Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 11 Hansard (22 October) . . Page.. 3904 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

He first proposed that the Constitution should be altered by referendum to provide that, if legislation were rejected on a number of occasions by the Senate, there could be a joint sitting of the two houses called without the necessity to hold an election. That proposal was rejected out of hand by all parties and the Prime Minister seems to have backed away from it. Along with Ms Tucker and the motion, the Labor Party is happy to reject the proposal.

Mr Howard has since issued a discussion paper on such a proposal containing this and other options, including a joint sitting after a normal election. The assumption behind this option is that the government would take its twice rejected legislative proposals to the people and actively campaign on those proposals. It might be argued that there is some merit in what he is saying. However, as has been indicated by Ms Tucker and Ms Dundas, and as we all know, to agree to the proposal is to hand to the Prime Minister and the executive of the day incredibly enhanced power, ultimate power, in relation to the federal legislature. It would change the balance of power within the parliament. I am not being self-interested in this regard, but it would change the balance of power within the parliament in favour of the conservative parties, perhaps forever.

Since 1990, the conservative parties and non-ALP parties have held a majority in the parliament, particularly through the Senate. The Senate would continue to be a conservative house and it would thwart a reformist government if this were the only change to the Constitution that was made. We in the Labor are acutely aware that Prime Minister Whitlam twice put his Medicare proposal to the Senate and the Senate rejected the legislation on both occasions and it was only through the double dissolution mechanism and that particularly historic joint sitting that the Medicare proposal was passed.

The ALP federally has not yet made a decision to commit itself either way on the Prime Minister's proposal, but has indicated that it is prepared to discuss the issues and to debate them on the merit of making changes and other reforms to the federal parliament. That would be a debate that it would be worthy and healthy for us to have.

Associated with the reforms that have been mentioned, there are other reforms that should be on the table. Leading those, we would suggest, is the establishment of a fixed four-year term for the federal parliament, a position that we adopt for the Assembly and think it also appropriate for the federal parliament. The Labor Party also would support the removal of the Senate's power to block supply. I think we all know the history of that provision and would support an amendment to the Constitution to effect that as well.

I think that it is fair to say, Mr Speaker, that we would all willingly join the Prime Minister, whichever party we belong to, to find a way to reform the Senate, but to reform it in a way which is moderate and non-threatening and which respects the desire of the Australian people, a point which Ms Dundas makes, to differentiate their vote between the House of Representatives and the Senate to resolve deadlocks.

It has to be said in relation to the motion that Ms Tucker puts that we do need to accept the federal parliamentary structure as it is-a bicameral system with a Senate. From time to time, major frustrations are expressed on all sides of politics around the nature, make-

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .