Just a response to some of the comments.

The House of Representatives obviously does represent the majority more closely than the Senate. In the latter, the vote of a Western Australian has twice as much power as that of a Queenslander. This issue is covered in Appendix 2 to the Rationale for Advancing Democracy.

Some comments reflect a simple anti-Labor, or perhaps anti-Whitlam, bias. This is fine when playing the game of politics, but not when we’re discussing the rules of the game - which apply to everyone; so they can be used just as much against the non-Labor side. Society does not progress unless on important issues people recognise and act on a principle, even when it is not to their advantage. Here the principle is that the majority should govern, and not be liable to be forced out on the initiative of minority which lost the last election. We can implement that principle without affecting federalism.

The suggestion that Gough was acting illegally is simply wrong. Kerr did not use that as his explanation. The Constitution gave him no power to make a determination that under our system is made by a court. When a court looked at this allegation later, it did not result in a finding against Whitlam or his Ministers. This argument is examined in Appendix 4 to the Advancing Democracy model.

Finally the ‘job’ Mr Kerr did properly belongs to the peoples’ representatives in the House of Representatives, who have removed Governments many times in our history. Each occasion this has happened is listed in an Article on the Advancing Democracy site, called ‘Trust Your Representatives’. The issue is not whether Governments should be removed mid term. The issue is who should make what is an inherently political decision, which cannot be made according to objective criteria. At present, that decision can be made by someone who is not elected, yet presumes to know better than our elected representatives. That is inconsistent with democracy.

I think Philip Howell may have drawn a fine line.
My recollection is that Gough, or the treasurer had been negotiating
with Kemlani on a loan to keep the government going.
I am fairly certain that those negotiations were not completed and the
loan never actually happened.

However, was that not the point, it was intended to break the law so
why else enter negotiations.

(1) The fact that each state has the same number of senators despite differences in population does not affect the representative nature of the Senate because the people in each state vote in a similar fashion.

The following gives the voting percentage, the number of seats won and the percentage of seats won in various House and Senate elections since 1970. The figures for votes and seats are from http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/. I have calculated the percentage of seats. Rounding means that the total percentage does not always equal 100. The first column is the percentage of the votes; the second is the number of seats won; the third is the percentage of seats won.

1970 Senate
ALP 42.2 13 41
DLP 11.1 3 9
Coalition 38.9 14 44
Other 8.5 2 6

1972 House of Representatives
ALP 49.6 67 54
DLP 5.2 0 0
Coalition 41.4 58 46
Other 3.8 0

1974 Senate
ALP 47.3 29 48
DLP 3.6 0 0
Coalition 43.6 29 48
Other 5.5 2 4

1974 House of Representatives
ALP 49.3 66 52
DLP 1.4 0 0
Coalition 45.8 61 48
Other 3.5 0 0

1975 Senate
ALP 40.9 27 42
DLP 2.7 0 0
Coalition 51.7 35 55
Other 4.7 2 3

1975 House of Representatives
ALP 42.8 36 28
DLP 1.3 0 0
Coalition 53.1 91 72
Other 2.8 0 0

1977 Senate
ALP 36.8 14 41
Democrats 11.1 2 6
Coalition 45.6 18 53
Other 6.5 0

1977 House of Representatives
ALP 39.6 38 31
Democrats 9.4 0 0
Coalition 48.1 86 69
Other 2.9 0 0

1980 Senate
ALP 42.3 15 44
Democrats 9.3 3 9
Coalition 43.6 15 44
Other 4.9 1 3

1980 House of Representatives
ALP 45.2 51 41
Democrats 6.6 0
Coalition 46.4 64 59
Other 1.9 0

(2) 1983 Senate
ALP 45.5 30 47
Democrats 9.6 5 8
Coalition 40.0 28 44
Other 5.0 1 2

1983 House of Representatives
ALP 49.5 75 60
Democrats 5.0 0 0
Coalition 43.7 50 40
Other 1.9 0 0

1996 Senate
ALP 36.2 14 35
Democrats 10.8 5 13
Coalition 44.0 20 50
Other 9.1 1 3

1996 House of Representatives
ALP 38.8 49 33
Democrats 6.8 0 0
Coalition 47.3 94 64
Other 7.2 5 3

1998 Senate
ALP 37.3 17 43
Democrats 8.4 4 10
Coalition 37.7 17 43
Other 13.9 2 5

1998 House of Representatives
ALP 40.1 67 45
Democrats 5.1 0 0
Coalition 39.5 80 54
Other 15.0 1 1

2004 Senate
Greens 7.7 2 5
ALP 35.0 16 40
Coalition 45.0 21 53
Other 12.3 1 3

2004 House of Representatives
Greens 7.2 0 0
ALP 37.6 60 40
Coalition 46.7 87 58
Other 9.5 3 2

2007 Senate
Greens 9.0 3 8
ALP 40.3 18 45
Coalition 39.9 18 45
Other 10.6 1 3

2007 House of Representatives
Greens 7.8 0 0
ALP 43.4 83 55
Coalition 42.1 64 43
Other 6.7 2 1

The pattern is crystal clear. Major parties are over-represented in the House of Representatives: in 1975, the Coalition won 72 per cent of the seats with only 53 per cent of the vote: in 1996, the Coalition won 64 per cent of the seats with only 47 per cent of the vote; in 1998, the Coalition won 54 per cent of the seats with only 40 per cent of the vote: in 1983, the ALP won 60 per cent of the seats with only 40 per cent of the vote; in 2007, the ALP won 55 per cent of the seats with only 43 per cent of the vote. The DLP, with 5.2 per cent of the vote, got no seats in 1970. The Democrats, with 9.4 per cent of the vote, got no seats in 1977. The Greens, with 7.8 per cent of the vote, got no seats in 2007.

By contrast, the percentage of seats won is close to the percentage of votes won for major parties in every Senate election, and third parties are typically represented there.

Even though states of different sizes have the same number of senators, the voting pattern in each state is typically sufficient to elect two Coalition and two ALP senators, with a contest between the third major party candidates and a third party candidate for the last two spots, with a major party usually winning one of them. Thus, the 2007 results were: NSW – 3 ALP, 3 Coalition; Victoria – 3 ALP, 3 Coalition; Queensland – 3 ALP, 3 Coalition; WA – 2 ALP, 3 Coalition 1 Green; SA -2 ALP, 2 Coalition, 1 Green, 1 independent; Tasmania – 3 ALP, 2 Coalition, 1 Green.

The figures show that the Senate is more representative of how people vote than the House of Representatives.

I think Chris C has things the wrong way around.

Assuming his figures are accurate - I haven’t checked - he reasons that the actual results of elections indicate that the Houses of Parliament should have certain powers. The more rational approach is to determine the function of each house then choose appropriate electoral systems.

Election results have been influenced by factors which may change at any time.

One fortuitous factor Chris mentions is whether people in each State vote in a similar fashion. If this happens, it is mere chance.

A second changeable factor is the different electoral systems under which the House and the Senate operate. These change over time, though there have always been single member electorates for the House and multi-member electorates in the Senate. Anomalies are easier to minimise across multi-member electorates. If the same proportional representation method was adopted in both Houses, discrepancies would be eliminated.

It is simplistic to say that the figures show the Senate is more representative of how people vote (though personally I would support proportional representation in the House). People understand that their vote in the House will determine who governs. If they end up with their 2nd or 3rd choice, rather than their first, their point of view is still represented, in the sense that it has contributed to excluding their least favoured candidate. And half the Senate always represents opinion at a different point in time.

Discrepancies can be eliminated in the House by a better voting system, but they could never be eliminated in the Senate, for an unequal distribution of members is part of the structure of that house. It was designed to represent States no matter what their population; whereas the House was structured to represent the population.

The constitutional distribution of the powers between the Houses should be determined by the intended purpose of the House. It was always intended that the Representatives determine who governs, but foolishly they never wrote that into the Constitution. Advancing Democracy would make that explicit, removing potential interference by the Crown. Electoral systems can then be improved.