One of the rich ironies behind the State Government's controversial push to abolish the Upper House is that the public forum which offered the ALP its best opportunities in the 1990's to launch attacks on the Kennett Government was in fact Victoria's Legislative Council.

It was commonplace for Labor Parliamentarians like David White to initiate debates over such issues as Crown Casino, school closures and Workcover in the Upper House, because the Legislative Council's unique powers give any Opposition more scope to scrutinise a government than can occur in the Legislative Assembly.

A further irony is that the House Labor now wants to abolish is the very place it has relied upon to groom their future leaders: Joan Kirner, John Brumby and Jim Kennan all established their careers in the Legislative Council. And the Liberals have done the same, with the likes of Dick Hamer and Lindsay Thompson.

Background facts like these offer an insight into the vital role and distinct long-term value of the Upper House. It is the often-unpublicised strengths of the Legislative Council that will see it through the current ALP attack on the future of our bicameral system of Parliament.

In simple terms, the Legislative Council operates differently to the Legislative Assembly, attracting a broader range of MP's and giving them greater parliamentary rights than those enjoyed by their Lower House colleagues. As a direct consequence, over the last 30-40 years the Upper House has:

• offered a powerful platform for the scrutiny of Ministers and the use of taxpayers funds;
• given a fairer voice to the concerns and hopes of Victorians outside the capital city; and
• been an essential element in securing good and stable government in Victoria.

Given that it is not the home of either the Premier or the Opposition Leader, and because (like the Senate) its terms of office are longer than the Assembly's, the Council also provides opportunities for more reflective or sustained debate of issues.

These unique attributes work to the direct benefit of the State and all political parties. So in the 1980's we were able to use the House as a platform to start public debates on issues as diverse as the V.E.D.C. scandal and the need for mandatory reporting of child abuse. Likewise, in the 1970's, Labor's Upper House Leader John Galbally powerfully pursued the issue of capital punishment.

Much of the value of the Legislative Council rests in the way it lets any MP pursue mismanagement or raise complaints. For instance, no debates on legislation are ever guillotined in the Upper House, thereby ensuring an aggrieved backbencher is not stopped by the Executive from pursuing a controversial issue. Contrast this with the rules in the Assembly, where governments of all persuasions regularly guillotine debates.

In the Council there are also no time limits on speeches, so MP's have the right to pursue complex and detailed issues free of the rigid constraints imposed by the Assembly's Standing Orders. All through the Kennett years Labor politicians constantly used these distinct Upper House rights. Any Opposition party can also utilise the guaranteed right to move weekly censure motions against the government of the day. At best this occurs once a fortnight in the Lower House.

A further profound difference is the way only the Legislative Council forces Ministers to actually answer Questions on notice in the Parliament. And it insists that all Ministers subject themselves to the scrutiny of the daily Adjournment debate. Such accountability is unheard of in the Assembly where Ministers can simply evade tough interrogation.

These scrutiny mechanisms were pioneered by the Upper House, much like its creation of Victoria's first Budget review committee in 1986 (which Labor opposed). And these powers have been deployed just as rigorously against Coalition Ministers as today's Labor ones.

The people who make up the House are also a significant sign of its long-term value. In particular, its eight country electorates secure a real say for regional cities and rural towns - although this would be eliminated by Labor's plans.

Ofcourse the ALP does not want to hear any of this. Without any mandate, let alone community consultation, it wants to meddle with the State Constitution and abolish or emasculate the Legislative Council. In one gesture it would place absolute power into its own hands, silence half the Parliament and rid itself of a forum that can expose Ministerial incompetence. I have no doubt that Labor supports abolition because it fears the Upper House again exposing a government's shortcomings.

The Legislative Council has a purposeful future. There is also room for reforms like extra, powerful Committees. None of this will be secured by Labor's current destructive plans.

Victorians have every right to be concerned about threats posed by the State Government's plan to abolish the Legislative Council and end its vital role of scrutiny.

After almost a year of inactivity it now seems the Labor Government's hottest priority is to cripple a democratic safeguard that monitors ministers and the spending of public money.

But, given it was the Victorian Upper House that helped expose the VEDC, Tricontinental and Pyramid scandals in the 1980s, you can see why the ALP is so keen to silence the Council.

Having won only a minority of seats at the last election, the Premier obviously has no mandate to meddle with the state Constitution in this way, nor has the public called for such radical changes.

Indeed, the ALP has gone out of its way to avoid community consultation on its plans - but some dangerous themes are clear.

The minority government now wants absolute power, by ridding itself of a House of Parliament that can call it to account.

Labor fears scrutiny of its suspect financial management, which is why it opposed the Upper House creating the state's first Estimates Committee in 1987, and did likewise in 1999 when we tried to create further powerful committees of review.

These themes are all the more troubling when you consider that the existing Legislative Council electoral system, including terms of office of up to eight years, was introduced by no less a figure than John Cain in the mid 1980s.

As the Herald Sun highlighted in its editorial of May 31, the electoral changes that are proposed would "paralyse government in this state".

They would bring political instability and uncertainty to Victoria and permanently create a political system where a lone, extremist MP (such as the One Nation candidate) could be elected under the proposed proportional representation system and dictate the legislative agenda of the government of the day.

Secondly, the state would be a loser because the voice of rural and regional Victorians would be immediately diluted.

The number of non-metropolitan electorates would be slashed from eight to three and access to your local MP would obviously suffer.

Rural voters would find their local MP based hundreds of kilometres away, and with completely contradictory geographic loyalties.

With one vote, one value and independently drawn electoral boundaries, the Legislative Council is as democratic as the Legislative Assembly.

With Senate-style terms of office, Upper House MPs have time to reflect on legislation - securing the continuity that all good parliaments need.

I concede that Queensland is different from us, as it has no Upper House. But why would the Victorian Labor Party want us to follow that model, which saw the Bjelke-Petersen government take full advantage of there being no House of Review?

The motivation for the ALP attack on the Legislative Council is simple. It wants to nobble the key body that can keep an eye on it.

Finally, let's not hear the excuse that the present government cannot operate properly if it doesn't also control the Upper House.

Henry Bolte and John Cain both governed without an Upper House majority. So can Steve Bracks.

Back to Speeches & Articles

Back to Home Page