Is Article 10 the right place for anti-party hopping legislation?

Question

Accepted Answer

Article 10 is not the appropriate locus for anti-party hopping legislation.

The proposed constitutional amendment to enable anti-party hopping laws by inserting Clause (3A) into Article 10 of the Federal Constitution is viewed as an unsuitable approach. This proposed clause, intended to allow federal laws to impose restrictions on the right to form associations related to political party membership for members of the House of Representatives and State Legislative Assemblies, is considered overly broad. Concerns have been raised that such a wide provision could permit legislation extending beyond the specific issue of party hopping.
Proposed Clause (3A) of Article 10 raises concerns of overbreadth.

The draft Constitution (Amendment)(No.3) Act 2022 Bill seeks to introduce a new Clause (3A) to Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. This proposed clause states that "Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of Clause (2) and Clause (3) restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1) relating to membership in a political party of members of the House of Representatives and members of the State Legislative Assembly may also be imposed by federal law." Critics argue that this wording grants excessively wide powers, potentially allowing for federal laws that encompass more than just preventing elected representatives from switching political parties, thereby impacting the freedom of association in a regressive manner.
Alternative constitutional provisions are suggested for anti-party hopping laws.

Instead of amending Article 10, it is suggested that the constitutional framework for anti-party hopping legislation should be located within Chapter 4 of the Federal Constitution, which pertains to the Federal Legislature. This chapter deals with the powers and disqualifications of Members of Parliament. Specifically, it is proposed that such an enabling provision could be established as a new Article 49A or as an amendment to Article 48, which outlines the disqualifications for membership of Parliament.
A more targeted constitutional enabler is advocated.

The recommended alternative approach would involve a specific constitutional provision that allows Parliament, by law, to disqualify a Member of the House of Representatives or a State Legislative Assembly member if they cease to be a member of, or resign from, the political party for which they stood in the election, other than through expulsion. This method is presented as a more precise and appropriate constitutional mechanism to enable federal anti-party hopping laws, contrasting with the broad scope of the proposed Clause (3A) in Article 10.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Is Article 10 the right place for anti-party hopping legislation?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends