Home › Principles of Public Law › Part 2 · Parliament and representative democracy
Part 2 · Parliament and representative democracy
Parliament is tripartite, the Constitution entrenches only the bare minimum of democracy, and the words "directly chosen by the people" have grown into a structural protection of the vote. This topic is the story of how seven words in ss 7 and 24 came to do constitutional work the framers never wrote down.
Ideas and cases at a glance
| Authority | In a line |
|---|---|
| Constitution ss 1, 7, 24, 53, 57 | The tripartite Parliament, the Senate as a States' house, money bills and the double dissolution |
| Simpson | Three meta-principles structure Parliament: federalism, representative government and responsible government; the Senate "fell almost immediately into party political divisions" |
| McHugh J | The Constitution entrenches only "the bare minimum of conditions for democratic government; it is left to the Parliament to fill in the details" |
| Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007) | Universal adult suffrage, once achieved, cannot be wound back without a substantial reason: blanket prisoner ban invalid, the 3 year threshold valid |
| Rowe v Electoral Commissioner (2010) | "Chosen by the people" has evolved since 1901 and the evolution is practically irreversible: early closure of the rolls invalid |
| McKinlay | No constitutional requirement of one vote one value |
The tripartite Parliament
Start with the text. Section 1 vests the legislative power of the Commonwealth in a Parliament that is tripartite: the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The monarch's presence in the definition is a Westminster inheritance, and the two elected chambers carry the democratic and federal work. Chapter I then builds the institution, and Simpson identifies the three meta-principles that structure it: federalism, representative government and responsible government. Those three principles pull in different directions, federalism towards the States, representation towards the people, responsibility towards executive accountability, and most of the topic's tensions are the text refereeing between them.
Bicameralism and the Senate that changed jobs
The Senate was built as a federal States' house. Senators are "directly chosen by the people of the State", with equal numbers per original State (s 7), the chamber has near-equal legislative power except for money bills (s 53), and deadlocks are broken by double dissolution (s 57). Then politics intervened. The Senate "fell almost immediately into party political divisions", so that Australia's commitment is now, in Simpson's phrase, to "bicameralism ahead of any ongoing commitment to federalism". The anti-tyranny architecture designed to protect States morphed into a check on concentrated power more generally: senators vote with their parties, not their States, but a chamber the government rarely controls still scrutinises, amends and blocks. That drift, from federal chamber to house of review, is a ready-made essay spine, and it pairs naturally with the accountability material in responsible government.
The bare minimum
How much democracy does the Constitution itself guarantee? Strikingly little. It entrenches only "the bare minimum of conditions for democratic government; it is left to the Parliament to fill in the details" (McHugh J). Everything a modern voter would recognise as the electoral system is statutory: the secret ballot, preferential voting, Senate proportional representation from 1948, compulsory voting from 1924. Parliament built Australian democracy by ordinary legislation, and what Parliament builds by ordinary legislation it can normally unbuild the same way. The franchise cases are about the word "normally".
The franchise: Roach and Rowe
The constitutional protection of the vote grows out of the same seven words that create the Houses. The phrase "directly chosen by the people" in ss 7 and 24 has, in Gleeson CJ's words in Roach, "come to be a constitutional protection of the right to vote". Notice what kind of reasoning that is. The words have not changed since 1901, when women could not vote in most States and no constitutional objection existed. What has changed is the franchise Parliament built beneath them, and the Court's holding is that the words now carry that achievement. The mechanism is a ratchet: Parliament expanded the franchise by statute over a century, and the Court now holds that the expansion has constitutional consequence, clicking upward with each extension and resisting the return journey.
Roach shows the test cutting both ways on its own facts. A blanket ban on prisoner voting was invalid: it swept in short sentences without any connection to the seriousness of the offending. The prior rule, disqualifying prisoners serving sentences of three years or more, was valid, because the line it drew was reasonably appropriate and adapted to a legitimate end. Hold both halves of the case together, because the pairing is the doctrine in miniature. The protection forbids arbitrary winding back; it does not forbid lines, and a rational line tied to serious offending survives.
Rowe extends the logic from who may vote to the machinery of enrolment. The Court held early closure of the electoral rolls invalid. French CJ reasoned that "the content of the constitutional concept of 'chosen by the people' has evolved since 1901" and that the evolution is practically irreversible: legislative expansion of the franchise raises the constitutional bar, so a measure burdening enrolment requires justification proportionate to the burden. Crennan J put the destination plainly: the franchise's history means "chosen by the people" now signifies universal adult suffrage.
Read the two cases as one doctrine with two applications. Roach polices the entitlement to vote, Rowe polices the machinery through which the entitlement is exercised, and both apply the same structure: a burden on direct popular choice must be justified by a reason substantial enough, and a means proportionate enough, to survive.
The method that earns the marks
Attack plan. This topic is usually an essay, though the franchise cases can frame a problem. Either way: 1. Frame the protection as structural, not individual. 2. Identify the burden the measure places on direct popular choice. 3. Ask whether it winds back achieved universality, which is what triggers the demand for justification. 4. Apply the substantial reason and proportionality test from Roach and Rowe, using the valid 3 year threshold to show the test tolerates rational lines. 5. In an essay, evaluate the ratchet: give the democratic defence and the arrogance critique their strongest forms, then choose.
Worked example
Parliament amends the Electoral Act so that (a) the rolls close at 6 pm on the day the writs are issued, and (b) any person serving any sentence of imprisonment is disqualified from voting. Assess the validity of each measure.
A Pass answer says. Under Roach and Rowe there is a constitutional right to vote, and both measures infringe it, so both are invalid. The conclusion on these facts is probably right, but the reasoning would fail on harder facts: it invents an individual right, never identifies the burden, never asks for the government's justification, and could not explain why the 3 year threshold in Roach survived.
An H1 answer says. The protection is structural: ss 7 and 24 mandate Houses directly chosen by the people, and achieved universality cannot be wound back without a substantial reason (Roach). Measure (b) is a blanket disqualification of all prisoners, materially identical to the provision invalidated in Roach: it operates without regard to the seriousness of offending, so no substantial reason supports it, though a re-drawn threshold tied to serious offending would likely survive, as the 3 year rule did. Measure (a) burdens enrolment rather than entitlement, so Rowe governs: early closure of the rolls in effect disenfranchises those caught mid-process, and the justification, administrative convenience and roll integrity, must be proportionate to that burden. On Rowe itself the balance fell against closure. The answer concludes each measure separately, and notes the counter-argument that the Court is policing lines Parliament is better placed to draw.
Critical pitfalls and counter-arguments
- Inventing an individual right to vote. The doctrine protects the structural mandate of direct popular choice. Get the framing right in the first sentence.
- Forgetting that Roach upheld a line. The 3 year threshold was valid. Citing Roach only for invalidity misreads the case and weakens problem answers.
- Turning the ratchet into a freeze. Roach and Rowe protect achieved universality. McKinlay denies one vote one value. The doctrine polices winding back, not electoral design generally.
- Ignoring the critics. The "High Court arrogance and imperialism" critique is on the reading list because the examiner wants it engaged, not omitted.
- Losing the Senate story. The drift from States' house to party house, and the resulting commitment to bicameralism ahead of federalism, is the other half of the topic and pairs naturally with responsible government.
Take it to the practice bank
The franchise cases are drilled as problems and the ratchet as an essay in the Principles of Public Law practice bank, each question with a realistic Pass answer, an H1 model answer and the examiner's comments that explain what separates them.
Practice prompts
- Write the framing paragraph for a franchise problem in four sentences: the structural source in ss 7 and 24, the ratchet from Roach, the proportionality refinement from Rowe, and the limit from McKinlay.
- Take the worked example and redraft measure (b) so that it would probably be valid, then justify your redraft using the surviving 3 year threshold in Roach.
- Write two paragraphs on the Senate: one describing the designed federal chamber, one describing the party chamber it became, and end with the sentence that connects the drift to Simpson's claim about bicameralism.
Check your understanding
Auto-marked drills. Answer, then see the authority in the feedback.