|
|
Appendix 2 - Why the House of Representatives is More Democratic than the Senate |
 |
|
|
|
|
Appendix 2 - Why the House of Representatives is More Democratic than the Senate
The Constitution requires the number of representatives from each State in the House of Representatives to be proportionate to that State’s share of the national population: s.24. The Constitution also guarantees each voter may only vote once: s.30. As a ‘guarantee’ of democracy, this is quite weak:
▸ Section 24 refers to “people”, not electors, so non-voting children and the mentally incapacitated are included in the calculations of electorates.
▸ Section 25 permits State Parliaments to disqualify certain racial groups from voting, in which event those people are excluded from the calculation of seats under s.24.
▸ The Constitution fails to guarantee that each sane adult is entitled to be a voter, leaving it open to Parliament to impose restrictions on who may vote. This is subject to a proviso in s.41 that those entitled to vote for the lower house in State elections must be allowed to vote for both Houses in Commonwealth elections. However it remains theoretically possible that the Commonwealth could restrict voting to those who owned property above a certain value, if a State also imposed such a requirement. (In many States it was for a long time common to have such a ‘property franchise’ on voting in State upper house elections.)
▸ The Constitution also fails to guarantee that electorates have the same number of voters, so there is no ‘one vote one value’ requirement.
▸ Finally, s. 24 guarantees Tasmania a minimum of five members in the House of Representatives - a higher number than it would be entitled to on a population basis.
But at least s.24 ensures that each State has a vote in the House of Representatives which reflects its relative population, and Parliament has through the Electoral Act 1918 ensured greater democracy than the Constitution requires.
By contrast, each “original” State is entitled to the same number of Senators, regardless its population: s.7.
Neither s.24 nor s.7 of the Constitution refer to the representation of the territories. Section 122 empowers the Federal Parliament to:
“allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.”
In the House of Representatives, the Northern Territory was not granted a Member of Parliament until 1922, and the Member had only limited voting rights until 1968. The Australian Capital Territory gained its first member in 1948, again with limited voting rights until full rights were granted in 1966.
The territories were not represented in the Senate until the Whitlam Government passed legislation through the 1974 joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament providing for two Senators for each of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. (The Liberals and Nationals opposed this all the way, even challenging the legislation in the High Court. The Court’s decision that the legislation was valid was a significant trigger for the 1975 constitutional crisis, as it opened the possibility that the Whitlam Government might gain temporary control of the Senate. The Liberal / National Party coalition engineered the Government’s dismissal before this could eventuate.)
As at the date this site was published, the most recent determination of the number of electorates in the House of Representatives to which each State is entitled was made on 29 September 2011. (Details are available at http://www.aec.gov.au/Electorates/Redistributions/Overview.htm, from which the population and electorates figures below have been drawn). Each State’s share of national population and Parliamentary representatives is set out in the following table:
| State |
Population |
House of Reps Seats |
Senate Seats |
% of Population |
% of House Seats |
% of Senate Seats |
| NSW |
7,272,230 |
48 |
12 |
32.35 |
32.00 |
15.79 |
| Vic |
5,585,573 |
37 |
12 |
24.85 |
24.67 |
15.79 |
| Qld |
4,548,700 |
30 |
12 |
20.24 |
20.00 |
15.79 |
| WA |
2,317,068 |
15 |
12 |
10.31 |
10.00 |
15.79 |
| SA |
1,650,383 |
11 |
12 |
7.34 |
7.33 |
15.79 |
| Tas |
509,292 |
5 |
12 |
2.27 |
3.33 |
15.79 |
| ACT |
362,424 |
2 |
2 |
1.61 |
1.33 |
2.63 |
| NT |
231,953 |
2 |
2 |
1.03 |
1.33 |
2.63 |
| Total |
22,477,623 |
150 |
76 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
Implications
The effect of equal representation in the Senate is that the Senate vote of a Tasmanian is worth 14 times more, and a Western Australian vote 3 times more, than the vote of an elector from New South Wales. The Senate vote of a South Australian elector carries nearly 3 times more weight than that of a Queenslander. The two territories combined have more people than Tasmania, yet Tasmania has 12 Senators to the territories’ four. The population of the Australian Capital Territory is more than 50% higher than that of the Northern Territory, yet they have equal representation.
One essential component of democracy is one person, one vote - that each person should have the same influence over Government. For the Senate to claim virtually equal powers as the House, or to seek to determine who governs, is to debase democracy.
Go to next Appendix |
|
|
Appendix 2 - Why the House of Representatives is More Democratic than the Senate
The Constitution requires the number of representatives from each State in the House of Representatives to be proportionate to that State’s share of the national population: s.24. The Constitution also guarantees each voter may only vote once: s.30. As a ‘guarantee’ of democracy, this is quite weak:
▸ Section 24 refers to “people”, not electors, so non-voting children and the mentally incapacitated are included in the calculations of electorates.
▸ Section 25 permits State Parliaments to disqualify certain racial groups from voting, in which event those people are excluded from the calculation of seats under s.24.
▸ The Constitution fails to guarantee that each sane adult is entitled to be a voter, leaving it open to Parliament to impose restrictions on who may vote. This is subject to a proviso in s.41 that those entitled to vote for the lower house in State elections must be allowed to vote for both Houses in Commonwealth elections. However it remains theoretically possible that the Commonwealth could restrict voting to those who owned property above a certain value, if a State also imposed such a requirement. (In many States it was for a long time common to have such a ‘property franchise’ on voting in State upper house elections.)
▸ The Constitution also fails to guarantee that electorates have the same number of voters, so there is no ‘one vote one value’ requirement.
▸ Finally, s. 24 guarantees Tasmania a minimum of five members in the House of Representatives - a higher number than it would be entitled to on a population basis.
But at least s.24 ensures that each State has a vote in the House of Representatives which reflects its relative population, and Parliament has through the Electoral Act 1918 ensured greater democracy than the Constitution requires.
By contrast, each “original” State is entitled to the same number of Senators, regardless its population: s.7.
Neither s.24 nor s.7 of the Constitution refer to the representation of the territories. Section 122 empowers the Federal Parliament to:
“allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.”
In the House of Representatives, the Northern Territory was not granted a Member of Parliament until 1922, and the Member had only limited voting rights until 1968. The Australian Capital Territory gained its first member in 1948, again with limited voting rights until full rights were granted in 1966.
The territories were not represented in the Senate until the Whitlam Government passed legislation through the 1974 joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament providing for two Senators for each of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. (The Liberals and Nationals opposed this all the way, even challenging the legislation in the High Court. The Court’s decision that the legislation was valid was a significant trigger for the 1975 constitutional crisis, as it opened the possibility that the Whitlam Government might gain temporary control of the Senate. The Liberal / National Party coalition engineered the Government’s dismissal before this could eventuate.)
As at the date this site was published, the most recent determination of the number of electorates in the House of Representatives to which each State is entitled was made on 29 September 2011. (Details are available at http://www.aec.gov.au/Electorates/Redistributions/Overview.htm, from which the population and electorates figures below have been drawn). Each State’s share of national population and Parliamentary representatives is set out in the following table:
| State |
Population |
House of Reps Seats |
Senate Seats |
% of Population |
% of House Seats |
% of Senate Seats |
| NSW |
7,272,230 |
48 |
12 |
32.35 |
32.00 |
15.79 |
| Vic |
5,585,573 |
37 |
12 |
24.85 |
24.67 |
15.79 |
| Qld |
4,548,700 |
30 |
12 |
20.24 |
20.00 |
15.79 |
| WA |
2,317,068 |
15 |
12 |
10.31 |
10.00 |
15.79 |
| SA |
1,650,383 |
11 |
12 |
7.34 |
7.33 |
15.79 |
| Tas |
509,292 |
5 |
12 |
2.27 |
3.33 |
15.79 |
| ACT |
362,424 |
2 |
2 |
1.61 |
1.33 |
2.63 |
| NT |
231,953 |
2 |
2 |
1.03 |
1.33 |
2.63 |
| Total |
22,477,623 |
150 |
76 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
Implications
The effect of equal representation in the Senate is that the Senate vote of a Tasmanian is worth 14 times more, and a Western Australian vote 3 times more, than the vote of an elector from New South Wales. The Senate vote of a South Australian elector carries nearly 3 times more weight than that of a Queenslander. The two territories combined have more people than Tasmania, yet Tasmania has 12 Senators to the territories’ four. The population of the Australian Capital Territory is more than 50% higher than that of the Northern Territory, yet they have equal representation.
One essential component of democracy is one person, one vote - that each person should have the same influence over Government. For the Senate to claim virtually equal powers as the House, or to seek to determine who governs, is to debase democracy.
Go to next Appendix |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|