Charter - Front Page | Introduction | Summary | Rationale | References | WIP Home
1. Political Equality for Women
2. Regulatng the Influence of Money in Politics
3. Changing the Parliamentry System of Remuneration and
Entitlements
4. Changing the System of Parliamentary Representation
5. The Bill of Rights Debate- its Relevance to the Equality
of Women
6. People's Conventions- Public Participation in Democracy
Rationale. The current Federal Parliament illustrates the unrepresentative and dysfunctional ncharacter ature of single member electorates in the existing preferential voting system for the House of Representatives. Under such systems system the relationship between votes and seats is distorted by the "winner takes all" phenomenon. Minor parties, more likely to be led by women, may receive a sizeable proportion of votes but are not be represented, or else or are under- represented, unless they are geographically concentrated. While many in the major parties oppose the election of minor parties and independents, claiming that their views are "only" minority views, democracy demands that minority opinion be heard and that minority views be debated and tested in the parliaments.
The elimination of the first preferences of minority opinion and their translation into second preferences means many voters can never be fully represented in our parliaments because they are forced to eventually resolve their dilemma into a choice for one or the other of the major political parties.
At the 1998 House of Representatives elections, National Party candidates received only 5.35% of the votes but won 16 seats. Australian Democrat candidates received 5.1% of the votes but no seats. One Nation candidates received 8.4% of the votes but no seats. (Ian Henderson The Australian 20-21/1/01).
The present electoral system for the House of Representatives no longer serves
democracy well. It was designed to favours the major parties, and has been legislated
for their comfort but the major party thatwhich gains the majority of votesit
does is now not necessarily elected to government. the party which gains the
majority of votes Thi, as occurred in the elections of 1954, 1961, 1969, 1990
and 1998.
Only the voters who put the successful candidate first in any electorate, rarely
more than 40% of voters, are represented by the MP of their choice. At the 1998
House of Representatives elections, National Party candidates received only
5.35% of the votes but won 16 seats. Australian Democrat candidates received
5.1% of the votes but no seats. One Nation candidates received 8.4% of the votes
but no seats (Ian Henderson The Australian 20-21/1/01).
Examples of multi-member electorate systems already exist in Tasmania and the
ACT, and the system of simple two-member electorates (where all voters would
vote for a male member and a female member from two lists) forms another more
democratic system. In addition, the multiple electorate systems in place in
the ACT and Tasmania or the reservation of seats for groups receiving more than
5% of the primary vote might result in parliaments which are more representative,
more democratic and no less stable than those arising from the current preferential
system.
While many in the major parties oppose the election of minor parties and independents,
claiming that their views are only minority views, democracy demands minority
opinion be heard and their views debated and tested in the parliaments.
Rationale. The current practice of varied terms in the majority of our parliaments allows for the incumbent leaders to manipulate the election date with the aim of also manipulating the electorate. Fixed four-year lower house terms have the effect of reducing opportunism in manipulating election dates and of allowing a reasonable period for a particular government to carry out its policies without almost continuous electioneering. As well it would considerably reduce the frequency of elections in a country with a multitude of governments and would reduce recurring costs to the nation and to the political parties.
Rationale. Restricting the terms of office of MPs is designed to create more opportunities for women (and men) to serve in our parliaments, to encourage a greater number of people to spend some time in elected public office, and to improve the quality of parliamentarians by removing from office the less able politicians, seat warmers and careerists from office.
4.4.1 the provision of in-house childcare for the children of both parliamentarians and parliamentary staff;
4.4.2 parliamentary sitting hours should be brought into harmonyline with normal working hours and family routines;
4.4.3 parliamentary sessions should be longer and aligned to school and tertiary institution holidays where possible.
Rationale. Parliamentary arrangements and practices are hostile to family life.Parliamentary sessions are short, sitting hours are long and are unlike normal work practices. Childcare is now a normal expectation for people during the family formation years, the years when both parliamentary and public service careers are being built. Parliamentary complexes have a variety of facilities from dining rooms and swimming pools to hairdressing salons, all of which are useful but not essential to working women with children. Since women lobbied for childcare facilities to be included in recently erected and recently renovated parliamentary complexes, their omission appears to be a case of direct discrimination against women and against parents and a reason for the Sex Discrimination Act 1983 to apply to our parliaments and political institutions.
Parliamentary sessions are short, sitting hours are long and are unlike normal work practices. These proposed reforms would make a parliamentary career less difficult and more encouraging to a greater number of women. The changes outlined above would allow women and men MPs to follow a more normal family life during parliamentary terms of office.
4.5 Parliamentary leaders should take responsibility for improving the level of political discourse and behaviour in our parliaments, for reducing personal attacks, sexist language and ill-mannered behaviour, and for improving the overall level of political debate in and outside the Parliament.
Rationale. Debates are all too often marred by attacks on persons, their gender or appearance or by indulgence in near truths, half truths and untruths, in time wasted on point scoring, in school- boy bullying and negative ritual slanging and slagging of opponents both in our parliaments and through the media. Rarely do we see and hear serious discussions of policies or programs. Parliamentary debate is not just "robust", as asserted by the Prime Minister to the Federation Centenary parliamentary sittings on 10/5/01. As presently practised, Ppolitical discourse as presently practised is destructive of our parliaments and is bringing our political institutions into disrepute. Parliamentary leaders should support the Speaker in enforcing suitable codes of speech and debate in the parliaments. They should establish standards for speaking to the media, not relying on talkback radio and door stop comment, and they should demand of their colleagues similar restraint and civility in all areas of public life.
Top | Charter - Front Page | Introduction | Summary | Rationale | References | WIP Home