Parliament of Australia Department of Parliamentary Services Parliamentary Library Information, analysis and advice for the Parliament RESEARCH PAPER www.aph.gov.au/library 2 February 2009, no. 20, 2008–09, ISSN 1834-9854 Conscience votes during the Howard Government 1996–2007 Deirdre McKeown and Rob Lundie Politics and Public Administration Section Executive summary • During the Howard Government‘s time in office five bills attracted a conscience vote. These bills were: Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996, Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002, Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of RU486) Bill 2005 and Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. • This paper considers aspects of these votes and tracks patterns that emerged. Aspects considered include the voting patterns of party leaders, the party vote, the vote of women, the media and conscience votes and the dilemmas facing members of parliament in these votes. • A list of conscience votes in the federal parliament from 1950 to 2007 is included in an appendix. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Cathy Madden, Sarah Miskin, Matthew Thomas and John Warhurst for their assistance in preparing this research paper. Contents Executive summary ...................................................... 1 Introduction ........................................................... 1 Background ........................................................... 1 Definition ........................................................... 1 Issues attracting a conscience vote ......................................... 2 Reasons for calling for a conscience vote .................................... 3 Frequency of conscience votes ........................................... 3 The Howard government and conscience votes .................................. 4 Who introduced the legislation ........................................... 5 Votes of the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition on conscience bills ......... 6 Backbench pressure ................................................. 9 Voting patterns ....................................................... 9 Chamber voting ................................................... 10 Party voting ...................................................... 10 Gender voting .................................................... 10 Behaviour in the RU486 and therapeutic cloning debates ..................... 12 Call for more conscience votes .......................................... 14 The media and conscience votes ......................................... 17 Dilemmas facing MPs in conscience votes .................................. 18 Conclusion ........................................................... 20 Appendix 1: Voting by party and gender on conscience vote bills during the Howard Government (1996–2007) ............................................... 21 Appendix 2: Dates of stages of conscience vote bills debated during the Howard Government (1996–2007) ............................................... 23 Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 ................................... 23 Appendix 3: Conscience votes in the federal parliament 1950–2007 ................. 25 Conscience votes during the Howard Government 1996–2007 Introduction In August 2002 the Parliamentary Library published a paper on conscience votes in federal, state and some overseas parliaments.1 In compiling the list of conscience votes in the federal parliament reliance was made on references in House of Representatives Practice. Since 2002, additional conscience votes on bills and procedural issues have been found and some other votes included in the original list have been reclassified. A full list of conscience votes in the federal parliament since 1950 is included at Appendix 3. In this paper we consider aspects of conscience votes during the Howard Government (1996 to 2007). We do not attempt to draw conclusions on the basis of our analyses but rather to track patterns in the votes that occurred. The aspects considered include voting patterns of party leaders and the party vote, the vote of women, the media and conscience votes and dilemmas facing MPs in these votes. An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Australasian Study of Parliament Group Conference in August 2007.2 At the time of writing the Rudd Government has not initiated any conscience votes but two issues which traditionally attract a conscience vote, euthanasia and abortion, have been raised by senators.3 Background Definition The term ‗free vote‘ or ‗conscience vote‘ is defined as ‗the rare vote in parliament, in which members are not obliged by the parties to follow a party line, but vote according to their own moral, political, religious or social beliefs‘.4 1. D. McKeown and R. Lundie, ‗Free votes in Australian and some overseas parliaments‘, Current Issues Brief, no. 1, 2002–03, Parliamentary Library, Canberra. This publication provides more information on conscience votes including the major parties‘ attitudes to these votes and the practice in other Westminster parliaments and the United States Congress. 2. See D. McKeown and R. Lundie with G. Woods, ‗Conscience votes in the federal parliament since 1996‘, Australasian Parliamentary Review, vol. 23, no. 1, 2008, pp. 172–194. 3. On 17 September 2008 Senator Bob Brown (Australian Greens, Tas) introduced the Restoring Territory Rights (Voluntary Euthanasia Legislation) Bill 2008 into the Senate. The Bill repealed the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997. Debate was adjourned after Senator Brown‘s second reading speech on the same day. On 18 June 2008 Senator Guy Barnett (Liberal, Tas) gave notice of his intention to move the disallowance of funding for a Medicare item which would mean the withdrawal of funding for late term abortions. The issue was referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee. Senator Barnett withdrew his disallowance motion. The Committee reported on 13 November 2008 and made two recommendations ‗aimed at improving the collection of perinatal and neonatal data‘ in Australia. Senator Barnett has indicated that he will wait for the Government‘s response to the report before deciding whether to reintroduce his disallowance motion. 1 Conscience votes during the Howard Government 1996–2007 The term ‗conscience vote‘ is most commonly used in Australia to describe votes on moral and social issues such as abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment—the life and death issues in which senators and members are not obliged to vote along party lines. In Australia the term may also include issues on which the parties do not always have a formal policy such as parliamentary procedure and parliamentary privilege. The term ‗free vote‘ is more commonly used in other Westminster parliaments. In Australian state and federal parliaments the decision to allow a conscience vote is a political one usually made by the party leader and is not a subject on which the Speaker can be asked to rule.5 The conscience vote can apply to one party, more than one party or all parties represented in the parliament. Issues attracting a conscience vote Conscience votes have been allowed on: • ‗life and death‘ issues, such as abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment • human reproductive and scientific research issues, such as in vitro fertilisation, stem cell research and therapeutic cloning • social or moral issues, such as family law, homosexuality, drug reform, war crimes and gambling and • parliamentary procedure and privilege issues and standing orders. Conscience votes are not usually allowed on economic issues or issues that have a significant impact on the budget, although 'until 1936 tariff proposals were free votes in both Houses in the Australian Parliament'.6 Conscience votes are generally not allowed when a party has a definite policy on an issue. For example, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) does not allow its members a conscience vote on capital punishment because the party has already adopted an anti death penalty policy. One exception to this approach is the ALP‘s attitude to abortion. In this case the party has a policy but also allows a conscience vote on the issue. The ALP National Platform states that Labor will: … support the rights of women to determine their own reproductive lives, particularly the right to choose appropriate fertility control and abortion.7 4. The Penguin Macquarie Dictionary of Australian Politics, Penguin Books, Ringwood, Victoria, 1988, p. 86. 5. Joe de Bruyn, National Secretary of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association and member of the Australian Labor Party national executive has argued that the national executive should be involved in these decisions. See, for example: A. Ramsey, ‗Whitlam‘s sharp tongue can still leave its mark‘, Sydney Morning Herald, 13 September 2000, M. Grattan, ‗IVF–who is minding the ALP shop?‘, Sydney Morning Herald, 18 August 2000, L. Tingle, ‗Moral vote to move with the times‘, Sydney Morning Herald, 23 March 2002. 6. J.R. Odgers, Australian Senate Practice, sixth ed., 1991, p. 420. 2 Conscience votes during the Howard Government 1996–2007 The ALP National Constitution records the 1984 National Conference decision on abortion: Conference resolves that the matter of abortion can be freely debated at any State or federal forum of the Australian Labor Party, but any decision reached is not binding on any member of the Party.8 Reasons