Editing Australian Senate (section)

===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>