...it is high time we all gave serious consideration to the role of Parliament, the relationship between Parliament and government, the relationship between Parliament and political parties, and the part that we as members could and should be playing.
It is worthwhile to remember briefly that our Parliament was adapted from Westminster. The British Parliament evolved over hundreds of years. Its main purpose was to take power away from an entrenched executive based around the monarch and give that power to the people through their elected members. Because there was an ever present compe- tition for power between the Executive and Parliament, there were often clashes and wrangles but, as time went by, Parliament gained the ascendancy because it represented the people. If our Parliament then is to be carried with any relevance into the twenty-first century, it is essential that Parliament establish at least equality with the Executive. It is true that Parliament has such power, but rarely in modern partisan politics is it used. It is assumed widely amongst the public that Parlia- ment exists only in order to support an executive government and to test the mettle of other people who might wish to form the government. Nowhere in the community is there a widespread belief that Parlia- ment acts in the public interest as a buffer against unrestrained executive power. Such scepticism amongst the public is understandable because to all intents and purposes it is true.
Our founding fathers established independence on the basis that power would be divided between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. It was not assumed that one part of that tripartition would completely dominate the other; nor was it assumed that elections would be held in every constituency through- out the country for the sole purpose of filling the Cabinet room. Parliament can and should represent the aspirations and interests of people throughout the country. However, because of modern political trends, Parliament now represents only political parties or governments and oppositions. Parliament is dominated by the all pervading party political interests and by the selfish ambition to have and to exercise power. However, if Parliament is to be relevant, it must establish its independence and autonomy. I have put forward a number of suggestions that are designed to give Parliament independence from the Executive and allow it properly to review policy proposals. I have suggested that all Ministers be appointed from the House of Representatives. That is not designed to allow more colleagues in this place to be appointed to the ministry, but rather to allow the Senate more thoroughly to scrutinise Government proposals. It seems incongruous that the Senate is expected to be a House of review while at the same time some of its members form part of the Executive Government. In reality, the Senate is not a proper House of review but rather an extension of the House of government and equally dominated by party allegiances. Surely the Senate could better fill its review role if none of its members were Ministers and there was no ambition on the part of others to become Ministers.
I have suggested also that there should be a one-line appropriation in the annual Budget for Parliament and that its expenditure should be controlled by the Presiding Officers. Parliament cannot properly scruti- nise the Executive while the funding of parliamentary operations is controlled by the Executive. It would be a simple matter for the Government to say that a select committee cannot be established because no money is available. If the members wish to cut back expenditure on, say, the dining room in order to scrutinise more government operations, we should be able to do so without requiring approval from the Minister for Finance. I have suggested also that the term of parliaments be extended to four years and I am greatly attracted to the suggestion of fixed term parliaments.
...Once a government is elected it should concen- trate on governing without the diversion of unnecess- ary elections. By fixing the term of parliaments an entrenched government cannot use the electoral system for its own expediency. Whilst a government may claim that that removes certain options that are presently available to it, in reality it means that a government cannot manipulate election dates in order to give it an advantage over its opponents. Democracy will work only when political parties and interested groups are able to put their policies to the people on a fair and equal basis so that the people may judge which policies they wish to pursue for the period of the forthcoming parliament. When one political party is given an advantage over another political party by manipulating election dates or by a gerrymander of electoral boundaries, public confidence is undermined and democracy is placed at risk. If we can remove the fear of that manipulation we will do much to restore public confidence in the Parliament.
Despite all that I have said, the most important factor is for members to exercise a judgment that reflects the views of their constituents rather than have decisions forced on them by the political parties they represent.
...The Liberal Party of Australia maintains that elected members are free to make their own judgment. However, the reality is vastly different. If a member steps out of line or rocks the boat in any way, he can be subjected to the most intense pressure, from both the parliamentary executive and the party organisation.
... Rank and file members of the Liberal Party complain that the Public Service has too much power and influence, yet the discipline that they, through their organisation, exert entrenches the Public Service power. If a member suggests that a department is inefficient or that a matter of government operation should be scrutinised, he is accused of disloyalty to the Minister, to the government and to his party, with a covert threat to withdraw endorsement.
Commonwealth Parliamentary Debate: House of Representatives
- 25 February 1981