Talk:Australian Senate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Australian Senate is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
|
|||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
There is no convention that requires a government to automatically resign or call an election once supply is blocked. The 'convention' was made up in the 1970s to suit the political rhetoric of the time. In fact a government may 'hang tough' for as long as the GG allows them to do so.
Removed this:
The original arrangement was a block voting mechanism [OK, but what does that mean?]. In 1919, this was ammended to allow for preferential voting. The block voting model tended to grant landslide majorities very easily. In 1946, the Australian Labor Party government won 30 out of the 33 Senate seats. In 1948, partially in response to this extreme situation, they introduced proportional representation in the Senate.
Because it is badly written and confusing. I substituted a simpler thing, losing some meaning, but trusting that someone with expertise in this area will come along and restore the cut in such a way that it isn't self-contradictoty. Tannin 08:03 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)
- OK. I'll do some more research and re-write the description correctly. Pde
Roadrunner and Tannin edited in the following paragraph:
In contrast to Presidental systems such as that of the United States (in which the inability of the President to pass a major bill through the legislature is considered routine), the Australian parliamentary system often regards the inability of the government to pass a major bill as quite significant. Because the Senate and the House of Representatives are elected with different voting procedures, the party composition of the Senate rarely matches that of the House of Representatives. Further, in contrast to other parliamentary systems, the Australian Senate is expected to play an active legislative role.
I get the feeling that this highly comparative approach to describing the way the Senate operates is quite confusing, because the whole picture is not present:
- Many parliaments have legislative deadlocks of various sorts; the House of Lords was able to cause them before 1911, too.
- Party composition in upper & lower houses is different in most places
- A major difference between Australia and the US is that almost all votes are along party lines. The ALP has a binding caucus; the Liberals (& even the Democrats) have very low tollerance for their MPs crossing the floor.
- The US Senate does take a proactive legislative role.
I've tried to re-write the paragraph by saying how things happen in the Australian parliament, including all of the important facts. If readers want to compare this to other political systems (not just those of the US & the UK) then hopefully wikipedia can provide clear articles for other parliaments too!
Pde 23:29 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)
- Good move, Pde. It is a lot clearer now. Tannin 23:48 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)
the infamous clash between the British House of Commons and House of Lords in 1909. Can someone explain this, or point to a page which discusses it? RickK 04:43, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- It's discussed on the House of Lords page. I've tried to clarify the text a little. -- Pde
During a double dissolution, how is it determined which members will serve half terms and which members will serve full terms? RickK 04:50, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Good question. IIRC, it's been changed (or at least debated) over the years. One system which the Liberals and elements of the ALP have supported, and may now be in place, is a system in which the first 6 senators elected in the STV process are elected for two terms. This automatically gives all the full-term seats to major parties, probably 3 each -- and means that a double dissolution is a serious threat disruption to the long term health of a smaller party like the Democrats, which often has two senators from a State. -- Pde 16:49, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I dispute the claim that the ability to block supply makes the government "accountable" to the Senate: this at the least is a point of contention rather than being authoritatively settled. Lacrimosus 23:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Block voting meant 3 votes if 3 vacancies.
The original voting system for the Australia Senate gave each voter a vote for each vacancy, originally 3 per state. The first 3 past the post where then elected.
I am not quite sure what this system is called.
Later on the system was adapted to include preferences.
The disadvantage of this system was that is often lead to lopsided results, as bad as 36-0. These lopsided results brought the Senate into disrepute, leading eventually to the adoption of STV in 1949.
Syd1435 02:51, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
[edit] Nader, Kerry, et al. on the Australian Senate ballot?????
I'd say it looks a lot more like this. We could probably get away with putting that image (or a more contemporary equivalent, with the Greens instead of the NDP) on Wikipedia; copyright is unlikely to subsist in those images. -- pde 04:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Senate Ballot Paper names.
I have chosen names to be short, and to make some sense to non-Australian readers, hence Bush (Republican) and Kerrry (Democrat) etc.
Syd1435 06:48, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)
- Please don't. Just include a generic name that is not an American political figure. I don't particularly want to see American politics entering into an article about the politics of Australia. Besides which, it sort of looks like we're being ruled by Americans, and I really do object to that (no offence to Americans, but we are an independent nation even if we are still technically a monarchy). - Ta bu shi da yu 13:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I was going to edit it to match the Tasmanian senate paper (as it would be the smallest)? Shouldn't be a problem with using a real example should there? -- Chuq 22:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
- Done that now - could do with a better way of signifying a tick box, but is a lot easier to read than the last example. -- Chuq 01:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Double Dissolusion
Just because the 1975 double dissolusion may not have been to put supply through, does not mean it cannot be used for that purpose. The reason the GG wanted supply through before the election was that he wanted money to start flowing at the government departments. Xtra 23:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
1. The better practice with contested reverts is to talk them out rather than just doing them.
2. It was an accident that other bills were available on which a double dissolution could be granted. The rules don't apply because they do not cover the situation the Senate refuses supply and there are no double dissolution bills. In that case the two houses cannot be dissolved, supply can be exhausted, and there is no way to resolve the situation.
A number of writers have criticised Kerr's action in that he applied the double dissolution power to resolve a Supply crisis for which they were not designed. It' a basic principle of constitutional law that you should not invoke a targeted power to achieve a different object.
There may be a case for putting both views. There is no case for putting for one view as though it had universal acceptance. Alan 09:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Appointment to the senate
Appointments made under section 15 of the Constitution should probably be mentioned. I would add it but I don't know where to find the info. Senate Committees (standing and sitting) are also notably absent.--nixie 05:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 1975
There should be a section on this as it was probably the most significant event in the Senate since federation. Xtra 02:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I believe that the newly re-written "blocking supply" section is a good summary. Given that all we really want is a summary (we can't give undue prominence to one year out of 105, that's what the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975 article is for), feel free to add whatever's required. Slac speak up! 02:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- missed that. Xtra 03:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
