Despite passing almost all of its bills, the government complains the Senate is obstructionist. But analysis shows the Coalition’s problems have been of its own making – and things aren’t about to improve

The Australian Senate is a bagful of paradoxes. It is routinely abused by political leaders as “feral” or “disgraceful” or as “unrepresentative swill” yet is regarded by political scientists as the most powerful legislative upper house in the world. For all the talk that the Senate obstructs legislative programs, in recent parliaments the vast majority of government bills were passed by the Senate.

Despite the Turnbull government’s recent success in passing legislation to reform how votes for the Senate are counted in elections, the smaller quota needed to win a Senate seat in a double-dissolution election means the new Senate formed after 2 July is likely to contain more, not fewer, crossbenchers. Malcolm Turnbull’s anxiety was illustrated this week by his warning against voters’ “rolling the dice” by backing more independents.

Crossbenchers insist Tony Abbott's 'feral' Senate is simply doing its job Read more

The Coalition’s criticism of the Senate has stemmed from the difficulty it has had passing legislation. The Labor party and Greens were obstructionist and withheld support, the government says. The government required the votes of six members of the record-sized and fractious crossbench – Ricky Muir, Dio Wang, Glenn Lazarus, Jacqui Lambie, John Madigan, David Leyonhjelm, Bob Day and Nick Xenophon – in order to make a majority.

But an analysis by the University of Canberra’s journalism program as part of the UniPollWatch of the Senate’s full voting record in the 2013-2016 parliament confirms previous research: compared with previous Senates the government’s criticism has been unfair. Far from being feral, the Senate was actually doing little that is out of the ordinary.



The analysis also suggests that much of the government’s criticism stems from an awareness that its problems have been of its own making – and that things aren’t about to improve.

The numbers

Between 1 July 2014 and 9 May 2016, the Senate passed 287 government bills. It voted to reject – that is, explicitly reject – bills on 22 occasions. In all, this means the government secured passage for 92.8% of its bills. The July 2011 to June 2014 Senate, which dealt with bills mainly from the Gillard and briefly the Rudd Labor governments, passed 540 government bills (96.7%) and rejected 18 (3.2%).

The Senate that dealt with primarily the Rudd and briefly the Gillard Labor governments – July 2008 to June 2011 – passed 443 government bills and rejected bills on 52 occasions. This translates to 89.5% passed and 10.5% rejected.

The Abbott-Turnbull Senate voted on an average of 159 bills annually; this compares with an average of 186 annually for the 2011-14 Senate and 165 annually for the 2008-11 Senate. The Senate’s record when voting on government legislation is comparable to that of previous Senates.

The Coalition government’s record of success isn’t as good as Julia Gillard’s, if you consider the 2011-14 Senate, but it’s better than the record Kevin Rudd and Gillard had with the 2008-11 Senate. This suggests Abbott and Turnbull’s criticism of the Senate stems from a frustration that they haven’t always got their way.

Rejected bills



UniPollWatch looked at legislsation rejected by the 2014-2016 Senate. Four of those rejections dealt with bills that would restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC). This “industry watchdog” was originally set up by the Howard government in 2005 to monitor workplace relations in the construction industry.

The Gillard government abolished it in 2012 and transferred its functions to the Fair Work Commission. The Abbott-led Coalition made restoring the ABCC an election promise in 2013, but it was unable to secure passage of the two bills. After an initial rejection in August 2015, the bills were reintroduced and rejected again in April 2016.

The Senate’s rejection of the bills was the trigger that Turnbull used to dissolve both houses of parliament for the election. Ostensibly, restoring the ABCC should be a hot-button issue at this election, but it has hardly been mentioned on the campaign trail.

Then there was the repeal of the carbon tax. Nine of the 11 bills required to repeal the tax were rejected by the new Senate in July 2014. Less than a week later, however, after striking a deal with the Palmer United party, the government managed to pass eight of those bills – and the carbon tax was gone.



The other rejections are more diverse. Among these bills were: the abolition of the Australian National Health Preventive Agency, allowing more advertising on the SBS, and reform of licensing and workplace conditions on ships. After the rejection of these bills the government decided to not proceed with them. The bills can’t have been that important to the government if they were dropped entirely.

Of the remaining rejections, two bills would have increased disclosure obligations for organisations and impose penalties for breaches of duty of care, and two further bills would have made changes to Newstart and unemployment allowances.



The Senate twice rejected the higher education and research reform amendment bill, which would have removed discounts for those paying their Hecs-Help debt upfront.



These bills were still on the notice paper when the parliament was dissolved in May, which suggests the government still thinks they’re important. But, again, these bills aren’t being talked about that much on the campaign trail.

The bills that didn’t get a vote

It is legislation that was not put to the vote that better explains Abbott and Turnbull’s criticisms of the Senate. When parliament was dissolved there were 88 bills that were yet to receive a vote on the Senate floor.

Jacqui Lambie on home turf: 'I reckon I can do 20 more years' Read more

The number is, to some extent, explained by the double dissolution: the government lost the time to put all its legislation to a vote before the clock ran out. Closer inspection of the list shows that a sizeable chunk of the bills on the notice paper had actually been introduced nearly two years beforehand. And that most of those bills were integral to the government’s controversial 2014 budget.

Labor and the Greens were adamantly opposed to many of these measures when they were introduced and continue to be just as opposed. They call the measures unfair, regressive and unjust. Without the support of the ALP and the Greens, the government had to look to the crossbench, only to find they were equally opposed, and for the same reasons.

The government and the Senate were at an impasse. From the government’s perspective, the Senate was obstructionist. From the Senate’s perspective, the government was unwilling to negotiate about bills that the majority of senators deemed irretrievable, and that it was simply doing its job.

The bills may not have been passed but the government has been counting the savings in them in its annual budget’s bottom lines ever since, which is why Labor has been calling them “zombie” bills.

It looks like the government was never going to bring these bills on for a vote in the 2014-16 Senate. And there is a simple reason for that: the government did not have the votes in the Senate to pass them. Their existence on the notice paper and in the budget papers suggests, however, that they’re still in prospect for any new Coalition government – and a new Senate which could be equally or even more resistant.

Patrick Mullins and Matthew Ricketson teach journalism at the University of Canberra. A longer version of this analysis is being published by UniPollWatch, Australia’s biggest student journalism project. Guardian Australia is collaborating with UniPollWatch during the general election campaign