Australians are turning away from the major parties in increasingly large numbers, with of voters backing minor party candidates in the recent federal election.
The increasing presence of these elected representatives poses the question of whether the power they will wield – particularly in the Senate – will enhance or thwart democratic processes in Australia.
Emeritus Professor Rod Tiffen, who specialises in Australian politics and comparative democratic politics at the University of Sydney, believes the minor parties have an important role in representing those who do not want to vote for the major parties, but says their ability to be a force for democratic good will vary.
“They all have their own self-interest, prejudices and blind spots – some have very big prejudices and blind spots – but they are part of the checks and balances and dialogues that are part of democracy,” he says.
“If enough people voted for the minor parties, that’s democracy.”
The Coalition to form majority government in the 2016 federal election, but legislation will still have to be negotiated with the minor party and independent senators to pass the Senate.
The classic argument is that a small group holding the balance of power is holding the majority to ransom.
These senators outside the major parties will be making crucial decisions on historic legislation in the coming years, including the marriage equality plebiscite and Indigenous constitutional recognition.
They will also be able to strike deals in exchange for support.
“The classic argument is that a small group holding the balance of power is holding the majority to ransom,” says Tiffen.
Such was the of the NSW Government in 2012, when the Shooters and Fishers Party held the balance of power in the upper house. The O’Farrell government was only able to pass legislation on the sale of NSW electricity generators after it struck a deal with the minor party to allow recreational hunting in some national parks.
The Gillard government, too, was of independents Rob Oakshott, Tony Windsor and Andrew Wilkie to form minority government in 2010, promising them funding for electorate developments and positions in government in return for their support.
Tiffen points out that this dynamic is not always negative.
“[The minor parties] can be a force of renewal,” he says. “They can bring up issues that the major parties wouldn’t normally touch. “
Andrew Wilkie and Nick Xenophon will, for example, be pushing for in their parliamentary terms following the 2016 election.
Whether the crossbench has a responsibility to work with the major parties on legislation their election may have given mandate to is another question. Tiffen believes they should be cooperating, but also says their decision-making power could be countered with bipartisanship.
The Nick Xenophon Team, whose senators will play a major role in deciding on legislation in the next parliamentary term. Source: AAP
“In theory, senators should be responding to the wish of the government of the day,” he says. “But if the Labor Party and the Liberal Party agree, it makes the minor party members irrelevant.”
The potential for irrelevancy may have negative outcomes – for both the major and minor parties.
Historically, the minor parties have played a major role in scrutinising the government of the day, particularly in the Senate. In the early 70s, the Senate was given more power to challenge legislation and policies that came before it. The visibility of such power has proven beneficial to minor party senators.
“The effect was to establish a symbiotic relationship between minor parties and the Senate—the greater the influence of minor parties in the Senate, the more visible the Senate became to the public and the more publicity minor parties got for their policies,” University of Western Australia Professor Campbell Sharman, in a paper published by parliament.
The great thing about any election is that there’s another election.
In periods where there have been fewer minor party and independent senators in the Senate, important debate on controversial legislation has been stymied. When Howard had a majority after the 2004 election, says Tiffen, debate was shut down and there were no referrals to committees.
“It was bad for the Liberals, because they were so arrogant. They weren’t re-elected in the 2007 election,” he says.
“[And] if you remember the last period where a government held the majority, 2005 – 2007, it wasn’t a good period of government.”
Many governments around the world – particularly in Europe - uphold democratic processes through multi-party, systems. If Australia is moving more towards this style of government, Tiffen believes it’s won’t be a bad thing.
“It has produced a more civilised form of politics,” he says, of these systems in Western Europe and New Zealand.
As Parliament begins its 45th session today, Tiffen says it’s important to remember the time of those in power is finite.
“The great thing about any election is that there’s another election,” he says.
Hear from the voters who elected minor party candidates on Insight's | Catch-up online now:
[videocard video="745408067877"]
