Should John Howard be allowed to have his tax package the way he wants it or the way the Democrats want to modify it?
The government, having won the election on the very honest basis of proposing a new tax, faces minor parties in the Senate who want to modify it. They can do so because Labor will continue to oppose it. Something like 10% of the electorate choose to make something of the two electoral systems, Senate and Representatives. They have an each-way bet, and the Democrats brilliant decision to deal themselves in to the debate by offering to support a GST excluding food, means the government has to negotiate with them.
Should voters get a second bite at the cherry? Labor invented the dual system in 1949, allowing for proportional representation for the Senate. The system makes the emergence and survival of minor parties and independents more likely. The result is that for most of the period since 1961, minor parties and Independents have held the balance of power. Labor's Mick Young wanted to expand the House of Representatives for the 1994 poll, and convinced the National party it was in their interests to support him. The trouble was the Constitution demands a strict 2/1 ratio between Representative and Senate seats and the Senate numbers had to be lifted to 12 per state. This made it even easier to be elected on a small percentage of the vote.
Strategically, the next 18 months for opposition parties is about delaying the implementation of the GST. If the government cannot bed down its tax changes as the electoral cycle makes a return to the ALP more likely, it faces defeat. But is the problem caused by the small quota required to get elected to the Senate, or the power of the Senate to delay and modify legislation, or short terms?
Opposition, whether from a major or minor party is not the sole source of the problem. The combination of a three year term and a powerful Senate means that any opposition has an incentive to delay any proposition of which the electorate are uncertain, even though they voted for it. That is not a good system for bold government.
Senator MacGibbon proposes a change to the Electoral Act so that any party has to achieve a full quota in its own right. This would make it harder for minor parties to succeed. However, it may mean that a number of minor parties merge and form a small major party in order to reach a full quota. That would still leave the Senate in the hands of a third party. Only a change to a pre 1949 arrangement, or some equivalent would allow for the possibility of a government holding power in both Houses. Even such a radical change may not achieve a majority in both Houses. It is just as likely that the electorate would still have a two-way bet. The government would simply face a majority Opposition in the Senate.
Peter Barron argues for a referendum to weaken the powers of the Senate by placing a time limit on the passage of legislation. If both major parties supported the proposition it may pass, but on the logic of the delay tactics for this term Labor is unlikely to embrace the change. Besides, the Democrats and Greens have in the past forced the government of the day to have legislation to the Senate by a cut-off date. So two can play that game.
On the basis that the only real problems are solvable ones, John Howard's problem is not the emergence of minor parties, or an upper house. The problem that has a solution is the incentive to delay, inherent in short electoral cycles. It would be in the interest of the electorate to have a four year term.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment