The Australian election has just played itself out over the
last weekend and today we are already hearing the claim that the winners in the
House of Representatives have a mandate for all their policies and the Senators
should just support them. This is a
common theme just after an election and not just from one party or group.
For those not up on the Australian system, it is similar in
many ways to the US system. There are
two houses of parliament, a lower house or House of Representatives and an
upper house of review called the Senate.
The Senate is notionally a state house, and each state selects an equal
number of senators by proportional representation using a preferential voting
system.
Half of the Senate and all of
the House of Representatives are elected every three years. By convention these elections are held
concurrently even though the timing of elections is determined by separate
rules. To overcome the problem, the
newly elected members of the senate take their seats in accordance with the
timing of the Senate Election, which may be up to seven or eight months after
the election. In the meantime, the old
Senate sits.
In a similarity with the British House of Commons, the Prime
Minister is the person who can command a majority on the floor of the House of
Representatives, while the Head of State is the Governor General, representing
the Queen of Australia (who is also Queen of England).
As a result of this arrangement, the Prime Minister is the
key political figure in Australian politics.
The now Prime Minister elect, Tony Abbott, campaigned on the policy of
abolishing the Carbon Trading scheme, which he called a carbon tax. Now that he has been elected he is claiming a
“mandate” for the abolition of the carbon tax and demanding that the senate, still
dominated by parties supporting the Carbon Trading scheme, respect his mandate
and pass the legislation abolishing the scheme.
This argument is flawed.
It is built around the concept of winner takes all democracy, which has
emerged in the House of Representatives due to the ability of the dominant
party to force its legislation through based on numbers. The current government elect in the House of
Representatives received about 53% of the total popular vote, but closer to 60%
of the seats. The Senate is, however, a house of review, and due to its
proportional representation voting system usually represents the actual split
of the electorate more accurately that the House of Representatives. Further, the conservatism driven by the
longer appointment period and the half senate elections each three years means
that the Senate does not represent the hot issue of the day, but a longer term
average of community opinion.
If a member is elected to either house, it is incumbent on
that person to vote according to the policies (s)he proclaimed during the
election process. There is no reason why
a senator should change her /his position based on the outcome of the election
in the lower house. Otherwise, there
would be no reason to have a senate.
The argument that the Government has a mandate and Senators must support this mandate in the Senate is a logical fallacy,
but what else would you expect from politicians?
