accountability of parliament

through elections aspects

• free and fair elections

• in the HOR

• in the senate

6 aspects of free and fair elections in australia

• independent electoral authority (AEC)

• preferential voting in house

• proportional voting in senate

• compulsory voting

• secret ballot

• regular elections

electoral accounability in theory v in practise

in theory: everyone votes based on how good parliament will be at upholding their 4 roles, however, in practise most voters vote above the line not even knowing candidates names. rise of the indepenents combats this however with independent zoe daniel being voted out

4 roles of parliament

• to represent the people

• to make legislation

• to hold the executive responsible

• to debate

electoral accountability in the HOR

• single member electorates: allows voters to readily identify their local MP and hold them accountable, eg dutton losing his seat

• preferential voting tends to produce a winners bonus, amplifying a small majority of 1st preference votes into a majority of seats. eg in the 2025 election ALP got 34% first preference votes but ended up with 94 seats.

electoral accountability in the senate

• equal state representation = mallapportionment

  • senate quota for TAS is 55000 but in NSW its 760000

  • when small state senators hold balance of power, they can wield significant influence, but cant be held accountable by other states (eg jackie lambie in medevac repeal)

• multi member electorates: means there are multiple MP’s for voters to hold accountable

  • most people vote above the line, which means they are not voting for individuals and parties are choosing

  • no one knows senators

  • 2016 reforms however made it easier to vote below the line which is better for accountability

  • senators only elected every 6 years

adam bandt case study

• greens member for melbourne

• elected to house in 2010, first greens member to ever be elected

• involved in siding with labour minority government during hung parliament and carbon tax scheme

• due to dislike of carbon tax scheme, there was a massive swing against labor and greens in the 2013 election, however bandt was reelected

• not very accountable

• then went on to lose 2025 election due to big swing to labour

josh frydenberg case study

• member since 2010, treasurer since 2018

• close personal and work relo with scomo

• face challenge from independent monique ryan in 2022 election and lost due to 9.8% swing away from liberals

mp case studies for accountability through elections

• adam bandt

• josh fry

• craig thomson

accountability of parliament through processes and procedures

• standing orders

• speaker and president

• order of business

• notice paper

• hansards

• parliamentary committees

what are standing orders

• rules and governing procedures for each chamber.

• covers everything from how to vote to speaking time limits

• holds internal accountability for adhering to parliamentary standards

example of a standing order

if a member showcases disorderly conduct during question time the speaker can direct them to leave the chamber for one hour. the speaker can also name and suspend the disorderly member

speaker and president

• impartial

• any MP can call ‘point of order’ to refer conduct to speaker or president

• procedural digest contains rulings of speaker, and the MPs are expected to stay informed

• speaker and president may warn and remove MPs

• however, the speaker may be biased.

example of a biassed speaker

bronwyn bishop

• she was a liberal mp and ejected 400 MP’s during her time, only 7 of which were from the govt side

order of business

• general program for what happens each day in parliament

• keeps parliament accountable in making sure it has time for all 4 of its processes.

• eg 2pm everyday question time

notice paper

detailed agenda for everything happening on a particular day in each chamber eg states that certain member will introduce a certain bill

hansards

document of everything that is said in parliament

parliamentary committees

• small subset of MPs

• each one has a specific area to work and focus on

• either house senate or joint,

• and standing or select.

how are committees good for accountability

• meet in close sessions, so there is less incentive to please people politcally

• construct cross party relationships

• senate committees can have more diverse members, and are less likely to be dominated by govt mps

what is parliamentary privilege

• mps are exempt from criminal and civil liability for speeches made in parliament, sort of like an enhanced freedom of speech

• has legitimate purpose of encouraging robust debate, however is not a liscence to just say anything

• priveleges committees act as tribunals within parliament, and hold MPs accountable who have abused parliamentary privelege

• they are not courts however so cannot exercise judicial power

• can reprimand and discipline mps

what are the HOR and senate privlege committees called

HOR: standing committee of privleges and members interests

senate: standing committee of privleges

what makes privilege committees bad for accountability

they are composed of MPs, virtually MPs telling off other MPs which creates a lack of impartiality and independence

craig thomson case in full

• MP from 2007-2013

• former secretary of health services union

• while at HSU, thomson misused corporate credit cards to purchase porn and prostitutes

• was investigated by fairwork in 2012 and found for this

• thomson made statement to house that he was innocent and claimed some member of HSU set him up and name dropped them

• these members could not sue thomson because these statement were made under parliamentary privilege

• privilege committee conducted inquiry into his speech but it shelved due to dissolution of parliament and 2013 election

• he ended up losing his seat in 2013 anyway (electoral accountability)

• not until 2016 that privleges committee reprimanded thomson officially

intrests committees

• mps must declare any property, investments, gifts etc

• intrests committees registers these declarations and ensure their up to date, and can investigate any MPs who they have a suspcted conflict of intrest

• eg althony albanese being gifted several tickets to hawks afl matches

how courts can hold parliament accountable

• making sure legislation made by parliament aligns with the constitutions (only HC)

• interpreting statutes made by parliament (any federal court)

• high court can act as court of disputed returns (deciding disputed election results)

reviewing constitutionality of legislation

• parliament must make legislation under constitutional head of power (eg s51 52)

• statutes made beyond this power of the parliament are vulnerable to being declared ultra vires by the high court

reviewing constitutionality of legislation case examples

uniform tax case, HA case

interpreting statutes

• statutes are constructed in broad terms and are future focused

• ambiguity of language may lead to doubt about parliaments intent

• courts review these statutes for clarity, intent and conflict with other statutes

• court decisions alert parliament to inadequate statute, and may amend repeal or replace faulty statute

example of interpreting statutes

timber creek case

court of disputed returns

• high court has jurisdiction as court of disputed returns

• hears challenges regarding the validity of federal eelctions

court of disputed returns example

• 2017 dual citizenship crisis