Editing Australian Senate (section)

== Procedure ==
[[File:Senate panorama.jpg|thumb|upright=1.9|The Australian Senate]]

=== Work ===
The Australian Senate typically sits for 50 to 60 days a year.{{efn|Figures are available for each year on the Senate StatsNet.}} Most of those days are grouped into 'sitting fortnights' of two four-day weeks. These are in turn arranged in three periods: the autumn sittings, from February to April; the winter sittings, which commence with the delivery of the budget in the House of Representatives on the first sitting day of May and run through to June or July; and the spring sittings, which commence around August and continue until December, and which typically contain the largest number of the year's sitting days.

The senate has a regular schedule that structures its typical working week.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/work/routineofbus.htm |title=Senate weekly routine of business |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=7 November 2011 |publisher=Australian Senate |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120126125039/http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/work/routineofbus.htm |archive-date=26 January 2012}}</ref>

====Dealing with legislation====
All [[bill (law)|bills]] must be passed by a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate before they become law. Most bills originate in the House of Representatives, and the great majority are introduced by the government.

The usual procedure is for notice to be given by a government minister the day before the bill is introduced into the Senate. Once introduced the bill goes through several stages of consideration. It is given a [[reading (legislature)|first reading]], which represents the bill's formal introduction into the chamber.

<blockquote>The first reading is followed by debate on the principle or policy of the bill (the second reading debate). Agreement to the bill in principle is indicated by a second reading, after which the detailed provisions of the bill are considered by one of a number of methods (see below). Bills may also be referred by either House to their specialised standing or select committees. Agreement to the policy and the details is confirmed by a third and final reading. These processes ensure that a bill is systematically considered before being agreed to.<ref>Australian Senate, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/briefs/brief08.htm 'The Senate and Legislation'] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080924114919/http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/briefs/brief08.htm |date=24 September 2008 }}, ''Senate Brief'', No. 8, 2008, Department of the Senate, Canberra.</ref></blockquote>
The Senate has detailed rules in its standing orders that govern how a bill is considered at each stage.<ref>Australian Senate, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/guides/briefno09.htm 'Consideration of legislation'] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080926083250/http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/guides/briefno09.htm |date=26 September 2008 }}, ''Brief Guides to Senate Procedure'', No. 9, Department of the Senate, Canberra.</ref> This process of consideration can vary greatly in the amount of time taken. Consideration of some bills is completed in a single day, while complex or controversial legislation may take months to pass through all stages of Senate scrutiny. The Constitution provides that if the Senate vote is equal, the question shall pass in the negative.<ref name="Con23">{{Cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|coaca430|Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act|23}}</ref>

====Committees====
{{Main|Australian Senate committees}}
[[Image:AustralianSenateCommitteeRm.JPG|thumb|alt=A meeting room containing a large horseshoe-shaped desk, with red leather office chairs surrounding its outside edge, a microphone mounted in the desk in front of each chair|A Senate committee room in Parliament House, Canberra]]
[[File:Australian Parliament Parliamentary Committees.webm|thumb|left|A short video on Australian Parliamentary Committees]]
In addition to the work of the main chamber, the Senate also has a large number of [[Australian Senate committees|committees]] which deal with matters referred to them by the Senate. These committees also conduct hearings three times a year in which the government's budget and operations are examined. These are known as estimates hearings. Traditionally dominated by scrutiny of government activities by non-government senators, they provide the opportunity for all senators to ask questions of ministers and public officials. This may occasionally include government senators examining activities of independent publicly funded bodies, or pursuing issues arising from previous governments' terms of office. There is however a convention that senators do not have access to the files and records of previous governments when there has been an election resulting in a change in the party in government. Once a particular inquiry is completed the members of the committee can then produce a report, to be tabled in Parliament, outlining what they have discovered as well as any recommendations that they have produced for the Government to consider.<ref name = "odgcom">{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Odgers_Australian_Senate_Practice/Chapter_16 |title=Odgers' Australian Senate Practice Fourteenth Edition Chapter 16 – Committees |date=2017 |access-date=19 March 2017 |archive-date=20 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170320052009/http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Odgers_Australian_Senate_Practice/Chapter_16 |url-status=live }}</ref>

The ability of the Houses of Parliament to establish committees is referenced in Section 49 of the Constitution, which states, "The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the establishment of the Commonwealth."<ref name="con49">{{Cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|coaca430|Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act|49}}</ref><ref name = "odgcom"/>

Parliamentary committees can be given a wide range of powers. One of the most significant powers is the ability to summon people to attend hearings in order to give evidence and submit documents. Anyone who attempts to hinder the work of a Parliamentary committee may be found to be in [[contempt of Parliament]]. There are a number of ways that witnesses can be found in contempt, these include; refusing to appear before a committee when summoned, refusing to answer a question during a hearing or to produce a document, or later being found to have lied to or misled a committee. Anyone who attempts to influence a witness may also be found in contempt.<ref name="com">{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_4_-_Committees |title=Infosheet 4 – Committees |publisher=aph.gov.au |access-date=22 February 2017 |archive-date=17 October 2016 |archive-url=https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20161017121253/http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_4_-_Committees |url-status=live }}</ref> Other powers include the ability to meet throughout Australia, to establish subcommittees and to take evidence in both public and private hearings.<ref name = "odgcom"/>

Proceedings of committees are considered to have the same legal standing as proceedings of Parliament. They are recorded by [[Hansard]], except for private hearings, and also operate under [[Parliamentary privilege]]. Every participant, including committee members and witnesses giving evidence, is protected from being prosecuted under any civil or criminal action for anything they may say during a hearing. Written evidence and documents received by a committee are also protected.<ref name="com"/><ref name = "odgcom"/>

====Holding governments to account====
One of the functions of the Senate, both directly and through its [[Australian Senate committees|committees]], is to scrutinise government activity. The vigour of this scrutiny has been fuelled for many years by the fact that the party in government has seldom had a majority in the Senate. Whereas in the House of Representatives the government's majority has sometimes limited that chamber's capacity to implement executive scrutiny, the opposition and minor parties have been able to use their Senate numbers as a basis for conducting inquiries into government operations. When the [[Howard government]] won control of the Senate in 2005, it sparked a debate about the effectiveness of the Senate in holding the government of the day accountable for its actions. Government members argued that the Senate continued to be a forum of vigorous debate, and its committees continued to be active.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.financeminister.gov.au/media/2006/mr_432006.html |title=Media Release 43/2006 – Senate remains robust under Government majority |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=30 June 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927145249/http://www.financeminister.gov.au/media/2006/mr_432006.html |archive-date=27 September 2007}}</ref> The Opposition leader in the Senate suggested that the government had attenuated the scrutinising activities of the Senate.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.chrisevans.alp.org.au/news/1105/senatespeeches10-01.php |title=Senator Chris Evans, The tyranny of the majority (speech) |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=10 November 2005 |quote="Labor has accused the Government of 'ramming' bills through the Senate – but Labor "guillotined" Parliamentary debate more than twice the number of times in their 13 years in Government than the Coalition has over the last decade. In the last six months, the Government has not sought to guillotine any bill through the Senate." |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091112013742/http://www.chrisevans.alp.org.au/news/1105/senatespeeches10-01.php |archive-date=12 November 2009}}</ref> The [[Australian Democrats]], a minor party which frequently played mediating and negotiating roles in the Senate, expressed concern about a diminished role for the Senate's committees.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.democrats.org.au/docs/2006/PR_Senate_Attack_Accountability.pdf |title=Senator Andrew Murray: Australian Democrats Accountability Spokesperson Senate Statistics 1 July 2005 – 30 June 2006 |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=4 July 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060805200949/http://www.democrats.org.au/docs/2006/PR_Senate_Attack_Accountability.pdf |archive-date=5 August 2006}}</ref>

In addition to review of legislation, the ''Legislation Act 2003'' provides that the Senate may also disallow legislative instruments – typically regulations made by government ministers using powers delegated by relevant legislation. The same power is afforded to the House of Representatives, but is rarely exercised given the government's control of numbers in the lower house. The ''Legislation Act 2003'' provides that any senator may move a motion disallowing a legislative instrument, which if passed within 15 days has the effect of repealing the instrument. The government may not enact an equivalent legislative instrument for a period of six months following the disallowal.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/senate/powers_practice_n_procedures/brief_guides_to_senate_procedure/no_19|title=No. 19 – Disallowance|work=Guides to Senate Procedure|publisher=Parliament of Australia|access-date=19 May 2024|archive-date=19 May 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240519071937/https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/senate/powers_practice_n_procedures/brief_guides_to_senate_procedure/no_19|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Voting===
Senators are called upon to vote on matters before the Senate. These votes are called ''divisions'' in the case of Senate business, or ''ballots'' where the vote is to choose a senator to fill an office of the Senate (such as the [[President of the Senate (Australia)|President]]).<ref>''Senate Standing Orders'', numbers 7, 10, 98–105, 163</ref>

Party discipline in [[Politics of Australia|Australian politics]] is strong, so divisions almost always are decided on party lines. Nevertheless, the existence of minor parties holding the balance of power in the Senate has made divisions in that chamber more uncertain than in the House of Representatives.

When a division is to be held, bells ring throughout the parliament building for four minutes, during which time senators must go to the chamber. At the end of that period the doors are locked and a vote is taken, by identifying and counting senators according to the side of the chamber on which they sit (ayes to the right of the chair, noes to the left). The whole procedure takes around eight minutes. Senators with commitments that keep them from the chamber may make arrangements in advance to be 'paired' with a senator of the opposite political party, so that their absence does not affect the outcome of the vote.

The Senate contains an even number of senators, so a tied vote is a real prospect (which regularly occurs when the party numbers in the chamber are finely balanced). [[Section 23 of the Constitution of Australia|Section 23 of the Constitution]] requires that in the event of a tied division, the question is resolved in the negative. The system is however different for ballots for offices such as the President. If such a ballot is tied, the [[Clerk of the Australian Senate|Clerk of the Senate]] decides the outcome by the drawing of lots. In reality, conventions govern most ballots, so this situation does not arise.<ref name="Con23"/>

====Political parties and voting outcomes====
The strength of party discipline is demonstrated by how rare it is for members to vote against the position taken by their party. The exceptions are where a [[conscience vote]] is allowed by one or more of the political parties; and occasions where a member of a political party [[crossing the floor|crosses the floor]] of the chamber to vote against the instructions of their [[whip (politics)|party whip]]. Crossing the floor very rarely occurs, but is more likely in the Senate than in the House of Representatives.<ref>Deirdre McKeown, Rob Lundie and Greg Baker, [http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2005-06/06rn11.pdf 'Crossing the floor in the Federal Parliament 1950 – August 2004'] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081003132418/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2005-06/06rn11.pdf |date=3 October 2008 }}, ''Research Note'', No. 11, 2005–06, Department of Parliamentary Services, Canberra.</ref>

When the government has a majority in the Senate, the importance of party discipline increases, as it is only backbenchers that may prevent the passage of government bills. While strong party discipline has been a feature of Australian politics since the emergence of the Labor Party in the early 1900s, as late as 1980 the Fraser government could not be assured that his party's majority in the Senate would translate to absolute control, with at least 12 senators prepared to vote against the government.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Evans |first=Harry |title=Restraining elective dictatorship: the upper house solution? |date=2008 |publisher=University of Western Australia Press |isbn=978-1-921401-09-1 |editor-last=Aroney |editor-first=Nicholas |location=Crawley, W.A |page=71 |language=en |chapter=The case for bicameralism |editor-last2=Prasser |editor-first2=Scott |editor-last3=Nethercote |editor-first3=J. R.}}</ref> Similarly, when the Howard government had a Senate majority between 2005 and 2007, the internal differences between members of the government coalition parties became more apparent.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au/papers/20050630_uhr.pdf |title=How Democratic is Parliament? A case study in auditing the performance of Parliaments |last=Uhr |first=John |date=June 2005 |publisher=Democratic Audit of Australia, Discussion Paper |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130514151348/http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au/papers/20050630_uhr.pdf |archive-date=14 May 2013}}</ref> However due to the increase in party discipline, only two senators in this period crossed the floor:<ref>Peter Veness, [https://archive.today/20070728091913/http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19479942-29277,00.html 'Crossing floor 'courageous, futile'], news.com.au, 15 June 2006. Retrieved January 2008.</ref> [[Gary Humphries]] on civil unions in the Australian Capital Territory, and [[Barnaby Joyce]] on [[voluntary student unionism]].<ref>Neither of these instances resulted in the defeat of a government proposal, as in both cases Senator [[Steve Fielding]] voted with the government.</ref> A more significant potential instance of floor crossing was averted when the government withdrew its Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill, of which several government senators had been critical, and which would have been defeated had it proceeded to the vote.<ref>{{cite web |last=Howard |first=John |date=14 August 2006 |title=Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon John Howard MP Press Conference, Parliament House, Canberra |url=http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview2073.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060821014554/http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview2073.html |archive-date=21 August 2006 |access-date=21 August 2006 |website=Prime Minister of Australia News Room |publisher=Office of the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia}}</ref> The controversy that surrounded these examples demonstrated both the importance of [[backbencher]]s in party policy deliberations and the limitations to their power to influence outcomes in the Senate chamber.

In September 2008, Barnaby Joyce became leader of the Nationals in the Senate, and stated that his party in the upper house would no longer necessarily vote with their Liberal counterparts.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.smh.com.au/national/nationals-wont-toe-libs-line-joyce-20080918-4isw.html |title=Nationals won't toe Libs' line: Joyce – SMH 18/9/2008 |publisher=News.smh.com.au |date=18 September 2008 |access-date=17 July 2010 |archive-date=3 December 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203102843/http://news.smh.com.au/national/nationals-wont-toe-libs-line-joyce-20080918-4isw.html |url-status=live }}</ref>