Misguided attack

SENATE Majority Leader Wade Mark's warning to Independent Senators, arising out of the criticisms levelled by two independent members at the UNC Opposition's refusal to support amendments to the Immigration Act 1996 is surprising in its misguidedness. Senator Mark had warned Independent Senators that they would face the wrath of the Opposition should they attack the UNC's position in the Senate. But he had taken umbrage at what, after all, is an entitlement of independent senators to take a stand as they see fit individually on any issue brought before the Upper House and to criticise positions with which they did not agree. Does Mark, who has served as an Opposition Senator for several years, mean that independent senators cannot support a Government Bill and, in the same process, voice their disagreement with the Opposition should the UNC oppose the proposed legislation?

If this is so, then the converse should apply. Using the same argument, then the ruling party should in turn "attack" independent senators should they vote against a Government motion and criticise the Government for having introduced it. Senator Mark could not be serious. Under the 1976 Republican Constitution, independent senators are appointed "by the President, in his discretion, from outstanding persons from economic or social or community organisations and other major fields of endeavour." They are chosen because, in the opinion of the President, they will bring knowledgeable and intelligent viewpoints dispassionately to bear on matters debated in the Senate. They are unlike ruling party and opposition senators who, unless there is a free vote, and this has never occurred — are expected to support and vote in accordance with their respective party's dictates. No one should have to remind Senator Mark that the country's Republican Constitution does not limit or restrain independent senators with respect to the stand they should take on any issue or subject nor does it prohibit them from being critical of any position taken by either the Government or Opposition parties. To do otherwise would be to deny them of their inherent independence.

The Opposition has been calling for constitution reform but we doubt that Senator Mark's inferred point will ever form part of such a revision. Independent senators are there to bring impartial thought, free of the "cracking of party whips" to senate debates. Also, independent senators are not mandated by the Constitution to speak with a collective voice, particularly beholden to any party. Indeed, the theoretical position is that they approach debates in the Upper House as nine independent individuals. And while it may be that some may vote in favour of a motion and some against it, or all nine may vote one way or the other, or some or all may even abstain, theirs is constitutionally a free vote, cast according to their conscience and their individual assessment of the value of the measures before them. We expect then that independent senators will appreciate their purpose in the nation's parliament and not be swayed or intimidated in any way by this empty threat from the Opposition. We must say that, through the years, our country has been fortunate in the choice of its independent senators who have brought perceptive insights to many vital issues facing the nation. What will be their fate in the process of reforming the constitution, particularly if the proposal for an Executive President is accepted, we do not know; but we would certainly be sad to see them go.