The Parliamentary Roller coaster ride: Rise or Fall? Australia, as stated in our constitution, is a representative democracy.

Andrew Wallace/1592038/PPP2002/Richard Eccleston

The Parliamentary Roller coaster ride: Rise or Fall?

Australia, as stated in our constitution, is a representative democracy. The institution of Parliament is vital because it the link between the people and the representatives. Parliament therefore does matter in our political system. The question then, is does it perform its constitutional role effectively? In the Australian political system, Parliament is the author of legislation, the scrutiniser of legislation, and the implementer of legislation. Certain arguments that have arisen since the beginning of federation that have called into question Parliament’s methods in performing its’ role. The ‘Decline of Parliament Thesis’ is one such argument. The thesis argues that Parliament is a mere ‘rubber stamp’ to the executive and the real power lay with the party who controls the executive. As a result of this, Parliament was not scrutinising legislation effectively and not providing a reliable accountability function. However this thesis was based on a particular time in Parliament’s history which is considerably different to the present. Today the thesis has changed. A new argument has arisen over the last twenty years proclaiming the ‘the rise of Parliament’. Proportional representation, minor parties and independents and the committee system have all contributed to a revitalisation of Parliament as an effective tool to analyse and examine the actions of government. The ‘decline of Parliament thesis’ however is still being used; it has just taken a new perspective. The perspective has shifted from the function of parliament to the image of Parliament. Today people have less appreciation of Parliament in general and less appreciation of politicians in particular. Along with the media’s portrayal and the increasing complex scope of legislation now passed through Parliament every year, a ‘new decline’ has emerged. When journalists or academics refer ‘the decline of Parliament thesis’ today, it is a mere cliché. Despite the new decline, Parliament will remain a fixture of our democracy, but as time goes by, it will change and will bring with it new criticism and praise.

Despite formulating, scrutinising, and implementing legislation, Parliament has a wider variety of responsibilities. First it determines which political party or group of parties will form government. The responsibility of whether a government stays in power remains with the Parliament throughout its life. The second function is to help determine who is to leader. The Prime minister, the executive and the shadow ministry have to be members of Parliament. A third responsibility is to control government administration, by means of questions, debates and committee inquires. The ministers have to keep a close eye on the functions of the executive and the public service. A forth responsibility is to supervise the governments’ financial administration, ensuring as far as possible that the public purse is not wasted or abused in anyway. (Solomon 1986:184)

The only time in Australian history this has ever been achieved was considered the ‘golden age’ (M. Haward 1997:106) of Parliament. The Golden age spanned the first 10 years of federation, and Parliament controlled the executive, not the reverse. As David Solomon described it, ‘In the those days (1901-1909) the parliament really did determine who would govern the country and it was Parliament who decided which legislation would pass and in what form.’ (D. Solomon 1986:185)

It was Parliament’s responsibility to control legislation and control the executive. In political practice, Parliamentary control usually means testing the responsibilities of the political executive through such traditional measures as Question Time, and testing the ministerial use of the public service through committee inquires. (John Uhr 1994:37) As described so far, Parliament is the democratic link in the system. It was during this golden age, 1901 to 1909, that Parliament fulfilled its constitutional role. The reason it could do so was because no party could ascertain a majority in the House. Legislation was debated intensely and only when there was a consensus from all the parties, and while no single party could maintain a majority of both Houses, legislation would be scrutinised effectively. This all changed however with the party system stabilised. Majorities in both houses then became common. Party discipline also emerged and became a defining aspect of party politics in Australia. Discipline allowed the Prime minister to command support from his majority and legislation began to flow more quickly. Around this time people began to question the Parliament as an effective house of review. ‘The Decline of Parliament Thesis’ was born.

Parliament in Decline;

R. Smith identifies a relatively rapid transition in the functioning of Parliament, one that took place around 1910. “This combination of party discipline and a majority of voting for two political parties with also government majorities in the Senate, saw Parliament overrun by executive power.” (R. Smith 1994; cited in L. Young 2000:100) John Uhr also supported the view, “This refinement of terms indicates that, whatever else it does, Parliament does not govern. It has handed that over to the political parties, to cabinet and Prime Ministers, who in turn manage public affairs through the bureaucracy.” ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Parliament in Decline;

It was during this next period in Parliaments history (1910-1948) that ‘the decline of parliament thesis was based upon. The party system had stabilised, and only two major parties or coalition emerged as dominant in the political system. These were the ALP and the conservative coalitions of the United Australia Party, Nationalist Party and the Country Party. These parties were governed by discipline and could be described as party governments. Party government recognises that Parliament is organised along party lines, and accepts the risk of fragmented organisational cohesion and weakened Parliament for independent institutional action. (J. Uhr 1994:37) The disciplined parties had shifted the power of the Parliament to the executive. Parliament had become a tool of the party in government and with the power of its majority, responsibility of effective scruntinisation of legislation had declined.

It was no secret, however, of the impending parliamentary decline. As Federation was being drafted people were warning of the inevitable consequences the parties would have on Parliament. William Russell, a radical and independent Scotsman thought party politics was unthinkable in “a chamber of this kind.” (A. Millar 2000:138) William Story, en ex-Labor minister who would turn Nationalist, thought too many decisions would be on party lines. John Verran, a former Labor premier and preacher (also turned Nationalist) looked forward to the disappearance of the party’s. (A. Millar 2000:138) These people were actually talking about the Senate. Some time later the changes that were initiated to counter the decline of Parliament were in the Senate. The decline of Parliament thesis, however started in the Lower House where the government would use its majority to avoid proper examination of bills put to the house.

As the thesis suggested, for many years it was assumed that Parliament performed scrutiny of government activities poorly. (J. Summers 1985. Cited in L. Young 2000:106) The argument was that parliament created and pushed legislation like a ‘sausage machine.’ (D. Lovell 1994:218) Legislation was created by the executive with the aid of the bureaucracy and presented before Parliament. The legislation was subjected to only ‘superficial’ debate and passed into law without thorough evaluation. Anne Millar describes the situation in more detail:

At those times when Parliament discussed legislation and the government felt under pressure, debate would be gagged (a censure motion) or the government declared the motion to be urgent (the guillotine) and passed it immediately. (A. Millar 2000:106)

It even became to be thought of as accepted practice and irreversible.

It is often asserted that there has been a ‘decline’ in Parliament, evidenced by the increasing prominence of the executive, and the shifting elsewhere of parliamentary functions. The trend cannot be doubted. Neither can it be turned around: it is not politically feasible, nor is it practical. (D. Lovell 1994:219)

The trend was also observed in democracies all over the world. Andrew Heywood described the ‘principle factors that have brought about change’ as the emergence of disciplined political parties, the growth in the role of government, the organisational weakness of legislators and the rise of interest group power. The transition from loose factions to disciplined party groupings undermines the ability of individual members to represent constituents as trustees by exercising their own judgment and consciousness. (A. Heywood 1997:310) This was the case in Australia after 1910. The growth in the role government, associated with a redistribution of power from legislators to the executive lead to an increase in the size and status of the bureaucracy, and placed a greater emphasis on the process of policy initiation and formulation. The rise of interest groups has also been reflected in the decline. They gave people another method of taking up popular grievances and have been more prominent both as representatives of ‘affected groups’ and as sources of expert advice and information.

As shown so far, the ability of Parliament to effectively analysis legislation has declined. This was definitely so in the period after the ‘golden age’ of Parliament and when the party system had stabilised. It is still accepted today that Parliament is in decline, but the original thesis was based on a period of the past. The new decline of parliament is a different perspective that is focused in the image of Parliament. In relation to this, Marcus Howard supported this point. The argument is based around a questionable primary assumption of a past ‘golden age’. (M. Haward 1997:106) Different dimensions have been added but the distinction is not visible when used. The thesis is if anything, a cliché. (A. Millar 2000:132) But when did the thesis change? The year, which has been signified as the turning point, is 1948. In 1948, proportional representation was introduced, and the Senate’s role revitalised. The period after has been described by some as ‘the re-emergence of Parliament.’

The Rise of Parliament;

At the end of the period described by the decline of Parliament thesis, changes occurred for the better. The first change was an increase in the number of representatives in the Senate, and the second was the introduction of proportional representation. Proportional representation carried the most impact. Up until 1948, the electoral system was heavily biased in favour of whichever party won a majority of votes, increasing executive control by giving the party of government an exaggerated majority and excluding minor parties and independents. (L. Taylor 2000:103) Proportional representation is a voting system where seats are allocated to all parties that secure a quota roughly in proportion to the number of votes they win. The result was a distribution of Senate seats based on the number of votes each party received on a state-based ratio. This made it increasingly difficult for a major party to secure a majority in the Senate and paved the way for the minor parties and independents. The majorities of the past were gone and only minorities were formed with minor parties holding the balance of power. The presence of minor party’s holding the balance of power altered the basic operational logic of the Senate, and made the executives task that much harder. (L. Taylor 2000:104) R. Smith described the change as bringing forward ‘a new era of politics, where independents and small parties … have been able to use their crucial positions to expand parliaments role in legislation and executive scrutiny.’ (R. Smith 1994:88)

However it was not until the late 1960s, that the most profound change was introduced. A new committee system was initiated by the clerk of the Senate, Mr J.R. Odgers, who advised the ALP, with the support of the Democratic Labor Party. It was herald as a revitalisation of the Senate and a new era in Australian Parliamentary history. (J.R. Odgers 1970. Cited in L. Young:101) Others agreed that it was a new beginning. Reid and Forrest commented:

The 1970s innovation revolutionised Parliament as a whole, contributed substantially towards the attainment of the ideal of parliamentary control, and is the showpiece of the Senate post-war achievement. The work of these committees has made an important contribution towards attainment of parliamentary control over the executive. (G. Reid & M. Forrest 1989:111)

In the actual committees themselves, the feeling was considerably different to that in the Parliament. Senator Viki Bourne reinforces this, ‘It is really quite different from the chamber. You would be very surprised; I was. If that sort of spirit of parliamentarianism can be kept up, that’s one way to halt the decline of Parliament. (Sen. V. Bourne 1989:11) The committee system had countered the parliamentary decline. Along with the committee system, independents and minor parties, the task of the executive is that much harder. At the 37th Parliament, a total of 482 bills were considered. Of those, 157 were amended with a total of 1812 amendments. Over a quarter of those were initiated by parties other than the government. (L. Young 2000:110)

Australian politics has changed considerably in recent years and is likely to change more. The change will move away from the dominance of political parties in setting the agenda and away from partisanship in the implementation and monitoring of public policy. The peace movement, the women’s movement, the aboriginal movement, and the environment movement have been broadly responsible for setting the agenda in major areas of public policy irrespective of the party in office. (Dr. Galligan 1990:1)

Over the last 10 years however, ‘a new decline’ has emerged, one that has accompanied the Information Revolution. Minor parties and independents are here to stay and have helped dramatically, along with the committee system, in making the government more accountable. But the decline of parliament has not disappeared; it has merely taken a new shape. It is now the public’s perception that is helping with the new decline of parliament.

The New Decline of Parliament.

Today, parliamentarians slug it out on T.V and on the radio. People turn on the news only to hear about the latest slide in ethical debate residing Question Time. Parliament to the public has become akin to a circus. Mike Skeketee, National affairs editor of the Australian, said there was ‘deep cynicism’ at the celebrations of the 100th anniversary of parliament on the 9th of May. He goes on to say:

Today, the House of representatives has become the appendix of the body politic – a useless organ in which political combat is ritualised and debate is irrelevant to results which are precooked in the cabinet and party room, and enforced by promises of rewards and threats of political death. Only in the Senate, where governments do not have the numbers, is there effective scrutiny of government actions. (M. Steketee 2001: 15)

Parliamentarians also admit that there is a substantial decline in the appreciation of Parliament because of their actions in the chamber. Senator David Kemp pointed out at a conference on Senate committees halting the decline of Parliament (1990) that “there a number of senses in which you can talk about Parliament declining. The first is the public perception of the Parliament and the second is how the public itself regards Parliament and how it regards the behaviour of those in the Parliament. (Sen D. Kemp 1990:11)

It is most likely a fact of life that debates in the House of representatives will remain the same. The two-party system in Australia is the foundation of our political system and the way in which governing occurs. When the broadcasting of parliament began, ministers saw an opportunity to promote themselves and the government by making the other side appear incompetent and vice-vera. Political points’ scoring has lead to a decline in ethical debate in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Less appreciation of the institution of Parliament as a whole is the result from this.

Conclusion.

Australia is a representative democracy. The institution of Parliament is vital because it the link between the people and the representatives. Parliament therefore does matter in our political system. Parliament is the author of legislation, the scrutiniser of legislation, and the implementer of legislation. Arguments have arisen since the beginning of federation that have decreased the importance of Parliament. The decline of Parliament thesis argues that Parliament is a mere ‘rubber stamp’ to the executive and the real power lies with the party who controls the executive. In the last twenty years the thesis has been countered. A new argument has arisen proclaiming the ‘the rise of Parliament’. Proportional representation, minor parties, independents and the committee system have all contributed to a revitalisation of Parliament as an effective tool to analyse and examine the actions of government. Along with this new rise in the legitimacy of Parliament, a growing cynicism has emerged over its image. Question Time portrays ministers as ambitious and arrogant, and the media reflects this by mainly focusing on failures of government rather than successes. This new decline is a reaction to the reality of politics in the chamber, which up until the 1970s were behind closed doors. This has also reinforced extra accountability on the executive because now when they address parliament, they are also addressing citizens directly. Factors will always exist that correspond to both arguments – that Parliament is in decline, and therefore does not matter; or that Parliament is re-emerging, and therefore matters as an institution. The reality is closer to the idea that Parliament is continually evolving, and thus it’s role changes over time, and different functions of Parliament come to the forefront which make Parliament matter.