A response to: Is it better to vote for an Independent, or a Green?
Andrew Wilkie and Adam Bandt
Ah, the party interest. How best to protect the party interest? And who should the party be protected from? And who should the protectors be? There is a worthwhile debate which could be had about the political party system in Australia across a range of matters to do with “democracy”, “representation”, “policy development “ – or the lack of it, “careerism”, “party loyalty”, “caucus” and much else. “Power” is in a class of its own. The aim of the party is to gain “power” – that’s where the party interest lies, and lies in more ways than one.
In fact, the party interest is built on a lie, the lie of representation of the electorate. Since 1909, when the two party system became established – with its various manifestations of smaller third party or even fourth party complications and the odd smattering of independents – the caucus system has gradually hardened. If the founding fathers of the federal constitution had understood how rigidly this would develop it is unlikely that they would have created the bicameral system on the model they chose – a model which emulated the US system of a “people’s” chamber in the House of Reps and a “states” chamber in the Senate. The Senate has rarely performed the role of a “states” chamber in the way that constitutional conventions anticipated, but became a party chamber as soon as the caucus system found its feet. It is only on the rare occasions that an independent has the balance of power in the Senate that there is any possibility of the Senate being a “states” house in practice. In effect, in terms of practice, there is very little justification for each state to have equal representation in the Senate. That situation might change quite dramatically if the party political system disintegrated and more independents were elected to the Senate.
Nor does the “essential” two party system enhance the merits of the Senate as a house of review. Quite the contrary. The party system ensures that the Senate is either a rubber stamp for government legislation if the same party controls both houses, or that it is a thorn in government business if the government party doesn’t have the Senate numbers. To complicate things further, due to the proportional voting system employed for the Senate, it is always possible that a minority party or even one senator can hold the government to ransom. This was never envisaged as a possible scenario in the late 1890s.
There is nothing democratic about the way that the party system works in practice within the Australian parliamentary context. In fact, the caucus system as it operates in Australia is much more rigid than in the two countries which had the most profound influence on Australia’s institutional framework – the UK and the US. In both those countries the political culture is much more tolerant of those who exert some independence from caucus solidarity. It is not unusual for politicians in the US and the UK to cross the floor and vote against their own party. In fact it is regarded as a strength of their system of political representation, rather than a cause for expulsion and ostracism, as in Australia.
Whatever the failings of representative democracy in other western countries, Australia’s party system of rigid caucus solidarity has transformed the parliamentary process into a meaningless charade of pure theatre. The author of this article in defence of the party interest pays absolutely no attention to this crucial reality in her attack on Andrew Wilkie.
Anybody who has had the dubious privilege of being in the parliamentary gallery of either the House of Reps or the Senate would know that making speeches in parliament is about soundbites in the media. Most speeches are made to empty seats and have nothing to do with representation of people, but everything to do with headlines.
It is a healthy development that young people are becoming more critical of the party system, and regard it with suspicion. In fact, it needs to be encouraged rather than criticised. It is well past time that young people took control of the agenda – not by joining parties which have betrayed them by casualising their labour – but by reshaping the whole political landscape. There is no particular reason why the institutional structures which now exist to support the party systems which have corrupted them will not be changed for the better by a generation which has much to do to undo what we have done.
As for those who believe that the Greens are not caucus acolytes of the old ALP school which described Billy Hughes as a “rat”, I beg to differ. They are the most caucus sensitive political party which has won seats in any Australian parliament since federation. Anybody who criticises them in any way, from inside the tent or from outside, is persona non grata. I have been personally informed by a Greens senator that my name is mud in their august company, which places them in good company with the ALP, going back to 1990.
Don’t worry, the Liberals love a caucus as much as anyone. Their caucus is more about style – shoes, socks, ties, suits, deodorant – and nothing else worth a glance. God knows what they will do if they get elected – which they will – but they don’t know either. They have no idea. Nor do we.
All I can really say is that I wish Wilkie was running for the Senate. Then I wouldn’t have to cast an informal vote at the next election. Don’t you just love compulsory voting? Up the party!
Peter Henning is a former teacher and historian. He is an olive grower in the West Tamar Valley, Tasmania.
