Unrepresentative Swill

The former Prime Minister Paul Keating has a lot of detractors, but one quality that was respected on both side of politics was his acerbic wit and his use of pithy quips to either make a point or heap scorn on his opponents. John Hewson was the target of many a Keating barb ("debating him is like being bashed with a warm lettuce"), while other political opponents like Howard ("the desiccated coconut") and Peter Costello ("all tip and no iceberg") drew some of his fire during the last election.

My favourite however is his description of the Senate as "unrepresentative swill". At a time where the fate of several important pieces of legislation rest in the hands of the dangerously naive Family First Senator Steve Fielding and the quirky South Australian Nick Xenophon, the expression has never been more apt. The vast majority of Australians did not vote for these people, so how did they land themselves such influential positions? Also after the numerous examples of oddball senators having undue influence on the country's affairs (eg Albert Field in Whitlam's time and more recently, Brian Harradine), why do we continue to tolerate the way the Senate is elected?

The problem essentially stems from the way the nation was formed back in 1901 and our reluctance as a country to change the Constitution so that it better reflects the circumstances of the 21st century. Similar to the USA, the Australian Government was formed when the separate colonies of the states agreed to join together to break away from England and form a Commonwealth. Prior to this, each of the States each ran their own affairs independently of the others and had much more diverging priorities than what they do now. The bizarre fact that each state had its own rail gauge rendering interstate rail travel either impossible or impractical is testament to this. Similarly, while a lot of matters that it makes clear sense for a central government to control (for example: income tax and company regulation) now fall within the responsibility of the Federal Government, the states were generally very slow and reluctant to cede powers to the new central government. It was for this reason that the Senate was conceived as the legislative house designed to represent the interests of the States and with equal representation for each State.

The problem now however is that with modern methods of travel and communication making the world a much smaller place and with the interests of the States much more aligned than what they once were, the idea of determining Senate representation based on lines on a map drawn over 150 years ago is hopelessly outdated. However, because of the way the Constitution was drawn and the extreme difficulties faced in changing it, we are likely to be stuck with this anachronistic system for the foreseeable future. Which unfortunately for everyone means a future full of more Senators like Harradine and Fielding.

I generally agree with the idea of an upper house. Consitituted properly, it can act as an effective house of review and both improve and where necessary, temper legislation conceived by the lower house. When one party controls both houses of Parliament, there is nothing to filter the excesses of Government policy and you wind up with odious laws like Workchoices being passed without their harsh edges being knocked off. However, when the Government is forced to make undesirable changes to laws to satisfy the capricious whims of an independent senator, then the upper house is clearly not serving its purpose. This is especially when an overwhelming number of people did not vote for these senators, nor for their policies - if in fact they have any and aren't just making them up on the run.

To illustrate just how disproportionate the representation is, take a look at the results from the last Federal Election. Because Senators serve 6 year terms, only 6 Senate seats were up for grabs in each state. Under the Senate quota system, a senator needed just under 600,000 votes in New South Wales to secure a seat. In Victoria, the number needed was 450,000 but in South Australia it was closer to 145,000 and in Tasmania a paltry 47,000. This means that 47,000 Tasmanians have the same Senate representation as 12 times that many New South Welshmen and 10 times as many Victorians. When you consider this it's small wonder that Keating started calling the Senate all sorts of names.

What this voting system does however is make it a relatively easy proposition for a maverick senator to make his way into the Upper House in one of the smaller states, which is why the independents tend to come from either Tasmania or South Australia. Getting hold of either 47,000 or even 145,000 votes after distribution of preferences is fairly achievable but 450,000 or 600,000 is a whole different proposition. While it's true that the smaller states need a decent degree of representation and the proportion should not be solely based on population, equally it's not fair on the rest of the country that an individual elected by 47,000 Tasmanians has the power to frustrate or cripple laws that are of critical importance.

Which brings me back to Steve Fielding, who unusually for an independent senator comes from Victoria. The story of his election in 2004 is certainly an interesting story. Of the primary vote , Fielding received just 56,000 votes, less than 1/8th of what he needed to secure a seat. However, because of a sleazy preference deal struck by Labor to try and dud the Greens and swing themselves a 3rd senate seat, Fielding somehow after distribution of preferences leapfrogged not only the Democrats and the DLP but also the Greens (260,000) votes.

As a result of Labor's misconceived deal, we now have a situation where this gormless twit and his homespun policies are going to potentially determine whether several pieces of hugely important legislation get through the Senate. Kevin Rudd must cursing Mark Latham to high heaven right now, because the early signs are not encouraging.

Witness Fielding's attitude to the Alcopops legislation. This could hardly be considered a law of groundbreaking or nation-building importance, however in order to pass it, Fielding wanted to impose an immediate ban on ALL alcohol related sports advertising. Yep, great idea, let's drop that one in overnight in the middle of a recession and see what happens to all sporting codes in the country.

It was announced in the press the other day that Labor are looking to reverse some of the idiotic and unnecessary middle-class welfare measures introduced by Howard and Costello, the most pertinent of these being the elimination of the baby bonus. In the driest, most forbidding continent on Earth, who in their right mind wants to encourage INCREASING our population? If it's true then this is a great piece of policy by Labor and should be rushed into law so that money can be applied to solving more pressing issues in the economy. However, with Steve Fielding calling the shots in the Senate, don't expect this legislation to get through without significant amendment or perhaps at all. For him, it's Families First and the national interest a very distant second.

Unrepresentative swill? They're much worse than that. I think for once Keating was being too kind.