Political Power and Potential Impacts:
Political power in its base terms is is the ability to influence or control policy through actions perceived as legitimate by the social and political structure of a nation. Political power is gained in Australia through the system of representative democracy, where policy is affected by the parties elected to represent the people that chose them. The group or individual holding political power has the ability to make decisions that can have profound impact on the lives of Australians, and as such becomes a topic of concern when this power is gained by parties with an intent to disrupt the status quo.
Ideological and Single Issue Groups:
The latter half of the twentieth century saw a rise in the amount of smaller, narrow focus parties to account for the increase in issue voting in the population. In 1984, 18 political parties were registered for the federal election. The amount in the 2013 election was three times that figure, even without including the additional 23 branches of the major parties. (Anderson, 2016)
Australia’s democratic system is predominantly oriented around two parties, The two major parties are Labour and Liberal, of which hold distinct ideological differences but still retain a similar centrist platform. Though most “third parties”, or micro parties, usually represent a smaller fraction of the Australian voter base, they do influence elections by drawing votes and sometimes seats in the Houses of Parliament from either of the two main parties. This leads to the ability to propose legislation and push for their interests in government. Third parties tend to be on more ideological extremes than Liberal or Labour.
As micro-parties arrived into the political scene, they achieved early success by forming groups that exploited the weaknesses in the system of group voting tickets. Micro-parties had skilfully developed a strategy to gain more seats than what would normally be granted to them. The governing party failed to reform the system despite the obvious, glaring flaws being visible for many years before such parties could begin exerting threatening political influence.
Micro-parties and the Double Dissolution:
In contemporary Australian politics, the issue of micro-parties has been brought to the forefront by Malcolm Turnbull’s 2016 changes to senate voting. The growing presence of micro-parties and their greater representation in Parliament had raised concern over their potential sway in political discourse. This led Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to announce legislation on recommendation from the Australian Electoral Commission, wherein optional preferential ballots were added to prevent the channeling of preferences through use of Group Voting Tickets. These planned changes were pushed forward by the Liberal Party, Greens and independent senator Nick Xenophon which led to the bill passing. The plans were introduced in order to limit the political power of single issue micro-parties. After the commencement of the new senate voting scheme, Malcolm Turnbull called a double dissolution to capitalise on a now added difficulty for smaller parties to gain seats.
However, the combination of the new system and the called double dissolution had visibly backfired on the government, leaving the senate with a larger crossbench than before. The Greens party went from 10 senators to nine in exchange for seats belonging to resurgent micro-parties. One Nation came out with four senators and the Nick Xenophon Team with three, and one member from the House of Representatives. Bob Day, David Leyonhjelm, Jacqui Lambie and Derryn Hinch were also added to a wide crossbench.
The resurgence of the One Nation party was a main focus of the double dissolution outcome, a result of the increased disillusionment towards center parties and an example of the increased power wielded by micro-parties. Worries about terrorism and increased immigration led to the party flourishing in a double dissolution where the required votes to win a seat was halved. This sparked controversy on the political power held by small parties, threatening the established two party dichotomy. These parties have seen a considerable boost in support over the past few years. The Liberal-National Coalition’s disappointing result in the election was largely due to the ineffective campaign to persuade a growing population of disillusioned voters against voting for a third option. The turbulent political landscape in the West has provided more radical, fringe groups with a larger following and with that, increased political power. The ability to propose legislation and potentially block bills, which in the case of the double dissolution, was a power wielded by One Nation and the Nick Xenophon Team.
The informal vote at the time sitting at close to 6 percent, a historic high and what could be considered a sign of a disenchanted voter base in Australian politics, as more people choose to vote for no one. However, the success of the micro parties has suggested an increase in a more radical or specific opinion as to what legislation the people want in their country. This is an example of the gradual loss of political power experienced by the governing party, which can be argued as the processes of multi-party democracy functioning as intended.
High Court Challenge
Family First senator Bob Day brought a challenge to the voting reform to the High Court. Day had argued the government’s changes would leave those voters who wish to vote for minor parties “disenfranchised” because their vote, if their preferences did not go onto an elected candidate, they would end up with a wasted vote. Day argued that because the ballot allows voting above the line and below the line, that this was two separate methods of voting, which had breached the rule in Section 9 of the Constitution that there must only be a single method of choosing senators.
The court described Day’s arguments as “untenable”. It stated that under the new system, a vote above the line is a vote directly for the candidates of that party listed below the line. It stated “There is no principle of “direct proportionality” to be infringed. There is no disenfranchisement in the legal effect of the voting process. The plaintiffs’ argument, based upon effects adverse to the interests of so-called “minor parties”, was in truth an argument about the consequences of elector choices between above the line and below the line voting and in the number of squares to be marked. It should be rejected.”
The Impacts in Australia
The shift in power dynamics for the Australian senate had provided the Liberal government with a hostile senate, requiring them to make compromises with legislature to appease the predominantly conservative micro-parties. This gave such parties more influence and political power than what would normally be afforded to a party holding only a few senate seats. The plans of the senate voting system had unexpectedly caused the opposite outcome to that which Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberal government had intended.
An example of this was in March 2017, where the Liberal party’s attempts to pass legislation on Queensland sugarcane growers was derailed by One Nation Senators, threatening to go on strike until the dispute was resolved (Beech, 2017). The potential for radical micro-parties to exploit Turnbull’s hostile senate for political power has been the topic of controversy.
The impact for these changes and the rise of micro-parties has the potential to create more political turbulence in contemporary Australia, with more and more policy influenced by increasingly radical groups. Conventional political parties are being overturned and what was thought to be an agreed upon consensus on important issues is being challenged. The changes to the senate voting has only assisted in pushing previously fringe movements to the mainstream.
References
Aston, H. (2017). Senate voting changes end need to mark up to 100 boxes below the line. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senate-voting-changes-turnbull-government-compromise-to-simplify-belowtheline-voting-20160302-gn86cw.html
Bob Day to appeal micro-party laws in High Court. (2017). Rockhampton Morning Bulletin. Retrieved from https://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/already-on-nation-pagecan-go-online-straight-away-/2998315/
Errington, W., & Onselen, P. (2017). Wounded PM must learn lesson. Theaustralian.com.au. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/wounded-malcolm-turnbull-must-learn-lessons-of-election-gamble/news-story/93046d40ca04f03519d16099167f288e
High Court Case Study – May 2016. (2017) (1st ed.). Retrieved from http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/registry/case-summaries/2016/ShortParticulars_May.pdf
High Court unanimously rejects challenge to Senate voting reform. (2017). The Conversation. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/high-court-unanimously-rejects-challenge-to-senate-voting-reform-59170
Kenny, M. (2017). Turnbull into the unknown as Pauline Hanson wins four Senate seats. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/turnbull-into-the-unknown-as-pauline-hanson-wins-four-senate-seats-20160804-gqld2s.html
Koziol, M. (2017). The outcome ‘nobody expected’: One Nation becomes pivotal force in Australian politics. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/the-outcome-nobody-expected-one-nation-becomes-pivotal-force-in-australian-politics-20160804-gqkzf1.html
Turnbull takes responsibility for narrow win. (2017). Skynews.com.au, Retrieved from http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/04/07/liberals-receive-election-report-card.html