|
February 13, 2003
John Quiggin says it very well in this article, "No alternative for Telstra', in the Australian Financial Review (subscription required ) column. (Feb. 13, p.62), The article is about burying the Telstra parliamentary inquiry. John says:
"What was unprecedented, as far as I know, was the decision of the majority on the committee lead by Christopher Pyne, and acting on the orders of Communications Minister Richard Alston, to kill the inquiry altogether. No evidence was taken and submissions were cut off, marking another milestone in the growth of executive contempt for parliament, and in the decline of the committee system."
So true John. So true. So executive dominance has to checked and balanced?
The ALP has the same executive contempt for the Parliament, the Senate and the committee system when it has its hands on the levers of power. Parliament needs to be reformed to strengthen its power vis-a-vis the executive, increase the power of the Senate and make the committee system more authoritative. This would deepen the federal underpinnings of a liberal-democratic institutions.
Which major political party is going to do that? Don't hold your breath for a deepening of Australian federalism.
Now a case can be made. As Jacob Levy at The Volokh Conspiracy (9.58am February 10th) accurately observes:
'....in practice, the U.S., Australia, and Germany seem to show that an upper house in some way dependent on federalism is a pretty stable solution that can offer real counterbalancing to the lower house and/or the executive.'
In a latter post that day( 2.03pm) he seem to backtrack from a federal understanding of the Senate. Jacob notes the recent 'no confidence' motion passed by the Australian Senate in the Howard Government. He says:
'I've never heard of a motion of no confidence even being introduced into the House of Lords or the Australian Senate or the Bundesrat; because "no confidence" from such a body is just venting. It lacks the constitutional significance of "no confidence" from the house to which government is responsible.'
Venting? This is more than venting. That institutional rebuke is giving expression to a faultline that is developing in the body politic about the Howard Government's handling of a war that a majority of Australians will not consent to without a UN mandate. Venting implies being powerlessness. However, the Australian Senate is a powerful political institution and the political significance of Senate's "vote of no confidence" is more than being just a form of rebuke that has no constitutional meaning, but sounds mighty fancy.
In a federal system a motion of no confidence does mean something-- even if it is not the rejection of the ministerial government by the parliamentary body of the House of Representatives as it is in a purely Westminister system. In a federal system the House of Reps is not the sole arbiter of the approval or disapproval process. In a checks and balances federal system the Senate acts to check the power of executive dominance, that is currently being deployed by the Howard Government to run the war. Its the checks and balances that goive the action its constitutional meaning.
Michael Jennings differs from this account. He has some background material here (scroll down to Monday, February 10). His latter comment on the Senate's no confidence motion here (Tuesday Feb.11) acknowledges that 'the senate does actually have the power to bring a goverrment down, if it really wants to flex its muscles'. He then quickly qualifies this:
"The present government is a right wing government. The people in the senate who voted their "motion of no confidence" the other week are typically from the left. While they could conceivably bring down the government by withdrawing their consent for money bills, they are committed to never do this for historical reasons. Whereas they could in theory withdraw their actual parliamentary confidence in the government and bring it down, this is for them unthinkable. Therefore, instead, they pass completely spurious "motions of no confidence" that are not really what they claim to be."
I would not be too sure of that. Political conventions do change. What is mor elikely to happen is that Howard will trim his sails & go for war with a UN mandate, rather than have a collision with the Senate.
More power to the Senate I say. We need more checks and balances not less. And this may be what is happening behind our backs, due to the war with Iraq. Contrary to the recieved wisdom of most journalists in a federal system the Senate is the place to watch, not the House.
|
Gary,
I would like your thoughts on the belief I have held for some time now, that we elect our houses of parliament in reverse.
I think we should vote for the lower (govt.forming) house on the basis of proportional representation like the current Senate. The house of review should be based on fixed electorates with individuals standing.This house to have vigorous investigative 'keep the bastards honest' powers.
Notice some important benefits. The political parties in the LH can face the polls knowing their best(in their opinion)talent can be protected at the top of their ticket. No need for marginal seat 'pork-barrelling like Kalgoorlie gold taxes for Beasley,Sydney airport issues and the like. Also you can't go to war without a majority in the LH which may need minor party consent at times. Minor parties may become important and less woolly-headed with their polcies.(no fence-sitters or arm-chair critics any more)
The local identities elected for the UH of review could represent an important and less political 'little blokes' checks and balances approach to reviewing the excesses of the political parties. It may also become a valid semi-retirement option for elder statesmen, who are past their use-by date in the hurly burly of party politics but still have much experience and wisdom to offer the people.