Parliament
in Australia
Those who live in
Australia are probably aware of the problems that the Australian
Federal Government is facing in passing legislation. At the moment,
legislation to reform tertiary education, a minimum co-payment to
visit a doctor under the Medicare system and others.
This is happening
because although the government has a big majority of members of
parliament in the House of Representatives, it has a minority in the
Senate. Legislation has to pass through the two houses to enter into
effect, and so the government needs to negotiate with minor parties,
independent senators and sometimes even with the opposition to pass
the laws it wants.
Is this positive or
negative?
Those in favour of
the Liberal-National Coalition will probably say this is negative,
while those favouring the Labour Party, the Greens Party or the rest
will probably say this is positive. I would say it would be wiser to
take a step back and see if the people are best served with what is
happening.
To those who reason
on party lines, I'd just like to remind what happened just months
ago, where Labour formed the federal government, where the roles were
the opposite of what they are today. The Labour Party had a majority
in the House of Representatives, and a minority in the Senate, and a
similar difficulty in passing legislation.
In its first
legislature, the Labour Party did not manage to pass a fundamental
law for the reduction of carbon pollution (CPRS) and in its second
legislature had to pass a carbon tax, which wasn't then government
policy, as a condition of support by the Greens Party, a decision
that had a big part in its electoral defeat in 2013.
Who is benefiting
from all this? Few people will be happy with this situation, and
this is not news. There seems to be a frustration with the
parliamentary system, where the people elects a government to
implement an electoral program, and in practice discovers that the
government is not able to pass the laws it needs to implement it.
Why shouldn't the
government be able to follow the electoral programme it presented to
the people? I think that government should be able to follow its
programme until the end of the electoral term, and if the people
don't like the outcome of that programme, it has the opportunity of
changing track at the next election.
I'm not saying this
because I agree with the policies of the current government. On the
contrary, I'm very critical of a lot of what the government intends
to do. However I find myself in agreement with Joseph de Maistre, a
French diplomat that lived between the 17th and 18th
centuries - 'every people gets the government it deserves'.
This does not mean
that members of parliament which don't form part of the government
are obliged to pass legislation that is presented to them by
government, as often implied by Prime Minister Abbott. No one should
vote in favour of what he disagrees with. The problem, in my
opinion, resides in the system.
The Australian
Federal Parliament is built on the English Westminster system, with
two houses of parliament and a ceremonial head of state (the Queen,
represented by the Governor General).1
Australian states also have
two houses of parliament, except Queensland which has one. The ACT
and the Northern territory also have one house, as well as the
external territories which likewise have only one.
Why
are there two houses of parliament? The work of the Senate is to
scrutinise government operations, and also be the representative of
states and territories when considering legislation coming from the
House of Representatives. In practice, however, most senators seem to me
to be representing the parties they belong to, rather than the states
and territories they are supposed to represent.
Lately
there is a tendency for small parties or independents to be elected
into the Senate, on whom little is actually known. I don't view this
as necessarily a bad thing, except that it seems they are being
elected due to secret deals that are made between them before the
election on how preferences flow from one candidate to the other in
the different stages of the vote count. The problem is that the
preferences are not known, and the people have no influence on this.
Currently
a desire to have some changes in this respect is being mentioned. As
long as the changes lead to the people having a better direct say in
which candidates are chosen after preferences are tallied, this is a
good thing. If the changes lead to a reduction in the possibility of
members of parliament being elected from minor parties or
independents, which is in the interest of the major parties, this is
a bad thing, and we need to be very careful not to allow this to
happen.
As
an immigrant from Malta, I found it very strange to see how the
Australian Parliament works (or doesn't). Malta is one of the few
European countries which has a single house of parliament, similar to
Portugal, Sweden and Norway. In these countries, when legislation is
passed in the one house of parliament, only the signature of the head
of state remains to enter into effect.
This does not mean
there are no problems in unicameral systems. In Malta before the
government changed in 2013, the Nationalist Party led by Prime
Minister Gonzi lost a vote on its budget, when a member of his own
party, which had long threatened to vote against the government,
finally had the opportunity to do so.
So one can see that
a single house of parliament does not guarantee a lack of these
problems. However isn't the situation with two houses worse?
I would think there
are more advantages than disadvantages in a single house of
parliament, rather than two, provided that elected members are truly
representative of the people. Small constituencies, where only one
member is selected, while representing the majority of the
constituency, surely does not represent the views of those in a
minority. That is why it is very hard for small parties or
independents to be represented in the House of Representatives, as
the constituencies are much smaller than those of the Senate.
In Malta, districts
are relatively large, and five representatives are elected from each,
but even here, 'wasted votes' arise, which we Maltese familiar with
past elections understand very well.
I would prefer to
see a single house, with constituencies larger than today, with more
than one candidate elected from each, and that votes that are
destined to be 'wasted' are gathered together on a state or territory
basis, and used to elect other members from parties or independents.
The party that wins the election can make agreements as necessary to
be able to present once, and pass once, legislation in the single
house of parliament. The scrutiny of the government's operations can
be made by the media and constituted bodies (independent of
government), like a permanent commission of audit, a federal
commission against corruption and others.
This wouldn't be a
minor change! I'm not holding my breath....
1http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Work_of_the_Parliament/Forming_and_Governing_a_Nation/parl#govgen
-------------------------------------
Il-Parlament
fl-Awstralja
Min qed jgħix
fl-Awstralja aktarx familjari mal-problemi tal-Gvern Federali
Awstraljan biex jgħaddi l-liġijiet li jrid. Bħalissa jissemmew
liġijiet li jirriformaw l-edukazzjoni terzjarja, jiddaħħal ħlas
minimu għal meta tmur tara t-tabib fis-sistema tal-Medicare
u oħrajn.
Dan
qed jiġri għax għalkemm il-gvern għandu maġġoranza kbira ta'
membri tal-parlament fil-Kamra tar-Rappreżentanti, għandu minoranza
fis-Senat. Leġislazzjoni trid tgħaddi miz-żewġ kmamar biex
tidħol fis-seħħ, u għalhekk il-gvern irid jinnegozja ma' partiti
iżgħar, senaturi indipendenti u kultant mal-oppożizzjoni sabiex
jgħaddi l-liġijiet li jrid jgħaddi.
Din
hija ħaġa pożittiva jew negattiva?
Min
huwa partitarju tal-Koalizzjoni tal-Partiti Liberali u Nazzjonali
aktarx jgħid li negattiva, u min iżomm mal-Partit Laburista,
il-Partit tal-Ħodor jew il-bqija aktarx jgħid li pożittiva. Jien
ngħid ikun iktar għaqli li nieħdu pass lura u naraw jekk il-poplu
hux moqdi sew b'dak li qed jiġri.
Lil
min jirraġuna fuq linji partiġġjani, infakkru x'ġara biss sa ftit
xhur ilu, meta kien hemm il-Laburisti fil-gvern federali,
fejn ir-rwoli kienu l-oppost li hemm illum. Il-Laburisti kellhom
maġġoranza fil-Kamra tar-Rappreżentanti u minoranza fis-Senat, u
diffikulta simili li jgħaddu l-liġijiet li riedu.
Fl-ewwel
leġislatura tiegħu, il-Gvern Laburista ma rnexxilux jgħaddi liġi
fundamentali għat-tnaqqis tal-karbonju
(CPRS),
u fit-tieni leġislatura kellu jdaħħal it-taxxa fuq il-karbonju, li
ma kinetx il-politika tal-gvern, bħala kundizzjoni għall-appoġġ
tal-Partit tal-Ħodor, deċiżjoni li kellha sehem kbir fit-telfa
elettorali tal-elezzjoni tal-2013.
Min
qed igawdi b'dan kollu? Ftit ninnota nies li huma sodisfatti
bis-sitwazzjoni, u din mhix xi ħaġa ġdida. Jidher li hawn
frustrazzjoni bis-sistema parlamentari, fejn il-poplu jeleġġi lil
gvern biex iwettaq il-programm elettorali tiegħi, u fil-prattika
l-gvern isib li lanqas jista' jgħaddi l-liġijiet li għandu bżonn
biex iwettqu.
Għalfejn
il-gvern m'għandux ikun jista' jimxi skont il-programm elettorali li
ppreżenta lill-poplu? Jien naħseb li l-gvern għandu jkun jista'
jimxi mal-programm tiegħu sakemm jintemm it-terminu tal-gvern, u
jekk il-poplu ma jogħġbux ir-riżultat tal-programm, għandu
opportunità
biex jibdel ir-rotta fl-elezzjoni ta' wara.
Dan
mhux qed ngħidu għax naqbel mal-politika tal-gvern preżenti.
Anzi, jien kritiku ta' ħafna milli jrid jagħmel dan il-gvern. Però
jien naqbel ħafna ma'
dak li qal Joseph de Maistre, diplomatiku Franċiż li għex bejn
is-sekli sbatax u tmintax - 'kull poplu jkollu l-gvern li
jistħoqqlu'.
Dan
ma jfissirx li l-membri tal-parlament li mhumiex fil-gvern huma
obbligati li għaddu l-leġislazzjoni li jippreżentalhom il-gvern,
bħal ma ġieli jimplika
l-Prim Ministru Abbott. Ħadd m'għandu jivvota għal dak li ma
jaqbilx miegħu. Il-problema,
fil-fehma tiegħi, qegħda fis-sistema.
Il-Parlament
Federali Awstarljan huwa mibni fuq is-sistema Ingliża ta'
Westminster, jiġifieri żewġ kmamar tal-Parlament u kap ċerimonjali
tal-istat (ir-reġina, irrappreżentata
mill-Gvernatur Ġenerali).1
L-istati Awstraljani kollha għandhom żewġ kmamar, ħlief
Queensland li għandha waħda.
L-ACT u n-Northern
Territory, kif ukoll
it-territorji esterni, ukoll
għandhom waħda.
Għalfejn
ikun hemm żewġ kmamar tal-parlament? Xogħol
is-Senat huwa li jservi ta' skrutinju tal-operat tal-gvern, u anke li
jkun ta' rappreżentanza tal-istati u t-territorji meta jikkunsidraw
liġijiet li ġejjin mill-Kamra tar-Rappreżentanti. Fil-prattika,
madankollu, il-maġġor parti tas-senaturi iktar jidhirli li jirrappreżentaw il-partiti li
qegħdin fihom, milli l-istati u t-territorji li jirrappreżentaw.
Dan
l-aħħar, hemm it-tendenza li jiġu eletti fis-Senat partiti żgħar,
jew anke membri indipendenti, li ftit ikun magħruf dwarhom. Jien
dan ma naraħx neċessarjament ħażin, ħlief li jidher li jkunu qed
jitilgħu minħabba ftehim sigriet li jkun sar minn qabel l-elezzjoni
bejniethom dwar kif il-preferenzi tal-votazzjoni jgħaddu minn
kandidat għall-ieħor fl-istadji differenti tal-għadd tal-voti.
Il-problema hija li l-preferenzi ma jkunux magħrufa, u l-poplu ma
jkunx jista' jinfluwenza dan.
Bħalissa
qed tissemma r-rieda li jkun hemm xi bdil f'dan ir-rigward. Jekk
il-bdil iwassal biex il-poplu jkollu iktar sehem dirett ta' liem
kandidati jintagħżlu wara li jingħaddu l-preferenzi, dan huwa
tajjeb. Jekk il-bdil iwassal biex titnaqqas il-possibiltà
li jitilgħu membri tal-parlament minn partiti żgħar jew
independenti, li huwa fl-interess tal-partiti l-kbar, dan huwa ħażin,
u rridu noqgħodu attenti li
ma jsir xejn minn dan.
Bħala
immigrant li ġejt minn Malta, sibtha stramba nara kif jaħdem (jew
kif ma jaħdimx!) il-parlament Awstraljan. Malta hija waħda
mill-ftit pajjiżi Ewropej li għandhom kamra waħda tal-parlament,
bħall-Portugall, l-Isvezja u n-Norveġja. F'dawn il-pajjiżi, meta
leġislazzjoni tkun għaddiet mill-kamra waħda tal-parlament, ikun
jonqos biss il-firma tal-kap tal-istat biex il-liġi tidħol
fis-seħħ.
Dan
ma jfissirx li ma jkunx hemm problemi f'sistemi
unikamerali.
F'Malta qabel ma' nbidel il-gvern fl-2013, il-Partit Nazzjonalista
mmexxi mill-Prim Ministru Gonzi tilef vot fuq il-baġit, meta membru
tal-partit tiegħu stess, li kien ilu jhedded li jivvota
kontra l-gvern, fl-aħħar kellu l-opportunità
li jagħmel dan.
Għalhekk,
wieħed jista' jara li kamra waħda tal-parlament ma tiggarantix li
ma jkunx hemm problemi ta' dan it-tip. Allura żewġ kmamar mhux
agħar?
Jien
nara li hemm iktar vantaġġi milli żvantaġġi f'kamra waħda milli
tnejn, basta li l-membri li jiġu eletti ikunu verament
rappreżentattivi
tal-fehma tal-poplu. Kostitwenzi
żgħar, fejn jitla' membru wieħed fl-elezzjoni, għalkemm
jirrappreżentaw l-fehmiet tal-maġġoranza ta' kull kostitwenza,
żgur ma jirrappreżentawx il-fehma ta' min huwa fil-minoranza.
Għalhekk huwa diffiċli ħafna li jitilgħu partiti żgħar jew
membri indipendenti fil-Kamra tar-Rappreżentanti, għax
il-kostitwenzi huma ħafna iżgħar minn dawk tas-Senat
F'Malta d-distretti
huma relattivament ikbar u jitilgħu ħames rappreżentanti minn kull
wieħed, imma anke hawn, ikun
hemm l-hemm imsejħa 'voti moħlija', li aħna l-Maltin familjari ma'
elezzjonijiet mgħoddija nifhmu
sew.
Nippreferi
nara kamra
waħda,
b'kostwenzi ikbar
minn
ta' illum, li
minnhom jitilgħu iktar minn kandidat wieħed, u
li
jinġabru
flimkien il-voti li jkunu se jiġu moħlija fuq
bażi ta' stat jew
territorju sħiħ,
u li jintużaw biex jitilgħu membri oħra mill-partiti
jew
indipendenti .
Il-partit li jirbaħ l-elezzjoni jista' jagħmel il-ftehim li jkun
hemm bżonn biex ikun jista' jippreżenta darba,
u jgħaddi darba,
leġislazzjoni fil-kamra waħda tal-parlament. Skrutinju tal-operat
tal-gvern jista' jsir mill-midja u korpi kostitwiti (ċioe
mhux dipendenti fuq il-gvern),
bħal kummissjoni
permanenti
tal-awditjar,
kummissjoni (federali) kontra l-korruzzjoni u oħrajn.
Din
ma tkunx bidla żgħira! M'inix se nżomm in-nifs...
1http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Work_of_the_Parliament/Forming_and_Governing_a_Nation/parl#govgen
No comments:
Post a Comment