UK United Kingdom

Unelected ‘swill’: how Australia’s upper houses could be more democratic

A casual vacancy in the Victorian Legislative Council has now been filled. The replacement member for the Western Metropolitan Region in the upper house, union official Cesar Melhem, enters Victorian parliament…

Foreign minister Bob Carr is the highest profile of the six current senators appointed after a vacancy, rather than elected by the public. AAP/Dean Lewins

A casual vacancy in the Victorian Legislative Council has now been filled. The replacement member for the Western Metropolitan Region in the upper house, union official Cesar Melhem, enters Victorian parliament following the resignation of Martin Pakula after Pakula’s election to the lower house in the recent Lyndhurst by-election.

Meanwhile in Canberra, the search to replace Western Australian ALP senator Chris Evans continues after the former cabinet minister officially resigned from the Senate last month.

The voters have no say in such decisions. There is not even a requirement for these appointments of people - who do not need to have any prior public profile or scrutiny - to be publicised. This isn’t best practice democracy, and it can be improved.

Current context

Most people believe that both federal and state parliaments since federation have been elected by the voters at general elections. However, since 1903 in the Senate - and more recently in state upper houses - there have been non-elected MPs, owing to the rules for filling casual vacancies.

There are now six unelected senators, and one casual vacancy waiting to be filled. Two of these, together with the yet-to-be-appointed replacement for Chris Evans, will serve until June 2017 before facing election. The most prominent is foreign minister Bob Carr, but also included is Dean Smith, appointed after Western Australian senator Judith Adams died in March 2012. Smith will be entitled to sit in the Senate for five years and two months before facing his first election.

Of the 76 present senators, 26 (more than one-third) were first appointed, rather than being elected. Of those, 19 have since faced election and been re-elected. The unelected component of the Senate varies, but in 1997 it had reached a record 20%.

As mentioned, most of the senators appointed in this way have gone on to be re-elected, but sometimes they are not. Consider Jacinta Collins, who was appointed to the Senate in 1995, then elected in 1998, defeated in 2004, then appointed again in 2005, and re-elected again in 2008.

Among those originally appointed in this way - and still serving - are communications minister Stephen Conroy, and former Labor and Liberal ministers such as John Faulkner, Kim Carr, Eric Abetz and George Brandis.

So why does this anomaly happen?

Some might ask why there is no by-election, as there would be to replace a House of Representatives or Legislative Assembly MP, each of whom represents a single member electorate.

Senators and all mainland Legislative Councillors are elected in multi-member districts by the quota-preferential form of proportional representation (PR). For example, in a Senate election six senators are elected from each state, the quota being one-seventh of the valid votes plus one: a quota that can only be reached six times in a single state.

Both in the Senate and the state upper houses, voters must vote for candidates in order of preference, having to mark virtually all preferences for the Senate, and at least five in Victoria’s Legislative Council.

Martin Pakula’s move from the Victorian upper house to the lower house meant a casual vacancy needed to be filled. AAP/Luis Enrique Ascui

The system of multi-member electoral districts with PR has three great advantages. Of all the contested ideas in the polity that is Australia, a wider range of those ideas is represented in the upper houses elected by PR; those ideas are represented in the parliament in close to the same proportion as they are held by the general public; and there are representatives of different ideas - or parties - in all the locations where those ideas have support.

For example, the 40 members of the Victorian Legislative Council represent eight regions. There are both Labor and Liberal MLCs in each of those eight, National MLCs in three of them, and Greens MLCs in another three. Now that the Legislative Council is elected by PR, those Liberal voters in Melbourne’s western and northern suburbs, or Labor voters in the remote rural areas and the inner east and south east of Melbourne, all have - for the first time in history - representatives from the party they support.

Casual vacancies and countback

The polite convention developed that any casual vacancy would be filled by appointing a candidate of the same party as the vacating senator. That convention was observed until the 1970s. The Whitlam ALP government antagonised the coalition when it attempted in 1974 to create a Senate casual vacancy for party political advantage that was dubbed the Gair Affair.

In February 1975, NSW Liberal premier Tom Lewis retaliated in kind, departing from the convention and appointing an independent, Cleaver Bunton, to fill the seat vacated by ALP senator Lionel Murphy. In September 1975, Queensland’s National Party premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen also ignored the convention as his advice led to another independent, Albert Field, being appointed to fill the seat vacated when ALP senator Bertie Milliner died.

The decrease in the number of ALP senators allowed the coalition precipitate the impasse that led to the Whitlam government’s dismissal and the subsequent election. The Fraser coalition government - who won that election - initiated a referendum to alter Section 15 of the constitution to require that persons appointed to fill Senate casual vacancies must be a member of the same political party as the vacating senator. This referendum was passed, and the new version of Section 15 is by far the longest section in the constitution now.

The filling of casual vacancies by more democratic means in houses elected by proportional representation presents a problem. Since the vacating MP is elected by a quota and not the whole voting population, a by-election of the whole state or region would distort the result by including the votes of those who voted for other successful candidates still in parliament.

This problem was solved 95 years ago for Tasmania’s House of Assembly by the elegant innovation of countback, in which, if a vacancy occurs, the ballot papers forming the quota of votes that elected the vacating member are recounted.

The main feature of countback is that the name of the person that fills the casual vacancy was on a ballot paper, and that person was the next choice of the people who elected the retiring MP. This will usually be a member of the same party, but if the voters’ preferences did not follow party lines, it may be another person.

Voters chose that path when Bob Brown was first elected to Tasmania’s House of Assembly in 1983 in a countback to replace Norm Sanders, former Australian Democrats MHA and Tasmanian Wilderness Society head, who had resigned.

Countback fulfils the democratic requirement that our representatives are actually elected by the people. It is also used to fill casual vacancies in the ACT Legislative Assembly, and most Victorian municipal councils. A related procedure applies for WA’s Legislative Council, but countback has not been adopted yet by either the federal parliament or the three other mainland state parliaments that use PR.

Does it affect Australian democracy if a number of senators are appointed rather than elected? AAP/Lukas Coch

Instead of voter-controlled countback, the power to select replacements is effectively given to the relevant party organisations, but this process has serious weaknesses.

In the Senate’s case, the larger parties are national organisations, which usually delegate that power to the section of their party organisation in the particular state from which the vacating senator was elected, or appointed, but they are not bound to do that.

In contrast to countback, it will be the ALP National Executive - and not the voters that elected the vacating senator – that will decide who the next unelected senator will be, and WA’s parliament will merely rubber stamp that.

What does it say about Australian democracy when the parliamentarians who are meant to represent our interests are appointed by party elders rather than voted on by the people?

The authors would like to thank Geoffrey Goode, the president of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia (Victoria-Tasmania), for his valuable input in and contributions to this article.

Articles also by These Authors

Sign in to Favourite

Join the conversation

10 Comments sorted by

  1. Mike Swinbourne

    logged in via Facebook

    ".....What does it say about Australian democracy when the parliamentarians who are meant to represent our interests are appointed by party elders rather than voted on by the people?....."

    I don't think that you need to focus on the Senate for this revelation. What about the state of the lower house, where party hacks are 'parachuted' into safe seats that they have rarely visited, let alone ever lived in; and where it is virtually impossible for the minor parties to gain any seats. Represent the interests of the voters? Oh come on now, don't be naive.

    If our parliamentarians actually represented our interests rather than their own self interest or the interests of their party, we might actually have MPs and Senators who voted in accordance with the way their electorate wanted them to vote, rather than the way they are told to vote by their parties. And I won't be holding my breath till that occurs.

    1. Lee Naish

      Senior Lecturer at University of Melbourne

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      I agree the situation in the lower house is not great either. With single member electorates and the major parties "pre-selecting" a single candidate you often don't have much choice. One of the great advantages of (this form of) proportional representation is you have a choice of candidates within a party (as well as between parties). With countback this is typically improved further - parties run more candidates than they expect to win in case one or more successful candidates subsequently resigns (or dies) and there is a countback.

  2. Lyle Allan


    People who live in safe seats do get the chance to vote for a candidate. They may not have a very good choice of candidates, but they normally do get a choice, except in the unlikely event of a candidate being elected unopposed. There have been occasions where a candidate parachuted in does not get elected, or lasts only one term. Cheryl Kernot is an example of this.

    This situation can be contrasted to that of a decision by the ALP National Executive to choose a member to fill a vacancy in the…

    Read more
  3. Natalie Mast

    Associate Director, Research Data & Strategy at University of Western Australia

    A few devil's advocate questions:

    Given the length of terms involved in election to the Senate, what happens if the next candidate in a countback has moved on and no longer wants a seat, or in fact simply ran as a paper candidate? How far down the list could you go before accusations of being "undemocratic" arise?

    At what point do you gain election simply because you made it onto a party list, not because the electorate voted for you?

    What's the problem with voting for a political party, with a clear platform (or manifesto), rather than an individual candidate?

    1. Bogey Musidlak

      public servant

      In reply to Natalie Mast

      Whenever countbacks are conducted, the first step is to establish which of the unsuccessful candidates are still eligible and willing to fill the casual vacancy if elected. Because only the votes for the vacating candidate (or ultimate predecessor from the general election) are re-examined, no-one ever gets more than one vote's worth of influence and the level of ineffective votes is kept to a minimum.

      In Tasmania and the ACT, there are no "paper candidates" as all those endorsed are expected…

      Read more
    2. Lee Naish

      Senior Lecturer at University of Melbourne

      In reply to Natalie Mast


      1) The normal arrangement is that before a countback, unsuccessful candidates are contacted to see if they want to be in the running or not. There is an incentive for parties to stand extra candidates (as I mentioned in another comment).

      2) Clearly, parties have a big influence on who is elected, especially with "above the line" arrangements which encourage voters to be indiscriminant (some may say lazy). Personally, I always vote below the line.

      3) Parties are not made up of clones, and platforms have a degree of flexibility. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard are different, just as Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott are (we don't get to choose between these particular pairs of politicians but it illustrates the point). Being able to vote for individuals, not just parties, allows the parliament to more closely reflect the views of the people - ie, its more democratic.

  4. David Arthur

    resistance gnome

    Here's my idea for making the Senate more democratic (more democratic swill?):

    Elect the entire Senate from the entire nation, ie do away with State-based electorates. That way, Queenslanders (say) could vote for (or against) Tasmanian Eric Abetz, and Tasmanians can vote for (or against) Bob Carr.

    Mind you, with every Australian voter having voted for or against every Senator, we'd have a pretty fair idea of which Senator is the most popular nationwide - so much so that it would be pretty…

    Read more
  5. Bogey Musidlak

    public servant

    In Tasmania and the ACT, where there is also Robson Rotation of names within party or group columns that empowers voters and means no-one can be given a safe seat by preselectors, voters usually get as many candidates endorsed by the major parties as there are vacancies, and at times one or two more. There has always been someone eligible from a vacating candidate’s party who was willing to stand for any casual vacancy that has arisen. The quota of the relevant successful candidate at the general…

    Read more
  6. Alexander Rosser


    Well the current system is in the constitution so any further change is unlikely.

    However the lack of representation in the lower houses, state and federal, is a much bigger problem. If you live in a blue ribbon seat your vote is worthless so you might as well vote informal to draw attention to the issue.

    But can somebody please explain
    a) why the Greens (and before them the DLP, then the Democrats) have never used their power in the senate to force PR into the lower house?
    and b) why the Proportional Representation Society of Australia is not doing more to push the Greens to do just that.

    1. Lee Naish

      Senior Lecturer at University of Melbourne

      In reply to Alexander Rosser

      For the Senate its very unlikely to change soon, but in (eg) the Victorian Legislative Council there is no requirement for a referendum so it is much easier to achieve. The constitutional commission which lead to PR being adopted in the Legislative Council foreshadowed the possibility of future improvements such as Robson Rotation and removing above the line voting, though it was silent on countback.

      The minor parties can't force PR is the lower house - they would need to one of the major parties to support it also, and unfortunately there is little chance of that. The Democrats had a reasonable number of people who were actively supporting better electoral systems. The Greens have not been as active (though they do have a policy of PR for the House of Representatives), and at times some have advocated the party list form of PR, which is a shame. Many politicians are actually not that interested in the finer details of electoral systems.