In their anger over a Senate “stunt”, Labor leaders revealed more than they might have intended about how the major parties work with each other.
For months the Senate has demanded that the Labor Government release a report into jobs-for-mates appointments. Last Thursday, the Senate decided that if the government wasn’t going to be transparent in this area, the Senate would demand transparency in other areas. Independent Senator David Pocock’s motion to add five “non-government” questions to Senate Question Time passed with Greens and Liberal–National support.
In response, Labor threatened to cut pay for some Liberal–National MPs in the House of Representativesby taking away their deputy chair positions.
What do deputy chairs in the lower house have to do with a motion in the upper house?
Only that Labor has control of the lower house, so that’s where it can make the Opposition feel pain.
The major parties divvy up positions and privileges between themselves. They might be in government today, but Labor expects that eventually the boot will be on the other foot. These positions come with power, but also higher pay. Each major party shares with the other.
Until one party breaks the arrangement – as Labor would be doing if they stripped Liberal–National MPs of deputy chair positions.
Regardless of whether Labor follows through, Coalition senators might already be asking what the Senate can do to make life harder for the government. After all, a National senator may not be too concerned that a few Liberals in the House are in danger of losing bonus pay. And the threat that “We’ll do the same to you in government” falls flat when government looks so far out of reach for the Coalition.
By inspiring Liberals, Nationals, Greens and independents to question Senate customs that benefit the government of the day, Labor may have opened Pandora’s box.
- Imagine if the President of the Senate were from an independent or minor party, instead of being chosen from the governing party.
- Imagine if the eight committees that scrutinise legislation were chaired by someone from the Opposition or the crossbench, instead of a government senator.The reports might be more collaborative and probing with a chair from another party.
- Imagine if the Senate called ministers from the House of Representatives to give evidence at Senate Estimates, instead of letting them send a senator as delegate.
- Imagine if the Senate refused to vote on government legislation until the government has produced all the information the Senate has ordered.
- Imagine if the Senate sanctioned government ministers who ignored the Senate’s orders, as Labor has tried before.
The Constitution gives executive government (the prime minister and ministers) enormous leeway, but also gives Parliament the discretion to constrain that power. Last week the Senate made a small but meaningful correction against government secrecy.
If the government refuses to comply, there is much more the Senate could do.
2 Comments
Imagine trying to select a "chair by someone from the Opposition or the crossbench, instead of a government senator" that would being genuine independence & manage the committee for the benefit of the electorate...
The quotation marks around the word "stunt" are noted, presumeably Labor is calling it a stunt. It was an act of desperation by the Senators to get some cooperation from a secretive, opaque government that has wilfully ignored parliamentary process. For Labor to call it a "stunt" and seek to retaliate is the height of arrogance.