Having the Numbers Means Not Having to Explain: The Effect of the Government Majority in the Senate

In the 2004 federal election the coalition parties gained a one-seat majority in the Senate, taking effect on 1 July 2005. This was the first time in 24 years that a government would have such a majority, and before that it is necessary to go back to the early 1960s to find such a phenomenon. Because of the proportional representation system on which the Senate is elected, and which awards seats more nearly in proportion to votes than the single-member system of the House of Representatives, the normal situation in the Senate since the proportional system was introduced has been for no party to have a majority. This has allowed the Senate for most of its history to act with a measure of independence from the government of the day. There was considerable apprehension about the implications of the government majority. The complacent and the partisan developed a stock phrase: ‗The sky will not fall in and the sun will still rise tomorrow‘. The apprehension, however, was not about celestial phenomena but the effect on the ability of the Parliament to hold the government accountable. There was a well-founded fear that a government majority would mean a decline in accountability. In the past, it was possible to believe that a government majority would not necessarily mean government control. The Fraser This article was published as chapter 10, ‗The Senate‘, in C. Hamilton and S. Maddison (eds)