BY MARGARET ALLUM
In most parliamentary democracies, issues considered highly morally charged are sometimes exempted from being voted upon along party lines. In these cases, voting parliamentarians are allowed to vote "according to their conscience". Most commonly, this deviation from the standard voting behaviour for party politicians has been used in relation to abortion and euthanasia. Now it has been raised in the context of whether to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to allow state governments to legislate in a way that discriminates against women who wish to access fertility services such as IVF technology, but are not in a heterosexual relationship.
The ALP caucus and the national executive have withstood pressure from more conservative members and parliamentarians to allow a conscience vote on this question. Both bodies have rejected the proposal, but there was considerable discussion.
The Coalition parties also have provisions for a vote along personal lines, although the Liberals federally officially allowed this for the first time only in 1997, in a parliamentary vote on euthanasia. The ACT branch of the ALP also was troubled by this issue, and allowed a "Claytons" conscience vote on voluntary euthanasia, deciding that those members who did not follow party policy would not be disciplined.
The Greens (with the exception of the NSW Greens) and the Democrats have the right to vote according to one's conscience enshrined in their constitutions.
The constitution of the Australian Greens states: "An elected Member of Parliament will also adhere to the policies of The Greens: except that where, in the opinion of the elected member ... the views of elected Members are in conflict with The Greens' policy, then [they] may vote according to their conscience".
The Democrats' constitution allows that "where the views of an elected member are in conflict with party policy ... the elected member may vote according to his [sic] conscience". In fact, Democrat Senator Natasha Stott Despoja derides the idea of voting according to party policy on the "difficult" questions, saying, "The electorate rightly expects its representatives to sweat a little over the decisions they make. When we vote on drug law reform [or] committing troops to war, we make decisions that will immediately affect many Australians who deserve more than a few hours' debate and a vote along party lines."
"It is hard to vote for something you don't believe in, as it should be", says Stott Despoja. But while that sounds all very noble, it is important to examine the effect of allowing a conscience vote.
Moral imposition
At the height of the debate over voluntary euthanasia, the South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society (SAVES) criticised the personal and often moralistic input into matters of public policy which are involved in a conscience vote. Its statement at the time says: "The government's task of balancing potential social benefit against potential social harm requires an assessment of probabilities, not a judgment of 'conscience'. The questions facing elected law-makers are not, 'Is the proposal repugnant to you?' but, 'What do the people want and will society benefit?.'"
SAVES highlighted the intellectual and moral arrogance which a conscience vote represents: "Lobbying members of parliament over voluntary euthanasia legislation reveals that the dilemma has been resolved for some by the fortunate discovery in themselves of an 'informed conscience'. This is a combination of moral and intellectual wisdom possessed by MPs but lacking in most voters. It is confirmed in the words of Edmund Burke, who said to the electors of Bristol on the 3rd November 1774: 'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion'."
Most matters on which a conscience vote has been allowed involve issues on which one or more churches have a rigid position. It is no coincidence that those calling for a vote of this nature are usually doing so in support of their church's position on issues such as abortion, euthanasia and conception.
But while some law-makers argue for their own "free choice" to vote according to their conscience, they do so on decisions which, if passed, will deny others choice in their lives. This is the case with legislation on matters which churches, especially the Catholic Church, vehemently oppose, such as abortion rights.
The legislative right to abortion (or the lack of legislative prohibition) does not force any woman to have a termination, but the denial of that right is ensured by anti-abortion, anti-choice legislation. In most instances, a conscience vote provides freedom of choice only to that parliamentarian, not to their constituents or any other member of society.
Cheating the voters
The imposition of parliamentarians' moral or religious views upon society is only one of the undemocratic aspects of conscience votes.
Despite the real limitations of parliamentary democracy, some procedures are more democratic than others. Candidates who stand as representatives of a particular party are generally expected to follow and implement the public platform of the party.
We all know that many, if not most, politicians drop a great number of their pre-poll promises as soon as they are elected, but that is a violation of the electors' rights. Allowing elected representatives to decide matters based on their own views or whims, in contradiction to a common party position, is an equally undemocratic fraud on the voters.
Within a political party, mechanisms should exist for democratically discussing policy and adopting a common viewpoint, which should be adhered to even by those advocating a differing minority position.
Of course the wheeling and dealing within most parties belies any notion of real rank-and-file democracy. However, allowing a conscience vote by members of that party elected to office does not make up for the lack of democracy, but sets it back further, since MPs are no longer accountable to their own party, let alone to the electing voters.
Real democracy would involve total accountability, not only to elected officials' parties, but also to those who elect them. Recallability by voters when officials do not do their job properly would be a measure to force those elected to represent us to do just that.