The Senate

OK, here we go with two questions at once!

Message / Question

Dave, I don't think you're listening to OP's question. They obviously weren't talking about balance of power in the Lower house which you seem to be so focused on, but the UPPER house. The fact is in the Upper house, there are 76 seats, the Coalition have 33, Labor has 25, the Greens have 10, Family First have 1, and the others have 7. To pass anything, you need 38, meaning the Coalition needs 5, and Labor needs a whopping 13 votes (i.e. Greens + someone else). THUS, Labor is being hijacked by the Greens. Get it?? ANY legislation needs to pass both the Upper and Lower houses. If it weren't for this fact, the Government wouldn't need a Double dissolution despite holding 90 of the 150 seats (60%). The Environmental lobby is so effective at what they do, even you seem to be blinded by their strategy. Dave, let politicians do politics, and ministers do ministry - unless if you want to read The Prince by Machiavelli. If the Upper house didn't matter, you wouldn't say the words "Greens" as much as you do.

Message / Question

What makes you think you are qualified to talk about political science? Dave, let's be honest, is church leadership political?

Response

I really don’t want to get bogged down in this stuff, however I will address the matters that you have raised. My article covered BOTH houses of the Federal Parliament, I think that I gave about equal space to each House. I note again, that regardless of the numbers in the Senate, Government is determined in the Reps. There have been very few “hung parliaments” (i.e. where neither major political group had the numbers to command a majority and thus needed support of independents/minor parties to govern), only 2 in the last 70 years. As I noted in my previous response, the Senate is a different story altogether – it has not been common for a Federal Government to actually have control of both Houses i.e. Government in the Reps and a working majority in the Senate.

You are correct, as I also noted in my previous article, in saying that all legislation may originate in either House and must be passed by both Houses – the exception to that is money bills; whilst they too must be passed by both Houses, they cannot originate in the Senate, they still may however, be amended by the Senate and the amended legislation then needs the endorsement of the Reps. It is not uncommon for Government legislation to be thwarted by the Senate, it has happened a lot since our last double dissolution back in 1987. To use the "trigger" and instigate a double dissolution, is a political decision that a Government can use to pass very specific legislation.

But is is a significant political gamble. In the 6 double dissolution elections that Australia has experienced, the incumbent government was returned 3 times, defeated twice. The 6th was the 1975 election that saw the Whitlam government sacked and a Fraser caretaker government order a double dissolution and win.

It seems that your interest is in the potential power of a minor party or independent in the Senate – and it should be remembered that it is the Senate is the place where independents and minor parties have their best chance to affect legislation. Your maths is a little wrong, you actually need 39 votes to pass legislation in the Senate. There are 76 seats and 38 seats is half of that. If one side can only muster 38 votes, that means that the other side also has 38 votes. Unlike the House of Reps, the President of the Senate does NOT get a “casting vote” when the numbers are tied. If the numbers are equal in the Senate, the motion is deemed to have been decided in the negative. So to pass legislation, the Government needs 39 votes. In the Senate that has just been prorogued, the Government had only 33 seats (votes), so it needed 6 other Senators to vote with it to pass legislation. If 6 of the crossbenchers went with the Government, then they had the numbers to overcome the Labor / Green combined vote. On the other hand, the Labor Party needed the support of the Greens PLUS 4 of the crossbenchers to amend legislation or introduce new bills. Mostly, Labor and Green voted together, however there was an occasion in the last Parliament where the Greens voted with the Government against Labor and the crossbenchers to ensure the passage of a Government bill which changed the way the Senate will be elected from the 2016 election onwards, making it apparently harder for a small party of independent to be elected to the Senate (at least in a normal half Senate election – with the current double dissolution, the smaller groups will not be at quite the same disadvantage). Is Labor being hijacked by the Greens? Labor would certainly say that they’re not, but history does show a very similar Senate voting pattern of both parties, and most people can see that the Greens have a great deal of influence over the parliamentary wing of the ALP when it comes to the policies that are supported on the floor of the Senate that are very likely the product of a “deal” between the two groups to support each other against the Coalition. You seem to imply that I am personally “influenced” by the “Environmental lobby” – sorry to disappoint you, but that isn’t the case, nor am I influenced by the “gay” lobby or the “pro choice” lobby – I’m guess that I’m still the stereotypical right wing conservative that would love to see enough non partisan Christians in the Senate to hold the balance of power, however that is becoming less and less likely to happen, especially with the changes to the way the Senate is elected (unless Bob Day wins his High Court case!!!). Nowhere have I suggested that the Senate doesn’t matter, of course it matters and it is probably far more important that Christians vote carefully in the Senate than it is in the Reps, as the preferences are more likely to have actual impact on the Senate vote than they will in most Rep seats – just make sure that you know exactly where your preferences are going! Now, why do I comment on politics? Because I am an informed voter, I read, I have been involved in politics in one way or another for a long time, both as an interested outsider and student and as a member of a particular party and even as a branch president. Maybe you need to read stuff a little more carefully before making broad assumptions. In the meantime, I hope that you may have even learned something in this answer – perhaps about the numbers of Senate seats it takes to pass any motion before the Chair!