Senate Committees - Controlling the Agenda (1 Viewer)

Generator

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,244
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
PM plans to pull Senate into line
Steve Lewis, Chief political correspondent
June 21, 2006



THE Howard Government has entrenched its parliamentary power and will avoid scrutiny of contentious legislation with an audacious plan to seize control of Senate inquiries.

In the most assertive use of the Senate majority won by the Coalition last year, the changes will allow the Government to control the agenda of all upper house inquiries.

It will have the power to approve every matter or piece of legislation referred to Senate committees for investigation and ensure every committee chairman is from the Coalition.

The Government can also bar embarrassing witnesses from appearing before Senate inquiries, helping it avoid unwanted scrutiny of legislation and political controversies such as the children overboard scandal.

continued
Senate committee overhaul evil: Beazley


Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has described the Government's plan to cut the number of Senate committees as an "evil act".

The Senate committees can hold specific inquiries into legislation or broader investigations of general issues.

Under the Government's plan, the number of committees will be reduced from 16 to 10 and all will be chaired by a Government senator.

Mr Beazley has attacked the proposal.

"Like all instruments of accountability in this country, this Government's trashing it," he said.

"This is because the Government believes the more people know about it, the less they're likely to support it.

"That is a sound judgment on their part but an evil act."

But Prime Minister John Howard has dismissed Mr Beazley's comments.

"To call changes to the committee structure of the Senate an act of evil, is to give hyperbole a whole new meaning," he said.

Federal independent MP Peter Andren has also condemned the Government's move to limit and control the number of Senate inquires.

"It's been bad before but this is atrocious," he said.

"All of this is an absolute denial of our role as legislators to be even able to move amendments that has been banned under this process.

"It's an absolute disgrace and Parliament has become a shameful sham."

But Mr Howard says the changes would not allow the Government to avoid scrutiny.

Source: ABC Online.
Though it seems as though these changes have come out of the blue, one may say that they have been on the cards for some time (see here and here).

For the sake of balance, it should be made clear that during its years in power, the ALP had one of its own Senators chair most Senate Committees. Still, parliamentary accountability is increasingly becoming a thing of the past, it seems.
 
Last edited:

MoonlightSonata

Retired
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
3,645
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
This is disgraceful stuff, really. I don't think any other Australian government has shown so much contempt for democratic accountability and constitutional convention than this one. So much for responsible government.

Yes, the reports produced by the committees are not often heeded, but that doesn't make them worthless.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Messages
210
Location
SID-AR-KNEE!
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
MoonlightSonata said:
This is disgraceful stuff, really. I don't think any other Australian government has shown so much contempt for democratic accountability and constitutional convention than this one. So much for responsible government.

Yes, the reports produced by the committees are not often heeded, but that doesn't make them worthless.
Pfffft.. The only way that keating was held to account was when Australians got sick and tired of him and 'evicted' him despite his 'gerrymeandering'.

I hate people like you who try to make out that what Howard is doing is something new. Everything that Howard is doing, has been done by the ALP before.

Now back to the topic of senate committees.
 

MoonlightSonata

Retired
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
3,645
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Captain� Obvious said:
Pfffft.. The only way that keating was held to account was when Australians got sick and tired of him and 'evicted' him despite his 'gerrymeandering'.

I hate people like you who try to make out that what Howard is doing is something new. Everything that Howard is doing, has been done by the ALP before.
I never said it was new. I said that this government was the biggest offender. Howard has gradually stripped the legal system of accountability measures that safeguard not only democratic principles and conventions, but individual rights and freedoms. From an administrative law perspective, this government is quite simply one of the worst in that respect.
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
I'm with generator and moonlight on this one, this seems to further castigate the senate.

On that note I find perhaps the best feature of the US system the power of congressional/senate inquiries, that makes for a more accountable government.

The logic behind this move though is the main problem that upper houses everywhere face: "If they approve they are a rubber stamp, if they block they are an impediment to democracy" (as they block the majority will of the people).

It is possible though to take heart in some small way as the British seem to make do with a toothless upper house... I'm not sure how it goes in this sort of thing however it long ago lost the power to block legislation.
 

Rafy

Retired
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
10,719
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Uni Grad
2008
The proposed changes to the Senate Committees structure are (in truth) relatively minor.

Currently there are 16, paired committees: 8 references committees and 8 legislation committees. The corresponding reference and legislation committees cover identical portfolio and subject matter areas.

The legislation committees inquire into legislation before the Senate, including Budget bills. These legislation committees are most famous for grilling public servants at Senate Estimates hearings. The legislation committees have 3 government members (including the chair), 2 opposition members, and 1 minor party or independent member.

The references committees enquire into policy matters referred to them by the Senate. The references committees have 3 opposition members, 2 government members, and 1 minor party or independent member. The chair of the each of the references committees is a non-government member.

Because the committees are paired, the change is really an increase from 8 committees to 10 committees. That is arguably more accountability. Effectively, the references committees are being abolished, and the legislation committees are being expanded in number and taking on the old references role.

This is not the end of democracy, as we know it. And it does not deserve the ‘act of evil’ appellation that Beazley gave it in a moment of hyperbole. Yes, the Opposition will be less influential. But that loss of influence is really a consequence of the 2004 election. In losing the Senate majority, the Opposition and minor parties lost the absolute power to prevent government legislation (and to prevent changes to the Senate procedures). That is the way our system of government works.

The current arrangements were introduced in 1994, when the then Keating government had only 30 Senate seats and the Opposition 36. The numbers on the day drove that change, just as the Coalition’s Senate majority drives the current change. You can safely bet that if Labor wins the next election, the Coalition will use its larger numbers in the Senate to maintain a firm grip on the Committees structure from the opposition benches. It can be a brutal numbers game.

So much for truth, what about the politics?

On political front, I think the ground is much softer for the Government. Labor’s strategy is clear. Use the changes to paint a picture of Howard the dictator: drunk on power, full of hubris, arrogant, not to mention mean and tricky. In short, the tables are turned and Labor is seeking to replay the Keating 1996 strategy that Howard played so masterfully over a decade ago.

On its own, the strategy probably would not work. Howard only has to remind the House that he attends every question time. As Michelle Gratten noted, Howard only need mention Lord Keating who once famously said: “Question time is a privilege extended by the executive to the Parliament.”

Labor’s strategy depends on the Wran doctrine: “If you throw enough mud, some of it will stick”. Howard’s problem is that collectively there are a number of recent decisions that are starting to look like hubris and arrogance. While it is not a long list, it appears to be growing. If he is not careful, Howard could be approaching a tipping in the mind of the public.
http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/?p=362
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
wikiwiki said:
Democracy is not = to what is right. Senates are meant to stop populism and act in the best interests of the nation. Note that senators are just as democratically elected as members of the lower house, and are just as accountable to the average Australian.
I disagee.

You state that the senate is as democratically elected and accountable as the lower house as if this is an objective quantifiable fact, so perhaps for fun you should prove it.
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
The voting system used.

as an example in the senate elections the vote of a tasmanian carries 17 times the voting power of a vote belonging to a new south welshman.

eg the fixed number of seats for states gives small states disproportionate voting power.

Or as another example fielding got in with far fewer first preference votes than several candidates he defeated. See the power of party bosses in directing votes...
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
483
Location
West Pennant Hills
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Also the voting system used to elect Senators does not require that they have a majority vote, only that they reach a certain quota of votes.

From memory the formula is the number of voters in the electorate i.e. the State divided by the number of seats i.e. 12, plus 1. It is thus far easier and less democratic to be elected to the Senate, especially, as LG pointed out, in the smaller States.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
LOL rebel backbenchers... lol lol lol lol

Anyway, I'd use the same word that MLS did for this... it's just 'disturbing'. I don't really feel it's that big an attack on our democracy (on its own), but it's so petty I'm left just wondering 'wtf?'.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top