
|
1959
|
Bill
|
Parliamentary
Allowances
|
Liberal
|
|
1961
|
Bill
|
Marriage
|
Labor and
Liberal
|
|
1965
|
Motion
|
Fluoridation of Canberra water supply—proposed Referendum
|
Labor and
Liberal
|
|
1968
|
Senate Bill (Bill did not proceed beyond 2nd Reading
in House of Reps)
|
Death Penalty
Abolition
|
Liberal in
Senate
|
|
1968
|
Motion as to
site
|
New and Permanent Parliament House
|
Labor and
Liberal
|
|
1969
|
Motion
|
New and Permanent Parliament House
|
Labor and
Liberal
|
|
1970
|
Report, 10 June 1970
|
Standing Orders Committee (report included sitting days, time limits
for debates and speeches, HoR quorum, amendment of standing orders 72 and
250)
|
Labor and
Liberal
|
|
1970
|
Bill (Bill did not proceed after 1st Reading in Senate)
|
House of Representatives (Quorum of Members)
|
Labor and
Liberal
|
|
1971
|
Report, 19 August 1971
|
Standing Orders Committee (sitting days)
|
Labor and
Liberal
|
|
1972
|
Report, 20 March 1972
|
Standing Orders Committee (amendments of Standing Orders and changes
in practice)
|
Labor and
Liberal
|
|
1973
|
Motion as to
site
|
New and Permanent Parliament House
|
Labor and
Liberal
|
|
1973
|
Bill
|
Medical practice
clarification
|
Labor and
Liberal
|
|
1973
|
Motion
|
Sexual Relationships—proposed Royal Commission
|
Labor and
Liberal
|
|
1973
|
Senate Bill
|
Death Penalty
Abolition
|
Liberal
|
|
1973
|
Motion
|
Homosexual
acts
|
Labor
|
|
1974
|
Private
Member's Bill
|
Parliament Bill
|
Labor and Liberal
|
|
1974
|
Senate Bill
|
Family Law
|
Labor and
Liberal
|
|
1974
|
Motion
|
New and Permanent Parliament House
|
Labor and
Liberal
|
|
1979
|
Motion
|
Termination of Pregnancy—medical benefits
|
Labor and
Liberal
|
|
1983
|
Senate Bill
|
Family Law
Amendment
|
Liberal
|
|
1984
|
Senate Bill
|
Sex
Discrimination
|
Liberal
|
|
1987
|
Motion
|
Procedure Committee (change to standing orders—quorum)
|
Labor
|
|
1996
|
Private
Member's Bill
|
Euthanasia
|
Labor and
Liberal
|
|
1999
|
Bill
|
Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic)
|
Liberal
|
|
2002
|
Bill
|
Research Involving
Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning
|
Labor and
Liberal
|
Table 3: Free votes in some overseas parliaments
|
Year
|
Issue
|
|
United Kingdom
|
|
1907
|
Deceased
Wife's Sister
|
|
1921
|
Deceased
Brother's Widow's Marriage
|
|
1925
|
Summertime
|
|
1928
|
Transport
Lighting
|
|
1937
|
Marriage
|
|
1938
|
Inheritance
(Family Provisions)
|
|
1938
|
Hire
Purchase
|
|
1952
|
Defamation
|
|
1959
|
Obscene
Publications
|
|
1959
|
Legitimacy
|
|
1967
|
Sexual
Offences
|
|
1967
|
Abortion
|
|
1969
|
Divorce
Reform
|
|
1979
|
Abortion
|
|
1979
|
Death Penalty Motion (Capital Punishment)
|
|
1979
|
Road Traffic (Seat Belts)
|
|
1980
|
Televising of Parliament
|
|
1982
|
Criminal Justice (death penalty)
|
|
1983
|
Death Penalty
|
|
1984
|
Matrimonial and Family Proceedings
|
|
1984
|
Office, Secretarial and Research allowance
|
|
1985
|
Televising the House
|
|
1987
|
Criminal Justice (death penalty)
|
|
1988
|
Abortion
|
|
1988
|
Televising the House
|
|
1988
|
Criminal Justice
|
|
1989
|
War Crimes Inquiry
|
|
1990
|
War Crimes
|
|
1990
|
Human Fertilisation and Embryology
|
|
1991
|
War Crimes Bill Procedure Motion
|
|
1991
|
Armed Forces (Re-committal) (abolition of the death
penalty)
|
|
1992
|
Wild Mammals Protection
|
|
1992
|
Members' Office Costs Allowance
|
|
1994
|
Criminal Justice and Public Order (capital punishment;
age of consent for homosexual acts)
|
|
1994
|
Deregulation and Contracting Out (betting on Sundays)
|
|
1995
|
Standards in Public Life
|
|
1996
|
Family Law
|
|
1996
|
Members' Salaries
|
|
1997
|
Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs)
|
|
1998
|
Crime and Disorder (age of consent for homosexual men)
|
|
1999
|
Sexual Offences (age of consent for homosexual men)
|
|
2000
|
Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia)
|
|
2000
|
Sexual Offences (age of consent for homosexual men)
|
|
2000
|
Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia)
|
|
2000
|
Stem Cell Research
|
|
2000
|
Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes)
Regulations
|
|
2000
|
Hunting
|
|
2001
|
Hunting
|
|
2001
|
Election of Speaker: Standing Orders
|
|
2001
|
Members' Pay and Allowances
|
|
2001
|
Select Committee membership
|
|
2002
|
Hunting with Dogs
|
|
2002
|
Modernisation of the House (committees)
|
|
New Zealand
|
|
1970s
|
Abortion
|
|
1986
|
Homosexuality
|
|
1987
|
Casino control
|
|
1990
|
Casino control
|
|
1990
|
Corporal punishment in schools
|
|
2000
|
Casino control
|
|
2000
|
Homosexual relationships and property
|
|
2001
|
Age for being on licensed premises
|
|
2001
|
Appointing members of the Abortion Supervisory
Committee
|
|
2001
|
Homosexual relationships and property
|
|
2002
|
Shop trading hours
|
|
Canada
|
|
1946
|
Milk subsidies
|
|
1964
|
National flag
|
|
1966
|
Capital punishment
|
|
1967
|
Capital punishment
|
|
1973
|
Capital punishment
|
|
1976
|
Capital punishment
|
|
1978
|
Capital punishment
|
|
1987
|
Capital punishment
|
|
1988
|
Abortion
|
[1]. John Warhurst, 'There is no
such thing as a free vote', The Canberra Times, 12 April 2002.
[2]. Dennis Shanahan, 'States give
conscience short shrift', The Australian, 23 August 2002.
[3]. L. Marvin Overby, Raymond Tatalovich and Donley T. Studlar, 'Party and free votes in Canada', Party Politics,
vol. 4., no. 3 1998, p. 390.
[4]. The Penguin Macquarie Dictionary of Australian Politics, Penguin Books, 1988, p. 100.
[5]. ibid., p. 86.
[6]. Paola Totaro, 'Brogden
takes the longest walk, armed only with conviction', The Sydney Morning
Herald, 6 June 2002.
[7]. Steve Lewis and Mark Skulley, 'Stem cell research
to go ahead', Australian Financial Review, 27 March 2002.
[8]. The Research Involving
Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 was introduced into the
House of Representatives on 27 June 2002. See House of Representatives,
Debates, 27 June 2002, p. 4541 for the Prime Minister's second reading
speech. For more information on the Bill see Jennifer Norberry, 'Research
Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002', Bills Digest,
no. 17, Department of the Parliamentary Library, 2002–2003, publication
available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2002-03/03bd017.pdf
[9]. Deborah Smith, 'Stem cell
foes mount a final challenge', The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 August 2002.
[10]. ibid.
[11]. AAP wire service, Canberra, 14 June 2001.
[12]. David McGee, Parliamentary
Practice in New Zealand, GP Publications, second edition 1994, p.74.
[13]. AAP wire service, Canberra, 7 April 2002.
[14]. Philip Cowley, 'Unbridled
passions?' Free votes, issues of conscience and the accountability of British
Members of Parliament', The Journal of Legislative Studies, vol. 4, no.
2, Summer 1998, p. 74.
[15]. J. R. Odgers, Australian
Senate Practice, sixth edition, 1991, p. 420.
[16]. For example Morgan Mellish, 'Embryo or not, it's a hard choice', Australian Financial Review, 20 August 2002 and Mark Metherell, 'Labor's crisis of conscience over stem cell split', The
Sydney Morning Herald, 20 August 2002.
[17]. John Warhurst, op. cit.
[18]. Senator the Hon Gareth Evans, Senate, Debates, Answer to Question without Notice, 13 September 1985, p. 530.
[19]. For example Senator Stott Despoja, Senate, Debates, Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations Bill
2000 (No. 1), 17 August 2000, p. 16 566.
[20]. C. E. S. Franks, 'Free votes
in the House of Commons: a problematic reform', Policy Options, November
1997, p. 34.
[21]. Patrick Malcolmson and Richard Myers, The Canadian regime: an introduction to Parliamentary Government in Canada, 2nd edition, Broadview Press, 2002, p. 138.
[22]. ibid.
[23]. Senator Barney Cooney, Senate, Debates, Valedictory Speech, 27 June 2002, p. 2899.
[24]. Fred Chaney, 'Parliament: our
great expectations', in Papers on Parliament, no 23, Parliaments and
Constitutions Under Scrutiny, The Senate, Canberra, September 1994, p. 87.
[25]. David McGee, op. cit.,
p. 73.
[26]. Anthony Mughan and Roger M.
Scully, 'Accounting for change in free vote outcomes in the House of Commons', British
Journal of Political Science, vol 27 issue 4, Oct 97, p. 640.
[27]. L. Marvin Overby, Raymond Tatalovich and Donley T. Studlar, op. cit., p. 381.
[28]. ibid., p. 389.
[29]. Senate Legal and
Constitutional Committee, Inquiry into the provisions of the sex Discrimination
Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000, Dissenting report by Senator Hogg and Senator
Collins, para 1.93
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/sexdisreport/Contents.htm
[30]. Sophie Douez and Darrin Farrant, 'Labor heavyweight enters IVF debate', The Age, 20 April 2002
[31]. P. Weller, 'Introduction' in Caucus
Minutes 1901–1949: minutes of the meetings of the Federal Parliamentary Labor
Party, vol. 1, 1901–1917, Melbourne University Press, 1975, p. 10.
[32]. G. S. Reid and M. Forrest, Australia's Commonwealth Parliament 1901–1988: Ten Perspectives, Melbourne University Press, 1989, p. 31.
[33]. Caucus Minutes, op.
cit., p. 50.
[34]. W. M. Hughes, series of
articles on 'The case for Labor', quoted in P. Weller, op. cit., p. 11.
[35]. Caucus Minutes, op.
cit., vol 2 1917–1931, Introduction, p. 15.
[36]. J. Curtin, Westralian
Worker, 6 March 1925.
[37]. Australian Labor Party, Platform
and Constitution 2000, The Constitution and Rules of the Australian Labor
Party, Register of Conference Decisions, para 5.
[38]. ibid.
[39]. Dean Jaensch, The Liberals,
Allen & Unwin, 1994, p. 128. See also Graeme Starr, The Liberal Party
of Australia: a documentary history, Drummond/Heinemann, 1980, Commonwealth
Liberal Party platform, p. 8.
[40]. Gerard Henderson, 'Prisoners
of conscience', The Sydney Morning Herald, 11 April 2000.
[41]. Dean Jaensch, op. cit., p.
129.
[42]. ibid.
[43]. John Valder, Facing the
Facts: Report of the Committee of Review, Liberal Party of Australia, 1983, p. 102. See also Jaensch, ibid., p. 129.
[44]. Quoted in Jaensch, op. cit.,
p. 129.
[45]. Tony Wright, 'Fraser buckets Howard', The Age, 8 April 2000.
[46]. Senator the Hon. Amanda Vanstone, Senate, Debates, Answer to Question without Notice, 14 March 2000, p. 12 699.
[47]. Dennis Woodward, 'The Federal
National Party of Australia', in B. Costar and D. Woodward, eds, Country to
National, Allen & Unwin, 1985, p. 60.
[48]. National Party of Australia,
Federal Constitution, 2000, para 53.
[49]. National Party of Australia,
website at: http://www.nationalparty.org/about_us/index.htm.
[50]. Woodward, op. cit., p. 60.
[51]. '(a) An elected member of
Parliament shall adhere to the policies formulated by this Party: except that
where the views of an elected member are in conflict with party policy, then
the elected member may vote according to his conscience; and where, in the
opinions of an elected member, his duty to his electorate is in conflict with
Party policy, then the elected member may vote according to his duty to his
electorate. (b) When an elected member recognises a conflict between either his
conscience or his duty to his electorate and the Party policy, then he shall
furnish a statement accounting for his position to his Division Executive, for
their information.' Australian Democrats Constitution, para 11.3, website at: http://www.democrats.org.au/about/index.htm?request=national+constitution+and+regulation
Senator Natasha Stott Despoja said: 'we
grant all our elected members of parliament the right to cross the floor or
exercise a conscience vote, but we are bound by our constitution to explain to
our members why we choose to exercise that right.' Senate, Debates, A
New Tax System Bills 1999, 25 June 1999, p. 6534.
[52]. Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, Senate, Debates, Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders)
Bill 1999, 14 March 2000, p. 12 739.
[53]. Interview with Don Chipp by Barry Cassidy, Insiders, ABC Television, 7 July 2002.
[54]. Australian Greens, The
Charter and National Constitution of the Australian Greens, June 2000,
chapter 5, paras 38.2.1 and 38.2.2. See also Australian Greens website at:
http://www.greens.org.au/ chapter 5, paras 38.2.1 and 38.2.2.
[55]. ibid., chapter 5, paras 38.3
and 38.4. The paras listed in notes 55 and 56 do not apply to the NSW Greens.
[56]. Kirsten Lawson, 'Cabinet with Howard on cell research', The Canberra Times, 19 August 2002.
[57]. ibid.
[58]. Dean Jaensch, 'More conscience
voting to shake security blankets', The Advertiser, 11 April 2002.
[59]. Richard Crossman, Introduction
to W. Bagehot's The English Constitution, Fontana, 1993, p. 43.
[60]. Hugh Berrington, 'Partisanship
and dissidence in the nineteenth century House of Commons', Parliamentary
Affairs 21, p. 344.
[61]. Philip Norton, 'The
Organization of parliamentary parties', in S. A. Walkland, ed., The House of
Commons in the Twentieth Century, Clarendon Press, 1979, p. 21.
[62]. R. K. Alderman, 'The
Conscience clause of the Parliamentary Labour Party', Parliamentary Affairs 19,
p. 226.
[63]. Philip Norton, op. cit., p.
19.
[64]. Peter Jones, 'Members of
Parliament and issues of conscience', in Peter Jones, ed., Party, Parliament
and Personality: essays presented to Hugh Berrington, Routledge, 1995, p.
147.
[65]. see UK Parliament website at: http://www.parliament.uk/parliament/guide/pawhips.htm
[66]. Philip Crowley and Mark Stuart, 'Sodomy, slaughter, Sunday shopping and seatbelts', Party Politics, vol 3. no.
1 pp. 119–130. See also Charles Pattie, Edward Fieldhouse and
R. J. Johnston, 'The Price of conscience: the electoral correlates
and consequences of free votes and rebellions in the British House of Commons,
1987–92', British Journal of Political Science, vol. 24 no. 3 July,
1994, p. 371. The authors identified a number of variables that may have
affected the way in which an MP voted in free votes and found that party
allegiance proved to be an important factor in MPs' voting, even on free votes.
[67]. C. E. S. Franks, 'Free votes
of the House of Commons: a problematic reform', Policy Options, November
1997, p. 33.
[68]. C. E. S. Franks, 'Free votes
in the Canadian House of Commons: a study prepared for the Honourable Harvie
Andre, Government House Leader', September 1991, p. 15.
[69]. ibid., p. 5. See also H.
Chodos, G. P. Kieley, and J. R. Robertson, 'Party discipline and free votes', Topical
Information for Parliamentarians, Canada, Library of Parliament,
21 December 2000.
[70]. Citizen's Forum on Canada's Future, Report to the People and Government of Canada, 27 June 1991, pp. 96–103.
[71]. Maclean's, vol. 106,
issue 34, 23 August, 1993, p. 13.
[72]. McGee, op. cit., p. 74.
[73]. C. E. S. Franks, 'Free votes
in the Canadian House of Commons: a study prepared for the Honourable Harvie
Andre, Government House Leader', September 1991, p. 5.
[74]. Franks, 'Free votes in the
House of Commons: a problematic reform', op. cit., p. 36.
[75]. Steve Lewis, 'Cabinet
stem-cell divisions deepen', The Australian, 5 August 2002.
[76]. Premiers Bracks (Vic.), Rann
(SA) and Gallop (WA) have indicted that they will allow government members a
free vote on the state bills. See 'Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon.
John Howard MP joint press conference with Premiers and Chief Ministers Parliament
House Canberra', Media release, Prime Minister, 5 April 2002.
[77]. 'Democrats welcome Iraq debate', ABC Online, 5 August 2002
[78]. 'First strike–what our
politicians say', The Sunday Age, 11 August 2002. The question was sent to all federal members of parliament (a total of 226 members). The
newspaper received 38 responses.
[79]. Brendan Nicholson, 'Row on Iraq erupts', The Sunday Age, 11 August 2002.
[80]. Ms Tanya Plibersek MP
interviewed by Terry Lane, The National Interest, ABC Radio National, 11 August 2002.
[81]. Senator Jo Vallentine (IND), Senate, Debates, 21 January 1991, p. 92. Senator Vallentine said: 'I am sad
and angry that the Government is too frightened to allow its own members a
conscience vote on our participation in the Gulf war'.
[82]. The list of free votes is
based on information in J. R. Odgers, Australian Senate Practice, op.
cit., pp. 420–421 and I. C. Harris, ed., House of Representatives Practice,
fourth edition, 2001, pp. 277–278. As a free vote is not necessarily
identifiable from the parliamentary record the list cannot be guaranteed to be
complete.
Back to top