As parliament resumes this week, almost all of the contentious elements of the budget that require senate approval have not been passed. While the government budget has suffered from significant inconsistencies in its message and a poor sales job, others are also suggesting that the senate should share the blame for blocking savings measures.
In particular, the senate cross bench (primarily the Palmer United Party) is proving much harder to deal with than anyone thought likely after last year's election. The new crossbench senators, most of whom come from outside the mainstream of Australian politics, have also attracted a lot of attention (mostly negative) from the media and political classes.
This negative attention also saw the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters produce a damning report on the senate voting process in the 2013 election, recommending significant changes to senate voting that would result in fewer 'outsider' senators making it into the chamber.
Arguably the election of micro parties (those with less than 1% of the senate vote) is a bad thing for democracy. But it isn't the problems with the election of senators that are causing problems for the budget. Procedural reform won't solve the budget woes for three reasons.
First, the election of the PUP senators were not flukes of the system. In Queensland more than 250,000 people voted for the PUP candidate, in WA PUP polled more than 85% of a senate quota, and even in Tasmania PUP got nearly half a quota of primary votes. Time will tell if PUP's naked populism and confused policy platform has lasting appeal, but PUP didn't game the system in 2013.
Second, during the 80s and 90s the major parties had at least some common understanding on economics. Deregulation, privatisation and freer markets were key themes of both the Hawke / Keating governments and the Howard / Costello government. This is no longer true. Many in Labor have almost diametrically opposed views to the Coalition on the role of the state, leading to conflict.
Third, in the past many minor parties and independents saw their role as working with either side of politics to temper, but ultimately pass, contentious reforms (e.g. the Democrats and the GST). However, the rise of the ideologically far left Greens as an almost default minor party makes it very difficult for an economically rational government to negotiate any budget compromise.
The permanent entrenchment of these dynamics would be harmful to the long term health of the budget, as significantly reducing government spending growth would be all but impossible. Fixing this requires an investigation of deeper malaise in our political culture, not just defects in our voting procedures.
Simon Cowan is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Senate voting reform won’t fix the budget
Senate voting reform won’t fix the budget
In particular, the senate cross bench (primarily the Palmer United Party) is proving much harder to deal with than anyone thought likely after last year's election. The new crossbench senators, most of whom come from outside the mainstream of Australian politics, have also attracted a lot of attention (mostly negative) from the media and political classes.
This negative attention also saw the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters produce a damning report on the senate voting process in the 2013 election, recommending significant changes to senate voting that would result in fewer 'outsider' senators making it into the chamber.
Arguably the election of micro parties (those with less than 1% of the senate vote) is a bad thing for democracy. But it isn't the problems with the election of senators that are causing problems for the budget. Procedural reform won't solve the budget woes for three reasons.
First, the election of the PUP senators were not flukes of the system. In Queensland more than 250,000 people voted for the PUP candidate, in WA PUP polled more than 85% of a senate quota, and even in Tasmania PUP got nearly half a quota of primary votes. Time will tell if PUP's naked populism and confused policy platform has lasting appeal, but PUP didn't game the system in 2013.
Second, during the 80s and 90s the major parties had at least some common understanding on economics. Deregulation, privatisation and freer markets were key themes of both the Hawke / Keating governments and the Howard / Costello government. This is no longer true. Many in Labor have almost diametrically opposed views to the Coalition on the role of the state, leading to conflict.
Third, in the past many minor parties and independents saw their role as working with either side of politics to temper, but ultimately pass, contentious reforms (e.g. the Democrats and the GST). However, the rise of the ideologically far left Greens as an almost default minor party makes it very difficult for an economically rational government to negotiate any budget compromise.
The permanent entrenchment of these dynamics would be harmful to the long term health of the budget, as significantly reducing government spending growth would be all but impossible. Fixing this requires an investigation of deeper malaise in our political culture, not just defects in our voting procedures.
Simon Cowan is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: