Executive summary

This Research Paper analyses the results of a study of floor crossing in the federal parliament from 22 February 1950 to 11 April 2019.[1] The study updates and revises substantially the findings of a Parliamentary Library study conducted in 2004 and published in 2005. The analysis shows that:

• during the period of the study there were 520 (2.6%) divisions in which floor crossings took place
• 295 individual floor crossers (approximately 23% of all MPs who sat in the parliament from 1950 to 2019) crossed the floor. A larger proportion of senators (27.5%) crossed the floor than members of the House of Representatives (20.7%)
• the Coalition participated in 96.8% of floor crossing divisions compared to Labor’s 3.1% and the Coalition accounted for 90.2% of the individual MPs who crossed the floor compared to Labor’s 9.8%
• legislative and chamber procedural issues accounted for 25.8% of all floor crossing divisions followed by taxation issues and the environment
• in the 15 years since the 2004 study the level of dissent in the federal parliament has declined and floor crossing has not affected the final outcome of a bill or resolution
• 17 MPs who serve in the current (46th) parliament crossed the floor during the period of the study, the most frequent floor crossers being Barnaby Joyce (NP, Qld now NP, NSW) who crossed 28 times and Bob Katter (NP, IND, now KAP, Qld) who crossed on nine occasions
• since 1950 the government of the day has had a majority in the Senate on four occasions, each prime minister has experienced increased levels of floor crossing; additionally the incidence of floor crossing increases the longer a party is in government
• although some ALP floor crossers have been expelled from the party and  the careers of some Coalition floor crossers have suffered, floor crossing does not appear to prevent Liberal Party and Nationals MPs becoming party leaders and
• all Liberal Party leaders have experienced Coalition MPs crossing the floor with Prime Ministers Robert Menzies and Malcolm Fraser recording the highest number of floor crossings. One Labor Prime Minister (Bob Hawke) and four Labor Opposition Leaders were subject to MPs from their party crossing the floor.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mark Henry, Cathy Madden, Michael Sloane, Nicholas Horne, John Warhurst and Maryanne Lawless for their valuable assistance in preparing this research paper.

Glossary

Crossing the floor

An action in Westminster-style parliaments where a Government or Opposition member of parliament refuses to vote with his or her own party in a particular division and crosses the floor of the parliamentary chamber to vote with the opposing side.

Divisions

Most questions are decided on the voices (‘ayes’ or ‘noes’). A division occurs if a formal count (a division) is required. MPs voting ‘aye’ move to the right of the Chair, the ‘noes’ to the left.

Floor crossers

Individual members of parliament who crossed the floor (295 in the period of the study).

Floor crossings

The total number of times members of parliament have crossed the floor (1,519 in the period of the study).

Floor crossing divisions

Divisions in which individual members of parliament crossed the floor (520 in the period of the study).

Motions

The business of the Senate and the House of Representatives is generally dealt with as a series of formal proposals or motions which are debated and decided by the voices or a division (see above).[2]

Average number of floor crossers in divisions

The figure is calculated by dividing the number of floor crossings by the number of divisions. A floor crossing occurs when an MP crosses the floor in a division. There can be multiple crossings in a single division. In, for example, two divisions in which six members of parliament cross in the first division and five in the second the result is 11 floor crossings for the two divisions with an average number of 5.5 MPs for each division.

Party abbreviations:

ALP      Australian Labor Party
CLP      Country Liberal Party (Northern Territory)
CP        Australian Country Party, from February 1920 (see also NP and NPA below)[3]
IND      Independent
KAP     Katter’s Australian Party
LIB       Liberal Party of Australia
NP        The Nationals, from October 2006 (formerly the National Party of Australia)
NPA     National Party of Australia, from October 1982 (formerly Australian Country Party)

Introduction

In 2005 the Parliamentary Library published a preliminary study of floor crossing in the federal parliament from 1950 to the end of the 40th Parliament in August 2004.[4] Since 2004, Prime Minister (PM) John Howard gained control of the Senate on 1 July 2005 (41st Parliament), and Prime Minister Julia Gillard governed with a hung parliament from 2010 to 2013 (43rd Parliament). Other prime ministers elected since 2004 are Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison.

This paper updates and revises substantially the 2004 study and analyses floor crossing in the Senate and the House of Representatives (H of R) from the beginning of the 19th Parliament on 22 February 1950 to the end of the 45th Parliament on 11 April 2019. It considers whether the amount of dissent as measured by floor crossing in the Parliament has changed in the 15 years since the preliminary study.

The paper discusses the attitudes of members of parliament (MPs) who crossed the floor and those of their colleagues and party leaders; and the political careers of floor crossing MPs.[5] It also raises issues such as the motivation of frequent floor crossers, the intersection of conscience voting and floor crossing and the differences in male and female floor crossing. A detailed analysis of these subjects is beyond the scope of this current study but worthy of further research. The raw data presented in this paper could also be used as a basis for additional research on floor crossing.  

Party discipline

In Australia, as in other Westminster parliaments, the major political parties value party unity and, as a result, attempt to limit dissent and keep their parliamentary members supporting the party line. [6]

The three major parties—Labor, Liberal and the Nationals—differ in the way party discipline is enforced. The Labor Party has a formal pledge that binds all Labor MPs to support the collective decisions of the Caucus and has expelled MPs who breached the pledge. While the Liberal Party does not have a pledge there is a tension between party discipline and personal freedom. Former Liberal Party President, John Valder, stated in a 1983 report that:

... it is important that it be recognised by all Liberal Parliamentarians that the general expectation is one of loyalty and support for the Party in the Parliament, and that crossing the floor is to be regarded as an exceptional act.[7]

Valder noted that crossing the floor was a right which should be exercised only under certain conditions: where the issue was one of personal conscience and not merely a difference of policy or political judgement and where the parliamentary leader and colleagues had prior warning of the floor crosser’s intentions.[8]

The Nationals do not have a pledge and the Party’s Federal Constitution states that MPs ‘shall ... support the policies of The Nationals as espoused by the Federal Parliamentary Nationals’.[9] But the Nationals website suggests a degree of independence for the parliamentary party stating that, after consultation, it:

 ... has the right if necessary to adopt policy positions that are different from those of Federal Council or Conference... It also has the right to decide whether or not to enter into, or terminate, a Coalition agreement ...[10]

The study

For the purposes of this study crossing the floor was defined as an action in Westminster-style parliaments where MPs from one of the three major parties (Labor, Liberal or Nationals) refuse to vote with their own party in a particular division and cross the floor of the parliamentary chamber to vote with the opposing side.[11] The study included cases where, although a division was not required, an MP requested that his or her name be recorded as voting for or against a motion when their view differed from the position taken by their party.[12] In the period of the study there were 16 floor crossings in this category included in the number of floor crossing divisions.

Occasionally MPs resign from their party to join a minor party or sit as an independent. This study only included floor crossings for the period an MP was a member of one of the major parties. Floor crossings by independents and members of minor parties are not included.[13]

The study did not include:

• abstentions from voting, although this is also a form of dissent[14]
• unintentional floor crossings
• free or conscience votes, approved by the party leadership for all members of the parliamentary party, usually on moral and social issues. Although conscience is involved in deciding whether or not to cross the floor, this act is not defined as a free or conscience vote[15]
• floor crossing divisions that occurred in the two periods when the Liberal Party and the (Country Party) Nationals were not in coalition (December 1972–May 1974 and April 1987–August 1987). During these periods (Country Party) Nationals members and senators voted with the Labor Government on some issues[16] and
• votes on Constitution Alteration [referendum] bills after 1984[17]

The study analysed all the divisions in the Senate and House of Representatives between 1950 and the end of the 45th Parliament (11 April 2019) as officially recorded in Senate Journals and House of Representatives Votes and Proceedings.[18]

As crossing the floor is a political act and is not identified in the official records of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the authors identified those divisions where one or more MPs crossed the floor and tagged each one according to the following categories:

• date of the floor crossing division
• name, party, state/territory and gender of the floor crosser
• a description of the circumstances in which the division occurred
• whether or not the division was initiated by the floor crosser
• the result of the division and whether or not the act of crossing the floor affected the result of the division  
• the broad subject of the division
• the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader at the time of the division and
• whether or not the Government had a majority in the Senate at the time of the division.

All tables in this paper have been compiled by the Parliamentary Library.

Unless otherwise specified all internet links were accessed between June and December 2019.

Conflict between conscience and party loyalty

There are many reasons why members of parliament (MPs) make the major decision to cross the floor. Political scientist John Warhurst has said that it is ‘... always a dramatic outcome in a dreary parliamentary process dominated by united political parties’ and noted that ‘compromise ... is a much less exciting outcome’.[19]

Crossing the floor is not undertaken lightly even by those who have done it frequently.

The two most prolific floor crossers in this study were Senator Reg Wright (LIB, Tas.) and Senator Ian Wood (LIB, Qld) who, over their long parliamentary careers, crossed the floor 150 and 130 times respectively. Wright denied he found it easy to vote against his party saying that on such occasions ‘you find no ripple of humour in your bloody soul for a couple of days; the tensions are quite strong’.[20]

But recent members of parliament who have crossed the floor are often more reluctant to talk about the experience—the reaction from the floor crosser’s party or the personal stress associated with the action. In 2013 former WA Liberal member, minister and floor crosser, Judi Moylan, said:

The tension between being a team player and wrestling with one’s own conscience is one of the most trying aspects of political life.[21]

This statement gives some idea of how difficult it can be to resolve the conflict between conscience and party loyalty. Ms Moylan described this dilemma, which she faced when she made the decision to cross the floor on payments made to single parents:

What really upset me was that I spoke about it in the party room and said that this was a terribly tough policy and that I wouldn’t support it even though we [the Coalition Opposition] decided to support the legislation. I crossed the floor and sat with Adam Bandt [Australian Greens]. It was very difficult for me, but I just felt my conscience couldn’t allow me to put in ... play such a cruel piece of policy. For some parents it took $100 a week off them.[22]

Some MPs have talked about the loneliness and stress associated with crossing the floor, including the walk across the floor of the Senate or House of Representatives chamber. In her valedictory Senator Sue Boyce (LIB, Qld) described her floor crossing:

I was not prepared for how I felt when it came to actually physically crossing the floor. It is lonely; and, no matter how strong your conviction in the correctness of your stance, there is a small part of you that feels disloyal to your colleagues, to your party and to the fragile fabric that unites us.[23]

Former NSW Nationals member Kay Hull crossed the floor twice in 2015, each time alone, in protest against the Coalition government’s Telstra privatisation bill. She described ‘the walk’ across the chamber:

It was so disappointing that I was just the one person who crossed the floor. And ... it was just the worst walk. It's the walk of death to walk in the chamber and to walk across and sit on the other side from your Party members. And I felt it. It was just extraordinary to make that walk. And I walked that walk a hundred times in the week leading up to the division, just knowing that I had to do it. It was really big and it was horrendous. I remember sitting in the seat and opposite my colleagues, and there was just a hush over the room. The first message that came up to me whilst I was sitting there was from Julia Gillard ... telling me how brave I was and how ... she admired my stance. And I thought that was amazing.[24]

Similarly, when Nationals Senator Ron Boswell (Qld) crossed the floor on the Environmental and Natural Resource Management Guidelines in December 2008 he said:

Crossing the floor is the longest walk in politics. It should not be done in hubris or for effect or revenge but in sincere commitment and belief that the decision before us is above ordinary gravity, and I believe that is the case today.[25]

Barnaby Joyce (NP, Qld) referred to the emotional impact when he talked about the assistance he had received from Senate staff in making decisions about floor crossing:

I know I have a dubious honour of having crossed the floor a few times in the coalition government. At those times where there is a lot of emotional weight on you, where there is strong belief that colleagues will rightly put towards you that you might be doing something that is wrong, if you needed to bounce an idea off someone it was the staff in the Senate who could reinforce the proper role.[26]

Differences in ideology

Floor crossing can indicate a more widespread dissatisfaction with general party direction or philosophy, rather than opposition to a single issue, and may result in a decision to leave the party permanently. A recent study of party switching found that ideology is one of the three broad reasons for leaving a party and, more specifically, that MPs ‘who are driven by ideology prefer to affiliate with an ideologically close party that can help push their preferred policies’.[27] After crossing the floor on a number of occasions, both Bob Katter and Cory Bernardi resigned from their respective parties to sit as independents before forming their own parties.

Bernardi announced his resignation from the Liberal Party to the Senate in February 2017 saying:

... the respect for the values and principles that have served us well seem to have been set aside for expedient, self-serving, short-term ends. That approach has not served our nation well ...

... today I begin something new, built on enduring values and principles that have served our nation so well for so long.[28]

He expressed the hope that ‘those who are truly concerned for the future of our nation will choose to join me’.[29]

Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Penny Wong (ALP, SA) responded:

What we have seen today is extraordinary—a government senator leaving the government benches on ideological grounds and on grounds of conviction and philosophy.[30]

In 2001 Katter explained his decision to quit the Nationals:

The vast bulk of National Party people would be diametrically opposed to globalism or deregulation, privatisation and yet speech after speech would indicate, really, that our leadership is doing a salesman’s job for those principles.

There’s only a limit to how long you can live with that sort of gulf.[31]

Number of MPs who have crossed the floor

Despite the anxieties MPs may feel about crossing the floor (see above), approaching one quarter of all MPs who served in Parliament from 1950 to 2019 took that step.

Between 22 February 1950 (the first day of the 19th Parliament) and 11 April 2019 (the end of the 45th Parliament), 295 individual MPs crossed the floor. Of these, 122 were senators and 177 were members, including four who crossed the floor in both houses (John Gorton, Don Jessop, Allan Rocher and Grant Tambling).[32] This represents 22.7% of all 1,297 MPs who sat in Parliament during this period. The proportion of floor crossers from the House of Representatives (59.2%) compared to the Senate (40.8%) broadly reflects the relative size of these Chambers. A higher percentage of senators (27.5%) crossed the floor than members of the House of Representatives (20.7%).

Table 1: Number (%) of MPs who have crossed the floor, 1950– April 2019

^(a) This total includes four MPs who crossed the floor in both Chambers: John Gorton (LIB, Vic.), Don Jessop (LIB, SA), Allan Rocher (LIB, WA) and Grant Tambling (NP; from 1987 CLP, NT).

Floor crossings in the Senate and House of Representatives

Divisions in which MPs crossed the floor made up a very small percentage of all divisions.

There were 20,381 divisions in which an MP could have crossed the floor. Of these, 520 (2.6%) were identified as divisions in which MPs crossed the floor. The floor crossing divisions in each chamber are listed in Table 2.

Table 2: Number (%) of divisions in which MPs crossed the floor, 1950–April 2019

^(a) The Joint Sitting of Parliament occurred on 6 and 7 August 1974. This is the only Joint Sitting held pursuant to s. 57 of the Constitution (the two Houses do sit jointly on other occasions such as the opening of a new Parliament or an address by a visiting head of government).

Crossing the floor occurred much more frequently in the Senate than in the House of Representatives.

Of the total 520 floor crossing divisions, not only were there more than twice as many floor crossing divisions in the Senate (67.9%) as in the House of Representatives (31.9%), but the percentage of all divisions in the Senate involving floor crossings (3.4%) was also more than twice that in the House of Representatives (1.6%). Tables 1 and 2 show that, consistent with the previous study, the Senate, half the size of the lower House, continues to be the more rebellious Chamber both in terms of number of floor crossers and the percentage of floor crossing divisions.

Divisions with single and multiple floor crossers

In about half (51%) of all floor crossing divisions in both chambers only a single MP was involved. In approximately 83% of divisions up to four MPs were involved. These figures are broadly similar in both chambers (see Table 3).

Table 3: Divisions with single and multiple floor crossers

As noted above, in the period of the study the most prolific floor crossers were two Liberal Party senators (Reg Wright and Ian Wood). In half (140) of their combined 280 floor crossings they crossed the floor either alone (110 divisions) or together (30 divisions), accounting for 58.1% of divisions with one or two MPs and 27.0% of all divisions in which MPs crossed the floor.

Floor crossers by gender

There have been more male than female floor crossers, which is not surprising given the greater number of male MPs overall. However, although women comprised 16.3% of all MPs they only constituted 8.1% of the MPs who crossed the floor. Compared with the 2004 study, these statistics show an overall decline in dissent with 11.3% (previously 12.2%) of women MPs crossing the floor and 25.0% (previously 26.6%) of male MPs.

There were 12 divisions in which women crossed the floor alone and one division in which two women crossed the floor.[33] These 13 divisions accounted for 2.5% of the total floor crossing divisions.

Table 4: Number (%) of female and male floor crossers

The most frequent female floor crossers were Senators Kathy Martin (Sullivan) who crossed 20 times, Flo Bjelke-Petersen 18 times and Shirley Walters 14 times.[34] Table 5 below shows that these three women, whose careers collectively spanned the period 1974–2001, accounted for 52 or 44.4% of female floor crossings compared with the four current female MPs in the list, also all senators, who accounted for eight or 6.9% of female floor crossing divisions.

The most prolific floor crosser, Kathy Martin (Sullivan), served in both Houses but only crossed the floor in the Senate, always with a number of Liberal Party senators described as ‘a group of recognised dissidents within the parliamentary Liberal Party’.[35] In a speech marking 25 years in the Parliament, Martin (Sullivan) noted that when she was first elected, nearly 75 years after Federation, how few women had been elected to the parliament:

At the time that I was elected to parliament [1974] there had only ever been three women elected to the House of Representatives and seven to the Senate. So there were only 10 women in parliament before me.[36]

In 2018, the last full year of the 45th Parliament, women comprised 32.3% of the federal parliament: 38.2% in the Senate and 29.3% in the House of Representatives.[37]  

 Table 5: Female MPs who have crossed the floor

^(a) Floor crossings as a Liberal senator only.

Floor crossers and floor crossings by party

MPs from the Liberal Party and the Nationals have been much more likely to cross the floor than members of the ALP. Table 6 indicates that 185 individual Liberal Party MPs crossed the floor in 429 divisions at an average of 2.8 MPs per floor crossing division, and two Country Liberal Party members crossed the floor in five divisions at an average of one MP per floor crossing division. In comparison, 29 individual Labor Party MPs crossed the floor in 19 divisions at an average of 2.1 MPs per floor crossing division. The Nationals had 80 individual MPs cross the floor in 148 divisions at an average of 2.0 per floor crossing division. The Coalition accounted for 90.2% of the individual MPs who crossed the floor compared to Labor’s 9.8% (see column 2 in Table 6). The Coalition participated in 96.8% of floor crossing divisions compared to Labor’s 3.1% (see column 3 in Table 6). The average number of MPs in each floor crossing division across all parties was 2.5.

Table 6: Number (%) of floor crossers and floor crossing by party

^(a) Includes Senator Agnes Robertson (LIB; CP from 1955, WA) who crossed the floor as a member of the Liberal Party and the Country Party.
^(b) Exceeds the total number of floor crossing divisions of 520 because it includes divisions where MPs from more than one party crossed the floor. This includes six divisions in which both Labor and Coalition MPs crossed the floor (see table 7 below).
^(c) This figure is calculated by dividing the number of floor crossing events by the number of divisions. See the Glossary (p. 4) for a more detailed explanation.

Table 7 lists the six divisions in which Labor and Coalition MPs both crossed the floor. The crossing in the H of R on 29 May 1979 (in Table 7 below) is the only occasion members of both Labor and the Coalition have crossed the floor when their parties supported opposing sides in a division.

Table 7: Divisions in which Coalition and Labor MPs both crossed the floor

Floor crossings in government and opposition

Coalition MPs crossed the floor much more frequently when in government (428 divisions) than when in Opposition (79 divisions). Labor MPs crossed the floor in twice as many divisions when in Opposition (13) than when in government (6). For both parties the average number of MPs crossing the floor in each division was higher when in Opposition than when in Government. See Table 8 below.

Table 8: Floor crossings in government and opposition

^(a) These figures include the six divisions in which both Coalition and Labor MPs crossed the floor. See Table 7 above.
^(b) This figure is calculated by dividing the number of floor crossing events by the number of divisions. See the Glossary (p. 4) for a more detailed explanation.

The results for Coalition MPs are similar to the findings of a recent study of floor crossing in the UK Parliament, which found that floor crossers were loyal when their party was in opposition, but these same MPs were more likely to rebel when their party was in government.[44] The authors suggest that, because the government controls the legislative agenda, it is easier for MPs to rebel against their party in government on policy grounds, ‘allowing them to represent the interests of certain segments of their constituency’ while Opposition MPs find it difficult to vote against their party without appearing to support the policy prerogatives of the government.[45]

Labor Party floor crossers and floor crossings

The Labor party has had a total of 29 individual floor crossers spread across 19 floor crossing divisions. The small proportion of Labor Party floor crossers reflects the party’s particular emphasis on discipline (see Table 9 below).

Only five of Labor’s 13 individual leaders (prime minister and opposition leader) have had MPs from their party crossing the floor. All were Opposition Leaders at the time except for Bob Hawke who was Prime Minister when two MPs (Senator George Georges and Graeme Campbell MP) crossed the floor in six divisions. They were suspended from the party for their actions.

Opposition Leaders Bert Evatt and Gough Whitlam each had 13 individual MPs cross the floor in six and five divisions respectively. This accounted for 80.0% of Labor floor crossers. Opposition Leaders Bill Hayden and Kim Beazley only had one MP cross the floor (in one division each). Since Gough Whitlam stood down as Opposition Leader in December 1977, there have only been four individual Labor MPs who have crossed the floor (in eight divisions). The last Labor MP to cross the floor was Harry Quick (ALP, Tas.) on 29 November 2005. Although there was no division he asked that his name be recorded in Hansard as having voted against the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005 at the third reading stage.[46]

The highest number of Labor MPs crossing the floor in a single division occurred in the House of Representatives on 28 November 1968, when 11 ALP MPs (and eight Coalition MPs) crossed the floor. They voted against a motion to adjourn debate on the Tariff Board Annual Report. Both Government and Opposition Whips had agreed to adjourn the debate, although there had been some dissatisfaction expressed at the amount of time made available to discuss the report on the last sitting day of the year. Despite the floor crossing, the motion was passed 54-19.[47]

Table 9: Labor floor crossings under Labor Party Leaders

^(a) Hawke was also Opposition Leader from 3.2.82–11.3.83 but at a time when Parliament was not sitting.
^(b) 29 individual Labor MPs crossed the floor, with Bert James (Hunter, NSW) crossing under both Hayden and  Whitlam.
^(c) This figure is calculated by dividing the number of floor crossing events by the number of divisions. See the Glossary (p. 4) for a more detailed explanation.

Coalition floor crossers and floor crossings

Table 10 below shows that all Liberal Party leaders have experienced Coalition MPs crossing the floor, with Prime Ministers Robert Menzies and Malcolm Fraser recording the highest number of floor crossing divisions at 162 and 111 respectively. In Opposition, leaders Malcolm Fraser and Malcolm Turnbull experienced a relatively low number of floor crossing divisions (2 and 11 respectively) but the highest average number of Coalition MPs per floor crossing division (7 and 7.7 respectively).

Overall, the division in which the highest number of MPs crossed the floor was also the division in which the highest number of Coalition MPs crossed the floor. This occurred in the House of Representatives on 12 May 1955 when 25 Coalition MPs (21 Liberals and four Country Party MPs) supported Arthur Calwell’s (ALP, Vic.) motion of dissent from the ruling of the Speaker, Archie Cameron (LIB, SA). The result of the floor crossing was that Calwell’s motion was passed 61–15.[48]

The highest number of National Party MPs to cross the floor occurred in the House of Representatives on 15 November 1983 when 14 supported the second reading of the Labor Government’s Representation Bill 1983, which sought to increase the number of MPs in Parliament. The Bill passed the second reading stage 75-26.[49]

Table 10: Coalition floor crossings under Coalition leaders

^(a) John McEwen was also Prime Minister but at a time when Parliament was not sitting.
^(b) Includes MPs who crossed the floor under a number of leaders.
^(c) This figure is calculated by dividing the number of floor crossing events by the number of divisions. See the Glossary (p. 4) for a more detailed definition.

Floor crossers by state and territory

There was no significant difference between the states and territories as to the proportion of MPs who crossed the floor. Table 11 below shows that, within a margin of about 2%, the number of floor crossers from each state and territory broadly matches the number of federal seats in those jurisdictions. The states with the largest number of MPs (New South Wales and Victoria) have a lower proportion of floor crossers compared to their proportion of representatives. Queensland and Tasmania have a greater proportion of floor crossers than their proportion of MPs, while Western Australia has a slightly higher proportion of floor crossers than its proportion of representatives. South Australia, although a small state, aligns with the largest states in that it has a lower proportion of floor crossers compared to its proportion of representatives.

Table 11: Floor crossers by state and territory and the proportion of seats allocated

Most frequent floor crossers

Appendix 2 lists all senators and members who have crossed the floor and the number of times each MP crossed (see Tables 23 and 24).

As noted above, by far the most frequent floor crossers were Senator Reg Wright and Senator Ian Wood who crossed on 150 and 130 occasions respectively. Of the 295 MPs who crossed the floor, 31 (10.2%) crossed ten times or more (see Table 12 below). Senators occupy 21 of the top 31 places, with seven from the House of Representatives and two who crossed the floor in both houses. All but one of the top 10 floor crossers had finished their parliamentary careers by 1987. Only two MPs who were still serving at the completion of the study appear in the list, both Nationals: Senator John Williams (NSW) and Barnaby Joyce (NSW). Queensland and Tasmania each produced eight of the most frequent floor crossers followed by Western Australia with six.

On average, each of the 295 MPs crossed five times. As both Wright and Wood crossed more than three times as often as the next most frequent floor crosser, they tend to skew the statistics. Excluding them reveals that the average number of floor crossings for each MP drops to 4.1.

The third most frequent floor crosser, Liberal Senator Alan Missen, was elected to the Senate in 1974 and by 1982 was described as ‘indisputably the leading free spirit within the Liberal party.’[50] Missen crossed the floor on a range of issues often related to human rights and civil liberties. Like Reg Wright, Missen ‘vehemently repudiated’ portrayals of him as a rebel or maverick, in Missen’s case ‘even to the point of taking legal action’.[51] Many of Missen’s ‘group of progressive Liberals’, such as Senators Neville Bonner, Michael Townley, Don Jessop, Peter Rae, Kathy Martin, Robert Hill, David Hamer and Chris Puplick are included in Table 14 below.[52] Despite a steadfast commitment to liberal principles, Missen ‘was never included on any Liberal frontbench’.[53]

Table 12: Most frequent floor crossers with 10 or more crossings

Current MPs who have crossed the floor

Seventeen MPs who serve in the current (46th Parliament) crossed the floor 75 times during the period of the study (see table 13 below). The most frequent floor crossers who serve in the current Parliament are Barnaby Joyce (NP, NSW) who crossed the floor 28 times as a Queensland senator, and Bob Katter (formerly NP, now KAP, Qld) who crossed the floor as a Nationals member on nine occasions. Katter is the only current MP who has crossed the floor on a bill or chamber procedural issue (on five occasions).[54]

Table 13: Current MPs who crossed the floor to April 2019

^(a) Senator Mitch Fifield (LIB, Vic.) has not been included as prior to the release of this paper he resigned from the Senate (on 16 August 2019). During his parliamentary career he crossed the floor three times.

Subjects on which MPs crossed the floor

Table 14 below shows that floor crossings on issues classified as procedural, either in relation to chamber proceedings or to bills, is the largest category by subject, representing 134 (25.8%) of all floor crossing divisions.[55] As in the case of the 2004 study, taxation is still the next-largest subject for floor crossing divisions (50). In a change, however, the environment (34) is now the third major issue on which MPs crossed the floor, followed by primary industry issues (27). Subjects on which current MPs have crossed the floor are noted in table 13 above. Since the 2004 study there has been an increase in floor crossing on primary industry issues; and matters relating to the parliament and parliamentary entitlements are still issues causing dissent.

The subjects listed in table 14 reflect the wide range of issues dealt with by the federal parliament over the last seven decades. Some social or moral issues have been dealt with by one or more of the major parties granting their members a conscience vote. Sometimes, when this did not occur, MPs made the decision to cross the floor. This situation occurred in 2013, when the Liberal Party did not grant its MPs a conscience vote on same-sex marriage legislation. Senator Sue Boyce (LIB, Qld) crossed the floor, saying that ‘I know that my view on this topic differs somewhat from that of the coalition’.[56]

Table 14: Subjects on which MPs crossed the floor 1950–April 2019

During the 28 years Wright and Wood were members of the Parliament they crossed the floor on similar subjects, with the most important issue for both senators being bill or chamber procedural matters (see Table 15 below). This is consistent with the broader results in Table 14 above where 134 (25.8%) of all floor crossing divisions concerned procedural issues.

Table 15: Main subjects on which Wright and Wood crossed the floor 1950–1978

Table 16 below shows that, in the 79 floor crossing divisions since August 2004, the environment (11) and trade issues (11) have been the major subjects on which MPs have crossed the floor, followed by human rights issues (eight). The list includes one issue classified as bill or chamber procedural.

Table 16: Subjects on which MPs have crossed the floor August 2004–April 2019

The role of the Senate

In his valedictory speech in the Senate in 2013, when he was resigning to contest a seat in the House of Representatives, Barnaby Joyce reflected on the role of the Senate and expressed disappointment that it was no longer a states’ house:

... we are in a chamber that is supposed to express the nation's freedom, and if we do not have it, then who does have it? Where does that freedom reside? This is no longer, to be honest, a states' house, but it should be. I thought it would be a states' house but it is not. It is a house made up of party bodies. If it were a states' house we would sit as states and not as political parties, so there must be other virtues to this house.[57]

For Wright and Wood, state issues were often the reason for their floor crossing. Wright fought to defeat any measure that threatened the place of the Senate which, by extension, threatened the states’ sovereign rights. A determination to protect the states had been the prime motivation for his opposition to the various constitutional referenda of the 1940s, expressed through his membership of the Australian Constitutional League.[58] Similarly, Wood believed that the Senate existed to protect the states and operate as a house of review. The review function, he suggested, empowered it to alter, and even negate, government legislation.[59]

Wright believed that Senate authority should only be pressed to the point of compelling a government to drop a major measure or go to an election under special circumstances, mostly relating to issues of states’ rights. [60]

It has been suggested that Wright’s attempts to deal with issues on states’ lines ‘were not really successful, mainly because the issues involved were of marginal significance’.[61]

Wright and Wood: views on dissent

Although Wright and Wood held similar views on the role of the Senate, their approach to floor crossing was very different. In a newspaper interview Senator Wright took exception to being called a rebel or a defector:

To call me a rebel shows a purblind lack of understanding of what Parliament stands for. It is the duty of Ministers to support the Government; it is the duty of ordinary members to speak, not for the Government, but for the people. Anybody worth his salt as a Liberal would never surrender his vote.[62]

In the same interview Senator Wood described their different approaches to issues:

The difference between us is that Reg [Wright] is motivated by the highest parliamentary principles ... My attitude is that I try to make a common sense judgement—is it good for the country? Once I make a decision to vote against a measure, I stick.[63]

When Wright was asked why he so often dropped his opposition to a bill the second time round, he said:

The Senate is the House of Review and does not make or unmake Governments ... You press it once or twice then bring it to decision.[64]

He was described by journalist Alan Reid as ‘ever ready to wound but reluctant to slay’.[65]

This approach was evident in Wright’s decision to abstain from the ‘vital vote on the resubmitted second reading of the sales tax bill’ which increased sales tax on motor vehicles from 30% to 40%.[66] The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill (No 2) 1960 had previously been defeated at the second reading stage by a deadlocked Senate. Both Wright and Wood voted with the Opposition. On the morning the vote in the Senate was to be resubmitted a newspaper report suggested there could be preselection problems for Wright and Wood, stating that the Government had ‘reaffirmed ... its decision to use every procedure possible to have the bill passed by Parliament’ and that the two senators ‘faced the possibility of losing Liberal Party endorsement when they seek re-election. They were warned ... of this risk if they voted against the Government’.[67] Whether or not this report influenced the senators is not clear. In the Senate Wood reaffirmed his intention to oppose the bill in the resubmitted vote.[68] Wright explained his decision to abstain on the resubmitted vote, although he still opposed the increase in sales tax:

I belong to a party whose policy is to preserve this Senate as an independent, responsible house of review, but, as such, its authority should be pressed to the point of compelling a government to drop a major measure or to go for election only for very special reasons ...

This sales tax measure belongs to a class in which, in my view, the Government, supported by the House of Representatives, is entitled to dominate ...

My outlook is that a deliberative vote in the Senate demands a great sense of self discipline and an objective interpretation of the constitutional relations between the two Houses. The Senate is not a rubber stamp but, on the other hand, it is not a forum for irresponsible obstruction to legislation of an elected government. One must always be conscious of preserving a proper sense of the relationship of our authority to that of the House of Representatives.

I therefore feel that as the Government, with the support of the House of Representatives, is pressing its claim to have this measure passed, it is proper to withdraw my vote from the division.[69]

On another occasion, when the House of Representatives refused to accept a Senate amendment (moved by Wright) on the Land Tax Assessment Bill 1952, Wright said ‘it’s time for me to be silent’.[70] Senator Donald Grant (ALP, NSW) described him ‘as a 100 per cent opportunist’.[71]

An analysis of votes cast by Wright in the Senate against Liberal Governments from 1952 to 1967 suggested that Wright’s behaviour was not unusual as:

There are few cases in Australian politics ... in which the individual politician has been prepared to sacrifice himself for a matter of principle, unless he has the prior assurance that he will be looked after.[72]

In a 1969 interview Wright said he believed that his loyalty was owed more to the principles and policy of the party rather than to its leadership.[73] But he also claimed that:

Where the party is not in danger of destruction you are obliged to register your disapproval ... When the trumps were down there was never any vote of mine that put the Liberal Government in jeopardy.[74]

This view is consistent with findings from a survey on dissent in parliamentary democracies, which found that close votes result in fewer defections, with ‘the odds of an MP defecting being almost 80% lower in an extremely close vote than in a near-unanimous vote’.[75] A more recent example of this view was the action of George Christensen (NP, Qld), when he crossed the floor in 2017 on penalty rates. It was reported that he crossed the floor ‘once it was clear the government had the numbers to win the vote’.[76]

Divisions initiated by floor crossers

In most cases MPs who crossed the floor did not initiate the division concerned. Of the 295 MPs who crossed the floor only 39 (13.2%) moved or initiated the ‘formal proposals’ (motions) to be debated and decided by the relevant chamber.[77] This happened in 125 (24.0%) of the 520 floor crossing divisions. No MP initiated more than 40% of the divisions in which they crossed apart from Ian Wilson (LIB, SA), who initiated the only division in which he crossed, and De-Anne Kelly (NP, Qld) who initiated two of her three floor crossing divisions. The two highest-frequency floor crossers, Senators Wright and Wood, were very different in the number of divisions each initiated. Wright initiated 40% of the 150 divisions in which he crossed but Wood initiated only 2.3% of the 130 divisions in which he crossed.

Table 17: Divisions initiated by floor crossers

Floor crossing when the Government had a majority in the Senate

During the period of the study three Liberal Prime Ministers—Robert Menzies, Malcolm Fraser and John Howard—had a majority in the Senate on four occasions. Table 18 below shows that each prime minister experienced increased levels of floor crossings during these periods compared with the level of floor crossing when their governments did not control the Senate. The percentage of total floor crossing divisions in the Senate and the House of Representatives when the government had a majority in the Senate is approximately double those in the Senate when the government did not have control (6.0% and 2.9%) and slightly less in the House of Representatives (2.1% and 1.3%).

In an interview in June 2005, former Prime Minister Malcom Fraser was asked about criticism of his inaction during the period his Government had a majority in the Senate (13.12.1975 to 30.6.1981) and whether he could have used this majority to force through bigger changes. Fraser responded:

A lot of the things that people wished I’d forced through weren’t on the political agenda in those days and secondly something which I was not particularly concerned about—I had a number of senators who were independently minded. They were concerned about the role of the Senate, they were concerned about Senate enquiries, they had to be persuaded that the Government was right. People like Reg Wright from Tasmania or Alan Missen [Vic.] and they’re only two so technically there was a majority but it wasn’t an automatic majority.[78]

Although Fraser experienced high levels of floor crossing, the Coalition had workable majorities in the Senate from 1975 to June 1981.[79] As such, in votes on some issues, the actions of a number of independent-minded Liberal senators made this majority much less certain.[80]

Senator Austin Lewis (LIB, Vic.) provided an eyewitness account of behaviour in the party room during Fraser’s term as Prime Minister. Speaking during a condolence motion for his friend Ian Wood, Lewis, who did not approve of crossing the floor ‘very much’, described his first party room meeting in late 1976:

... three older gentlemen stood up and gave Malcom Fraser [then Prime Minister] one of the greatest serves I had ever heard about some issue that was before the meeting. I thought, ‘What on earth is going on here?’ The first fellow was Sir Reginald Wright; I did recognise him. The second fellow was Bill Wentworth [LIB, NSW]. The third person was a bloke I had never seen before, but it turned out to be Woody [Ian Wood, LIB, Qld]. They really did not mess around. [81]

Table 18: Floor crossings during periods of government majorities in the Senate

^(a) Includes 6 divisions in the Joint Sitting of Parliament on 6 and 7 August 1974.
^(b) Includes one floor crossing division in the Joint Sitting of Parliament.

Floor crossings by parliament and year

Table 21 (Appendix 1) lists the number of floor crossing divisions and floor crossings by parliament. Two Parliaments, the 39th and 40th, did not record any floor crossings.

The table supports research conducted by UK academic Philip Cowley which shows that:

Discontent builds up over time within a governing party, so governments born out of a period in opposition usually see lower levels of rebellion than those that have been returned for multiple terms.[82]

Although federal parliamentary terms are only a maximum of three years, it is evident that the number of floor crossings that occurred under the Menzies, Holt, Fraser and Howard Coalition governments generally increased as they were re-elected for multiple terms.

Table 22 (Appendix 1), floor crossing divisions and floor crossings by year, also shows that, in general, floor crossings declined in an election year and increased in the years following a general election. A recent academic study found that MPs were more likely to cross the floor the further away an election, and estimated that ‘each year ... removed from an election makes the odds of an MP defecting 4% greater’.[83]

Effect of floor crossing on the result of divisions

Floor crossing does not, generally, influence the outcome of a division but on some occasions floor crossers have been successful in obtaining the result (a motion passed or negatived) they desired. Floor crossing affected the result of floor crossing divisions in only 55 (10.6%) of cases. The vast majority of these occurred in the Senate: 50 (91.0%) compared to five (9.0%) in the House of Representatives. Senate divisions where floor crossers made a difference represented 14.2% of all Senate floor crossing divisions compared with 3.0% of House of Representatives divisions. The floor crossing divisions that made a difference in the House of Representatives all occurred between 1952 and 1955.

The last division in the Senate where crossing the floor made a difference involved then Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce crossing the floor in 2005 to vote with the Labor Opposition, the Australian Democrats, Australian Greens and Family First Party. He supported a Democrat amendment opposing schedule 1 (dealing with merger clearance and authorisations) of the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2005. The question put was that ‘schedule 1, as amended, be agreed to’. The vote was tied and the question was therefore negatived.[84] At the time the Age reported that the Government was ‘deeply worried because it saw Joyce as part of a trap laid for it’ and the tactics used as a ‘sting’ by Joyce and his opposition cohorts’.[85] The House of Representatives did not accept the amendment and, as a result, the final form of the Bill was not affected by Joyce’s floor crossing.

Both the 2004 and the current study considered the effect of crossing the floor on the final outcome of bills, amendments to bills, regulations and substantive motions. They did not include the final effect on procedural matters. The findings show that the symbolic impact of floor crossing is usually far greater than the practical effect. When the legislative process is followed to its conclusion the influence of floor crossers is seen only in the Senate and the results are the same in both studies.

As a direct result of floor crossing in the Senate:

• two bills became acts: Representation Bill 1983 and ACT Evidence (Temporary Provisions) Bill 1971
• 14 amendments supported or moved by floor crossers were included in bills that became acts
• four disallowance motions on regulations or ordinances supported or moved by floor crossers were passed and
• four motions relating to the establishment of Senate committees were passed.

No current members of parliament were involved in these divisions.

Threat to cross the floor

Although the number of floor crossing divisions has declined since 2004, individual MPs are still using threats to cross the floor to negotiate support for policy issues important to their constituents. On some occasions these threats achieve the desired result.

In late 2017, when Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was rejecting calls to establish a Royal Commission into the banking industry, media reports suggested that Nationals Senator Barry O’Sullivan (Qld) had gained sufficient numbers in the Senate to pass his private senator’s bill establishing a parliamentary commission of inquiry into the banking industry.[86]  In the House of Representatives, Nationals members George Christensen (Qld) and Llew O’Brien (Qld) indicated they were prepared to cross the floor to support the O’Sullivan bill, an act that would have led to a government defeat in the lower House.[87] The intense pressure on Llew O’Brien to withdraw his support for the O’Sullivan bill was described by journalist Adele Ferguson:

Turnbull was now in very real danger of being defeated in the lower house. By the time he called O’Brien on 27 November [2017], it was too late. ‘Malcolm pointed out how significant a move it was, particularly for a first-term MP’ ... But O’Brien had heard all the arguments about the risks to the economy, how it would undermine the country internationally and how expensive it would be.[88]

Ferguson also reported that ‘[Scott] Morrison [then Treasurer] and [Kelly] O’Dwyer [then Minister for Revenue and Financial Services] pulled out all stops to get O’Sullivan and O’Brien to change their minds’.[89] The media observed that:

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Treasurer Scott Morrison appear to have become hostages to rebel Nationals determined at all costs to secure a commission of inquiry into the banks.[90]

On 30 November 2017 Turnbull and Morrison announced the establishment of the Banking Royal Commission.[91]

Nationals member George Christensen (Qld) has threatened to cross the floor on a range of issues: the banking royal commission, penalty rates, energy policy (see Barnaby Joyce’s views on energy policy in the paragraph below), superannuation and payday lending.[92] He has reportedly called for the end of the Coalition and threatened to leave the Coalition if action wasn’t taken on a mandatory code of conduct for the sugar industry.[93] Christensen has crossed the floor on two occasions—on penalty rates and an amendment to the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011.

On some occasions an MP will reserve the option of crossing the floor to oppose a party position on condition that the party supports his/her issue. In August 2018 it was reported that Barnaby Joyce had stated that he would support the ‘Turnbull government’s National Energy Guarantee on condition that it creates a Plan B to cut electricity prices in case the NEG doesn’t work as promised’.[94] In early 2019 the Nationals indicated support for Labor amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 measures No. 5) Bill 2018.[95] The amendments dealt with small business access to justice. Although there was no division, ‘[a]ll Government senators, by leave, recorded their votes for the noes’, and the Morrison Government did not oppose the amendments when the Bill returned to the House of Representatives.[96] A journalist observed that:

The Liberals and Nationals frequently clash on questions of competition law, particularly measures to tackle the market power of banks, big energy companies and Australia’s grocery duopoly.[97]

Effect of floor crossing on an MP’s career

Commentators have noted how career limiting crossing the floor can be, with one journalist observing in 2001 that ‘[c]rossing the floor has never been a career enhancing move. Yet Liberal members did it regularly, particularly in the Senate’.[98] Other observers acknowledge that the act can bring ‘hero’ status to the floor crosser.[99] Former Liberal minister and senator Fred Chaney (WA) has suggested that ‘[c]rossing the floor is the stuff of which parliamentary heroes are made’ but Chaney also believed that the act was generally ‘not all that principled’. [100] Another former Coalition minister and senator, Nigel Scullion (CLP, NT) believed that ‘it’s not a career move ... but ... at the end of the day you’ve got to represent those people who put you there’.[101]

The recent Westminster study noted above suggested that:

 ‘[d]issent is not a strategy that MPs can employ with too much regularity. There are real costs associated with dissent for both the party and the MP. For the party, mass dissent is embarrassing. It can water down the party’s message, potentially costing it votes at election time. For governing parties, mass dissent can jeopardize the party’s legislative program and even potentially lead a government to collapse. For the dissenting MP, at the extreme, the party leadership could remove the whip, kicking the MP out of the parliamentary party, or revoke support at election time ... MPs must carefully weigh the benefits of dissent against the costs and only rebel when they are able to fully exploit the electoral advantages of taking a stand that contradicts their party's main message.[102] 

In the federal parliament, dissent has declined since the 2004 study, but the act of crossing the floor still does not appear to have adversely affected the careers of many floor crossers.[103] In the present study 12 of the 17 current MPs who have crossed the floor have become ministers or parliamentary secretaries.

A 2017 study of European parliamentary democracies considered the effect of floor crossing on MPs’ parliamentary careers. It found that in these democracies, ‘where committees are stronger’ than those in Westminster systems and influence on public policy can be achieved through committee service, ‘MPs are more concerned about maintaining their party in power and influencing legislation than they are about their individual incentives to cultivate a personal vote’.[104]

The authors suggested that this may be different in Westminster systems where ‘there the agenda is strongly centralised under the control of the government’ and ‘being a member of government is all-important for MPs who are policy oriented.’[105]

Some floor crossers, such as Senator Reg Wright who crossed 150 times and current MP Barnaby Joyce (28 times) would both go on to become ministers—in Joyce’s case leader of the Nationals and Deputy Prime Minister (DPM). Joyce told the Senate in 2013 that floor crossing had not destroyed his political career:

It would also have been better if we were not so reticent about people having a difference as to whether they cross the floor. In my time in this chamber I think I have done it 28 times. It has not destroyed my political career. I hope I was never self-indulgent or selfish in that. I hope it gave the Australian people at times a sense that there is independence of thought, you can express it and, if the issue is correct, you should do it. It is obligatory for you to do it.[106]

Other MPs have not been so fortunate. In a newspaper article in 2005, former Liberal minister Ian Macphee (Vic.) wrote about the fate of MPs who crossed the floor in 1988 to support the Hawke Government’s motion on a non-discriminatory immigration policy.[107] He said:

When most of us lost our party preselection the following year there was sufficient rage for Howard to lose his leadership. Later he acknowledged that his departure from the united immigration policy was wrong. That did not retrieve shattered careers.[108]

There were periods when Wright did not cross the floor: from February 1950 to March 1951 when he held the position of Government Whip in the Senate, and from February 1968 to December 1972 when he held the position of Minister for Works in the Gorton and McMahon Governments. When Prime Minister Gorton made Wright a minister his attitude to floor crossing changed:

[his] party loyalty was now impeccable, for he saw his first responsibility as being to the government rather than to the Senate. He ceased his floor crossings ... He remained a minister until the McMahon Government’s defeat in 1972. In 1973 he again started to cross the floor. ^[109]

More recently George Christensen, who held the positions of the Nationals party whip (17 October 2013 to 9 May 2016) and chief whip (20 June 2016 to 28 February 2017) was reported as saying that he had resigned from the position of chief whip because ‘his “constant outspokenness” meant ... [his] position was untenable’.[110] Like Wright, Christensen did not cross the floor during the periods he was whip.

Although he was never a minister, Ian Wood was a member of the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee for more than 28 years and for more than 25 of these years he was the Chair of the Committee. The Sydney Morning Herald reported in 1967 that, when offered a ministerial position, Wood had told Prime Minister Menzies ‘I don’t want a portfolio, so I don’t have to worry about you and you don’t have to worry about me’.[111]

Journalist Alan Reid described Wood as being beyond action from his party:

The establishment within the Federal Parliamentary Liberal party would have dearly liked to have disposed of Wood and to have taken away his Liberal preselection as a Queensland senator. But he was too strongly entrenched in his native state for them to take that risk; he would almost certainly have held his Senate position as an independent and without Liberal endorsement. So they left him alone.[112]

Effect of floor crossing on becoming party leader

Floor crossing by Liberal and Nationals MPs does not appear to have had an influence on their chances of being elected party leader by their parliamentary party. Table 19 below shows that four Liberal MPs crossed the floor before becoming prime minister, with two of these also crossing the floor after they ceased to be PM. One Liberal MP, Andrew Peacock (Vic.) became Opposition Leader after crossing the floor.[113] Seven National Party leaders crossed the floor before becoming party leader (of whom five became deputy Prime Minister), with one MP, Warren Truss (NP, Qld) crossing twice as leader of the Nationals. Two MPs, Doug Anthony (NP, NSW) and Mark Vaile (NP, NSW) also crossed after they ceased to be leader (see table 20 below).[114] No Labor Party leaders have crossed the floor before or after becoming leader.[115]

Table 19: Liberal MPs who have crossed the floor before or after their period as party leader

^(a) These leaders were also deputy Liberal leaders.   
^(b) Turnbull crossed the floor after his period as Opposition leader and before his term as PM.

Note: Prime Minister Tony Abbott (LIB, NSW) did not cross the floor but on 22 June 2009 abstained from voting in two divisions on the ‘alcopops’ legislation.

Table 20: National Party MPs who have crossed the floor before, during or after their period as party leader

^(a) These leaders were also deputy Nationals leaders.
^(b) McEwen was appointed Prime Minister 19.12.1967–10.1.1968 following Harold Holt’s death on 19.12.1967.
^(c) Truss crossed the floor when he was NP leader.

Attitude of party leaders and colleagues to floor crossing

A 2018 study of four European parliaments and the UK Parliament considered the use of disciplinary measures by party leaders to impose party unity. The study suggested that leaders use ‘various instruments’ encompassing ‘threats or promises’.[116]

Sometimes a party leader will signal publicly that there won’t be retaliation against floor crossers. On 2 December 2009 Liberal Senators Sue Boyce (Qld) and Judith Troeth (Vic.) voted with the Labor Government at the third reading stage of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and 10 related bills. The Bills were defeated.[117] Boyce had previously told the Senate that ‘I am acting in what I believe is good faith’.[118]  The media reported the new leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, as saying ‘I respect what senators Troeth and Boyce did. There will be no recriminations’.[119]

On another occasion, when Boyce crossed the floor on a same-sex marriage bill introduced by the Australian Greens, then Opposition Leader Abbott said he would not be counselling her and added because ‘[w]e are not a Stalinist party. We never have been, we never will be.’[120]

It was reported that, when the preselection of former Liberal minister and ‘dissident MP’ Judi Moylan (WA) was challenged in 2006, Prime Minister John Howard said:

I will be suggesting, if I'm asked, to the Liberal preselectors, say, in the electorate of Pearce [Moylan’s electorate], to take the range of contributions of Judi Moylan into account.

I have said I see no merit, and I will not be seeking within the ranks of the Liberal Party organisation, the exaction of any kind of vengeance. Nothing is achieved by that.[121]

While Moylan survived the challenge to her preselection, journalist Laura Tingle suggested that Howard:

... has not silenced those in the party who have savagely attacked her [Moylan], or threatened her preselection.

Equally, they will have noticed that those who did dare to dissent on asylum seekers have already been subjected to other forms of punishment. For example, none of those who dissented or abstained have taken their regular place in question time as askers of "Dorothy Dixer" questions, which give backbenchers an opportunity to get their mugs on television.[122]

Senior party members can also play a role when a new backbench MP threatens to vote against the party line on a critical issue. This situation occurred when Barnaby Joyce’s term as a newly elected senator began on 1 July 2005 and he announced that he was considering voting against the Coalition Government’s bills on the sale of Telstra. This move was interpreted by the media as a civil war erupting inside the Nationals, jeopardising John Howard’s Senate majority and his Government’s fourth-term agenda.[123] Senior Nationals MP and Whip in the Lower House, Ian Causley (NSW), reacted angrily to Joyce’s implied threats, saying that ‘[i]f he wants to cross the floor, then he doesn’t belong in the National Party much longer’.[124] The Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 2005 and related bills passed all stages in the Senate on 14 September 2005. Joyce voted with the Government in all divisions.[125]

Although the examples listed above suggest that Liberal Party leaders tolerate floor crossing this is not always the case. Menzies often had to deal with dissidents on his backbench but did not always tolerate their behaviour. In 1955, after a disagreement with William Wentworth (LIB, NSW) on the administration of civil defence Menzies called a special party meeting:

... where he appealed for unity and made it clear that if ... [Wentworth’s] motion was proceeded with and supported by the House, he would consider it as a vote of censure necessitating the resignation of his Government.[126]

Following the disagreement with Wentworth, Menzies held a press conference where he set out his view of dissent, a view similar to that of Wright’s:

The Government must be in charge of the business of the House ...

My position as Leader of a Government would be intolerable if I had to exist at the whim of one or two or five persons and I don’t propose to live so precariously as that.[127]

Reg Wright’s voting behaviour has been described as ‘a phenomenon which could not reoccur’ and, although it accommodated Wright’s floor crossing, the Liberal Party was warned to ‘take good care to see that it was never placed in such a position again’.[128]

Occasionally leaders have even—reportedly—felt the need to resort to physical pressure to restrain colleagues from crossing the floor. It was reported that when former federal MP Steele Hall (LIB, SA), was a young state SA backbencher, he backed the state Labor Government’s legislation for the introduction of a lottery. Former SA Liberal Premier Sir Thomas Playford tried to physically stop Hall from crossing the floor.[129]

In 2019, former Liberal senator and Cabinet minister, Amanda Vanstone (LIB, SA) said on ABC radio that she was ‘sorry the Liberal Party seems to have moved away from tolerating crossing the floor’.[130] Vanstone crossed the floor in 1986, in protest over the Labor Government’s decision to increase the sales tax on wine and the effect this move would have on the wine industry in South Australia.[131] She noted that then Opposition leader John Howard was ‘furious’ and there were attempts to stop her crossing the floor.[132] Although she described floor crossing as a ‘career limiting move’, Vanstone believed she ‘ended up in Cabinet’ because Howard thought ‘she’s tough enough to last’.[133]  

In 2016 the Nationals’ attitude to floor crossing was outlined by Barnaby Joyce, then Leader of the Party:

Within the National Party, more than any other party, we say, 'If you really wish to cross the floor, you can; if you really wish to express a different view, you can; you just have to put some cogency into your reasons as to why.'[134]

The decision to dissent usually rests solely with the MP but commentators have suggested that in some cases, although party leaders on the whole attempt to avoid rebellion, they ‘could coordinate rebellious acts’.[135] Circumstances similar to those described by the Westminster study occurred in the Senate in 2016 on a motion to disallow a Customs regulation that banned the importation of the Adler shotgun. Two Nationals backbenchers crossed the floor to support the motion (moved by Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm (NSW)), and two Nationals ministers and one backbencher reportedly abstained from the vote.[136] The motion was defeated. A newspaper report suggested that:

Sources said the decision by the Senators to cross the floor was announced to the Nationals party room meeting earlier on Monday morning. The move came after the Nationals suffered the biggest swing in political history to lose the heartland state seat of Orange in NSW to the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party.[137]

Influence of state and local party branches

A number of MPs have not suffered negative consequences from floor crossing due to the support of their state or local party branches. Fred Chaney observed that ‘I very seldom saw anyone cross the floor against the wishes of their endorsing body’.[138] David Hamer (LIB, Vic.), senator in the Fraser years, had a similar view:

None of the cross voters was penalised by loss of selection as the Liberal candidate in the next election ... in some cases their position was strengthened, for they were representing the views of the party organisations in their states, which were opposed to what the federal government was proposing ... Nor was any action taken by the parliamentary party. None of the cross voters was expelled or publicly criticised in the party room. Five of the cross voters later became ministers.[139]

Tony Crook (NP, WA) was backed by WA Nationals in his support for the Labor Government’s Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012 which aimed to complete the deregulation of the industry.[140] Most wheat farmers in WA also supported deregulation.[141] In fact the WA Nationals had pledged ‘to separate themselves from the Coalition unless some key undertakings were met’.[142]

In 1988 the Labor member for Kalgoorlie, Graeme Campbell (ALP, WA), crossed the floor to vote against the Hawke Government’s Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1988 which sought to introduce a gold tax. All WA’s gold mining areas were located in the electorate of Kalgoorlie and Campbell claimed he had no choice but to represent the views of his electorate.[143] But Campbell also had ‘a long history of disputes with his own side of politics’ on other issues.[144] In November 1995 the ALP withdrew his endorsement as a candidate for the next election. Campbell sat as an Independent until he was defeated at the 1998 election.

Some issues can cause complications for both major parties and/or members from particular jurisdictions. The location of a radioactive waste dump is one example. In March 2010, in the debate in the House of Representatives on the Labor Government’s National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010, Damien Hale (ALP, NT) advised the House that he would not vote for the bill which proposed a nuclear waste dump at Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory:

I have been on the public record as opposing a nuclear dump in the Northern Territory since my preselection and that will remain my position.[145]

The Bill passed the House of Representatives without division at the second or third reading stages. Hale did not ask that his name be recorded as opposing the Bill.[146] The Senate had not debated the Bill when the Parliament was dissolved in July 2010.

When the Bill was debated in the 43rd Parliament, Natasha Griggs (CLP, NT) had replaced Damien Hale as the member for Solomon, and she followed the views of NT constituents and crossed the floor to vote against the Bill at the second reading stage.[147] There was no division at the third reading stage and the Bill passed the House of Representatives.[148]

There can be risks in defying party instructions on how to vote on a particular issue. In 2001, the power of the CLP was evident when the party disendorsed former Northern Territory CLP Senator Grant Tambling for voting to impose restrictions on online gambling rather than crossing the floor as instructed by the CLP to vote against the Coalition government.[149]

Alternative ways of managing dissent

In 1994 Fred Chaney suggested a way of dealing with the strict party discipline operating in the Parliament. He proposed, in effect, that parties grant their members a conscience vote in certain circumstances:

... at least on technical and non-policy amendments to legislation, members should be allowed to exercise personal judgement, as they should when serving on parliamentary committees.[150]

This view is supported by the results in Table 14 above, which shows that the largest category of floor crossings by subject (some 25%) was that of procedural issues in relation to bills or chamber proceedings.

The UK Parliament has dealt with dissent in a different way and has ‘[a]n essential mechanism for ensuring that backbenchers attend and go through the correct division lobbies at important votes’ and party unity is maintained.[151] This is the document known as ‘the Whip’ which is circulated weekly by each party whip to their own members listing the business for the coming week and indicating its importance by the number of times the item is underlined – one, two or three times.[152] The meaning of the underlining is described in the following way:

Single line whips are a general guide to the party decision, but non-binding, and primarily for notification. Two-line whips, also known as double-line whips, are stricter instructions to attend and vote, are considerably more binding, and attendance is typically required.

Finally, three-line whips are the most extreme of their kind, typically only for key issues, such as second readings of important Bills and motions of no confidence. Breach of instruction to attend and vote typically has serious consequences. Ignoring or voting against a three-line whip is usually seen as a rebellion against the party, and could result in disciplinary action such as party suspension or expulsion.[153]

In recent times there have been substantial rebellions in the House of Commons, with the largest occurring on 16 January 2019 when 118 Conservative MPs voted against the then Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit withdrawal agreement. The Government was defeated by 432 to 202 votes, a majority of 230.[154]

The UK concept of ‘whipping’ was raised by Chris Bowen (ALP, NSW) as one of the ways to modernise the ALP and allow more independence for Labor MPs after the party’s election loss in 2013.[155] Bowen noted that the ALP has traditionally believed in strong caucus discipline but also suggested that, despite the Liberal Party’s official position of allowing MPs to cross the floor, the Party has similar levels of discipline and ‘the phenomenon of a member of parliament crossing the floor is particularly rare’.[156] Bowen believed this level of party discipline would be unacceptable in most comparable countries. He argues that the ALP needs ‘to show the community that Labor MPs can take up issues and argue them publicly with dedication and a degree of independence’.[157]

The UK’s ‘whipping’ method of voting still allows parliamentary parties to exercise strong control over rebellious MPs. In the House of Commons vote, on 3 September 2019, that resulted in Prime Minister Boris Johnson losing control of the parliamentary agenda, 21 Conservative MPs crossed the floor to vote with a cross-party alliance. This act resulted in the ‘removal of the whip’ from the 21 Conservative MPs.[158] This means that the MP is expelled from the party and sits as an independent but ‘can be brought back into the party fold if it decides to restore the whip’.[159] The removal of the whip is ‘one of the most serious disciplinary actions that can be taken against an MP by a party’.[160]

The chairman of the Conservative Party, James Cleverly MP, tweeted:

It is a very long-standing convention that an MP who votes to remove executive power from their own government and hand it to the opposition has the party whip removed.[161]

Conclusion

The study shows that dissent within the three major parties as measured by the extent of floor crossing is now more tightly controlled by all parties than it was in previous decades. This is very different to the situation in the UK House of Commons where ‘over the last 50 years [there] has been the rise of backbench dissent. MPs are increasingly willing to vote against their party line’.[162]

Although dissent has declined since the 2004 study, other results have not changed. The current results confirm that when a Coalition government holds a majority in the Senate the level of floor crossing increases and Coalition MPs are more likely to cross the floor in government than opposition. Since the 2004 study only one floor crossing has altered the outcome of a vote (in the Senate) but not to the final form of the bill concerned, and the effect of crossing the floor ‘still remains largely symbolic’.[163]

The basic options for the major parties in relation to floor crossing also have not changed: parties can either allow more independence for their MPs, or continue to support the position reportedly expressed by a former senior Nationals MP who said ‘he always kept dissent inside the party room and that a breakdown in the doctrine of majority rules left only a rabble’.[164]

Fred Chaney’s impression in 1994 was that ‘... individual stands are rarer now and ... there is a different style of person being elected to the Parliament’.[165] But there will always be circumstances where MPs feel they must follow their conscience and principles rather than accept party discipline. Liberal backbencher, Russell Broadbent (Vic.), who has crossed the floor on three occasions, described these situations:

This job can be challenging. I have been in a position where I have been opposed to my own party at different times. These issues are normally resolved in our party room; at other times they become more public. What are our responsibilities? I know I've got a responsibility to the people who put me in the place—the electors of Monash and my party ... And I have a responsibility also to the party room, which is quite separate from that again, which may have a different view to what my party members might decide is the right thing to do. And, over and above that, I have a responsibility to this parliament and the people of Australia.

Can I act every time on my conscience, my compassion and my heart over what my head wants to do? No, I can't. There are issues deserving consideration where the head must rule over the heart, because that's what the nation deserves ... More importantly, and over and above all those things, I offer my electorate, my party, my party room and the people of Australia my judgement on an issue ...[166]

Appendix 1: Floor crossings by parliament and year

Table 21: Floor crossing divisions and floor crossings for both chambers by parliament

 Shading indicates Parliaments where the government gained a majority in the Senate.

Table 22: Floor crossing divisions and floor crossings by year  

Shading indicates the years in which elections were held for the House of Representatives and half the Senate. Double dissolution election years are bolded.

^(a) Indicates a separate House of Representatives election
^(b) Indicates a separate half-Senate election

Appendix 2: Floor crossers

Table 23: Alphabetical list of floor crossers

Table 24: Floor crossers by number of floor crossings

Sources of biographical information

Additional biographical information on senators and members is available from the following sources:

The Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, online edn.

Australian Parliament House (APH), ParlInfo, biography (guided search), APH website.

The Biographical dictionary of the Australian Senate, online edn.

Australian dictionary of biography, online edn.

• References

  [1].      Members of the House of Representatives elected at the federal election held on 10 December 1949 took their seats when the 19th Parliament was opened on 22 February 1950 and in the Senate from 1 July 1950. The size of the Parliament increased at the 1949 election, from 36 to 60 seats in the Senate and from 75 to 123 seats in the House of Representatives. The 45th Parliament was prorogued on 11 April 2019 and the House of Representatives was dissolved on the same day.

  [2].      See House of Representatives, ‘Infosheet 14: Making decisions—debate and division’, House of Representatives Infosheets, August 2008. See also House of Representatives,‘Infosheet 24: Glossary of procedural terms’, House of Representatives Infosheets, July 2019.

  [3].      See the Nationals, ‘Our history’, the Nationals website.

  [4].      See D McKeown, R Lundie and G Baker, Crossing the floor in the Federal Parliament 1950–August 2004, Research note, 11, 2005-06, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 11 October 2005.

  [5].      Please note, that for the purposes of this paper the term ‘members of parliament’ refers to senators and members of the House of Representatives.

  [6].      A UK study of party dissent, published in 2018, suggested that strong party discipline is a core feature of Westminster parliamentary systems. See J Slapin, J Kirkland, J Lazzaro, P Leslie and T O’Grady, ‘Ideology, grandstanding, and strategic party disloyalty in the British Parliament’, American Political Science Review, v. 112(1), February 2018, p. 15.

  [7].      J Valder, Report of the committee of review: Facing the facts, Liberal Party of Australia, 30 September 1983, p. 102.

  [8].      Ibid.

  [9].      The Nationals, National Party of Australia federal constitution, September 2017, para 29.4.

  [10].    National Party of Australia, ‘Our history’, The Nationals website.

  [11].    Note: although ‘analyses of European parliamentary systems have revealed a high level of voting unity’, members of these parliaments also occasionally rebel against the party line. See S Bailer, ‘To use the whip or not: whether and when party group leaders use disciplinary measures to achieve voting unity’, International Political Science Review, 39(2), 1 March 2018, p. 164.

  [12].    The House of Representatives Chamber Research Office notes in the published list of the number of divisions by year that the list ‘[d]oes not include divisions with four or fewer Members on one side (standing order 127), as they are not officially counted as divisions’.

  [13].    For example, the paper includes floor crossings by the following MPs during their membership of a major party: Cory Bernardi (LIB, SA), George Cole (ALP, Tas.), Lucy Gichuhi (LIB, SA), Bob Katter (NP, Qld), Steve Martin (NP, Tas.) and Michael Townley (LIB, Tas.).

  [14].    A study published in 2017 referred to the ‘distinction between voting against the party line on the floor [crossing the floor] ... and abstaining from the vote’. The authors suggested that ‘[w]hile both involve an MP denying the party her vote, the effect is moderated in the case of abstention by the simultaneous denial of a vote against the MP’s party as well’. In short, ‘abstention allows the MP to register her disapproval at a lower cost’. See, D Willumsen and P Ohberg, ‘Toe the line, break the whip: explaining floor dissent in parliamentary democracies’, West European Politics, v.40(4), pp. 692–693.

  [15].    For more information on conscience votes in the federal Parliament see D McKeown and R Lundie, Free votes in Australian and some overseas parliaments, Current issues brief, 1, 2002–03, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2002  and D McKeown and R Lundie, Conscience votes during the Howard Government 1996–2007, Research paper, 20, 2008–09, Parliamentary Library Canberra, 2009.

  [16].    National Party of Australia, ‘Our history’, The Nationals website. For an example of split votes when the Nationals and the Liberal party were not in coalition, see the Schools Commission Bill 1973 and the States Grants (Schools) Bill 1973 in the Senate and House of Representatives on 12th and 13th December 1973 when Country Party MPs voted with the Whitlam Government. The bills were opposed by the Liberal Party.

  [17].    The effect of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, s. 11 is that sometimes members of parliament vote against a referendum bill, not because they oppose the questions being put to the people, but to be able to be involved in the preparation of the ‘No’ case. This artificial arrangement has not been classified as either a floor crossing or a conscience vote. See House of Representatives, House of Representatives Practice, 7th edition, 2018, ‘Constitution alteration’, footnote 169.

  [18].    Sources used also include Senate StatsNet and House of Representatives Statistics.

  [19].    J Warhurst, ‘How the PM shut down the internal dissenters’, Canberra Times, 24 June 2005, p. 15.

  [20].    B Juddery, ‘The Wright ideals’, Canberra Times, 2 April 1969, p. 12.

  [21].    J Moylan, Speech accepting Alan Missen award, Accountability round table integrity awards, Canberra, 11 December 2013.

  [22].    A Crook, ‘Parliamentary poet Judi Moylan on being a political terrorist’, Crikey, 28 October 2013.

  [23].    S Boyce, ‘Parliamentary representation: valedictories’, Senate, Debates, 18 June 2014, pp. 3307–3310.

  [24].    H Ewart, ‘A country road ­– the Nationals’, ABC1, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 9 December 2014, ep 3.

  [25].    R Boswell, ‘Environmental and Natural Resource Management Guidelines–Motion for disallowance’, Senate, Debates,
  1 December 2008, p. 7720.

  [26].    B Joyce, ‘Valedictory: retirement of the Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans’, Senate, Debates, 19 November 2009, p. 8418.

  [27].    M Radean, ‘Sometimes you cannot have it all: party switching and affiliation motivations as substitutes’, Party Politics, 25(2), March 2019, p. 140.

  [28].    C Bernardi, ‘Statements: Liberal Party of Australia’, Senate, Debates, 7 February 2017, p. 4. See also P Van Onselen, ‘Cory, rebel of the right’, Australian, 7 February 2017, p. 11.

  [29].    Ibid. Bernardi registered his party, Australian Conservatives (AC) on 12 April 2017 and deregistered the party on 25 June 2019. See Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), Australian Conservatives voluntary deregistration, AEC website. On 4 December 2019 Bernardi announced his intention to resign from the Senate. See C Bernardi, ‘Party representation: valedictory’, Senate, Debates, 4 December 2019, p. 96. He resigned from the Senate on 20 January 2020.

  [30].    P Wong, ‘Statements: Liberal Party of Australia’, Senate, Debates, 7 February 2017, p. 5.

  [31].    M McKew and F Kelly, ‘Bob Katter resigns from the National Party to stand as an Independent in the seat of Kennedy’, The 7.30 Report, Australian broadcasting Commission (ABC), 9 July 2001. See also S Strutt, ‘The maverick MP who turned lone ranger’, Australian Financial Review, 12 July 2001 and P Sheehan, ‘Katter’s shock exit to rebels’, Sydney Morning Herald, 7 July 2001. Katter registered his party, Katter’s Australian Party (KAP) on 27 September 2011. See Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), Current register of political parties, AEC website.

  [32].    Note: although Barnaby Joyce has served in both Houses during the period of the study, he has only crossed the floor in the Senate.

  [33].    Women who crossed the floor alone: Senators Flo Bjelke-Petersen (2 times), Sue Boyce (2), Judith Troeth (2) and Amanda Vanstone (1) and members Judi Moylan (2), Kay Hull (2) and Natasha Griggs (1). Senators Boyce and Troeth crossed together in one division.

  [34].    The Biographical dictionary of the Australian Senate notes that Kathy Martin (Sullivan) was ‘[k]’nown in the Senate as Kathy Martin, she continued under that name during her marriage to Jim Gray from 1975 to 1978. In 1983, Martin married Robert (Bob) Sullivan, a businessman and former US Marine, and from December 1984 she was known as Kathy Sullivan or Kathy Martin Sullivan’. She was elected to the House of Representatives on 1 December 1984. See A Jongsma, ‘Sullivan, Kathryn Jean Martin (1942–)’, The Biographical dictionary of the Australian Senate, Online edn.

  [35].    Ibid. Martin crossed the floor with the following  Liberal senators, who also appear in the list of most frequent floor crossers in table 12: Reg Wright eight times, Ian Wood (8), Alan Missen (7), Neville Bonner (17), Michael Townley (12), Don Jessop (13),
  Peter Rae (13), John Sim (9), Magnus Cormack (8), Robert Hill (7) and Shirley Walters (7).

  [36].    K [Martin] Sullivan, ‘Member for Moncrieff’, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 March 1999, p. 4573.

  [37].    A Hough, ‘Two parliamentary milestones for women: 75 years of women in the Commonwealth Parliament and Australia's 100th female senator‘, FlagPost weblog, 20 August 2018.      

  [38].    Australia, House of Representatives, ‘Adjournment moved’, Votes and Proceedings, HVP 61, 5 March 1952.

  [39].    Australia, Senate, ‘Berry fruits industry’, Journals, SJ 103, 21 October 1953.

  [40].    Australia, Senate, ‘Sugar Agreement Bill 1954’, Journals, SJ 8, 15 September 1954.

  [41].    Australia, Senate, ‘Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Bill 1955’, Journals, SJ 47, 9 June 1955.

  [42].    Australia, House of Representatives, ‘Tariff Board–annual report’, Votes and Proceedings, HVP 67, 28 November 1968.

  [43].    Australia, House of Representatives, ‘Customs Amendment Bill 1979’, Votes and Proceedings, HVP 104, 29 May 1979.

  [44].    J Slapin et al., ‘Ideology, grandstanding, and strategic party disloyalty in the British Parliament’, op. cit., p. 15.

  [45].    Ibid., p. 16.

  [46].    H Quick, ‘Third reading: Anti-Terrorism Bill (No 2) 2005’, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 November 2005, p. 107. Note: Quick is not recorded as opposing the third reading of the Bill in Votes and Proceedings for 29 November 2005.

  [47].    Australia, House of Representatives, ‘Tariff Board – annual report, 1967-68’, Votes and proceedings, HVP 67, 28 November 1968.

  [48].    Australia. House of Representatives, ‘Speaker's ruling-motion of dissent’, Votes and proceedings, HVP 51, 12 May 1955.

  [49].    Australia, House of Representatives, ‘Representation Bill 1983’, Votes and proceedings, HVP 41, 15 November 1983.

  [50].    A Hermann, Alan Missen: Liberal pilgrim, The Popular Press, Canberra, 1993, p. 159.

  [51].    G Browne, ‘Missen, Alan Joseph (1925–1986)’, The Biographical dictionary of the Australian Senate, Online edn.

  [52].    Hermann, op. cit., p. 162.

  [53].    Ibid., p. 185.

  [54].    At the time of writing there had been one floor crossing in the 46th parliament. Senator Susan McDonald (NP, Qld) voted with Australian Greens and Centre Alliance senators in favour of the motion ‘that the Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights—Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019 be disallowed’. The motion was defeated. See Australia, Senate, ‘Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights—Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019—Proposed disallowance’, Journals, SJ 23, 17 October 2019.

  [55].    Chamber and bill procedural issues include, for example, motions that the Senate or the House adjourn, motions that ‘the question be now put’ and motions that progress be reported at the committee stage of a bill. Votes at the second or third reading stage of a bill and on amendments moved at the committee stage of a bill are not included.

  [56].    S Boyce, ‘Second reading speech: Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013’, Senate, Debates, 20 June 2013, p. 3507. See also D McKeown, Chronology of same-sex marriage bills introduced into the federal parliament: a quick guide, Research paper, Parliamentary Library, 15 February 2018, pp. 9–10. Note: Coalition MPs were granted a conscience vote on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. This Bill passed both Houses and received Royal Assent on 8 December 2017.

  [57].    B Joyce, ‘Parliamentary representation: valedictory’, Senate, Debates, 26 June 2013, p. 4179.

  [58].    S Bennett, ‘‘Wright, Sir Reginald Charles (1905–1990)’, The Biographical dictionary of the Australian Senate, Online edn. Bennett notes that ‘[i]n October 1944 Wright was one of two Tasmanian delegates or observers from the Australian Constitutional League who attended the Canberra conference at which the establishment of the modern Liberal Party was initiated’. And as ‘a member of the conference’s ‘Committee on Organisation’, Wright was one of the seven Tasmanian delegates at the Albury conference in December, at which the new party was formally constituted’.

  [59].    R Sullivan, ‘Wood, Ian Alexander Christie (1901-1992)’, The Biographical dictionary of the Australian Senate, Online edn.

  [60].    R Wright, Second reading speech: Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill (No 2) 1960’, Senate, Debates, 7 December 1967, p. 2140.

  [61].    W Wright, ‘Senator Reginald Charles Wright (Tasmania): an analysis of the votes cast in the Senate against the Liberal Governments from 1952 to 1967’, Thesis, 1 August 1968, p. 94.

  [62].    P Bowers, ‘Don’t ever call the Senator a defector’, Sydney Morning Herald, 24 February 1967, p. 6.

  [63].    Ibid.

  [64].    Ibid.

  [65].    A Reid, The Gorton experiment, Shakespeare Head Press, Sydney, 1971, p. 39.

  [66].    ‘Sales-tax bill passed: Senator Wright fails to vote’, Sydney Morning Herald, 8 December 1960.

  [67].    ‘Government to force showdown on tax bill’, Canberra Times, 7 December 1960, p. 1.

  [68].    I Wood, ‘Second reading speech: Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill (No 2) 1960’, Senate, Debates, 7 December 1967, pp. 2146–2151.

  [69].    R Wright, ‘Second reading speech: Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill (No 2) 1960’, op. cit.

  [70].    R Wright, ‘Land Tax Assessment Bill 1952’, Senate, Debates, 4 June 1952, p. 1349.

  [71].    D Grant, ‘Land Tax Assessment Bill 1952’, Senate, Debates, 4 June 1952, p. 1355.

  [72].    W Wright, Thesis, op. cit., p. 8.

  [73].    B Juddery, “The Wright ideals’, op. cit.       

  [74].    Ibid.

  [75].    D Willumsen and P Ohberg, ‘Toe the line, break the whip: explaining floor dissent in parliamentary democracies’, op. cit., p. 702.

  [76].    P Matthewson, ‘George Christensen and the dark art of going ‘faux-rogue’ to woo voters’, Crikey, 21 June 2017. See also K Murphy, ‘George Christensen crosses floor to vote with Labor on penalty rates’, Guardian (Australia), 20 June 2017.

  [77].    House of Representatives ‘Infosheet 14: Making decisions—debate and division’, op. cit., states that ‘[w]ith a few exceptions all business, including the passage of legislation, is dealt with as a series of motions which are debated and decided one at a time.’

  [78].    F Kelly, ‘Interview with Malcolm Fraser’, RN Breakfast, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 29 June 2005.

  [79].    See ‘Party representation in Parliament’, Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, 45th parliament, 21 June 2017.

  [80].    See, for example floor crossings by Liberal senators Alan Missen, Neville Bonner, Michael Townley, Don Jessop, Peter Rae and Kathy Martin (Sullivan) in table 12.

  [81].    A Lewis, ‘Condolences – Ian Alexander Christie Wood’, Senate, Debates, 25 February 1992, p. 34.

  [82].    P Cowley, ‘What makes a Tory MP rebel – and what are their red lines on Brexit’, London School of Economics weblog, 3 July 2017.

  [83].    D Williamsen and P Ohberg, ‘Toe the line, break the whip: explaining floor dissent in parliamentary democracies’, op. cit.,
   p. 702 (see footnote 14).    

  [84].    Australia, Senate, ‘Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2005, Journals, SJ 51, 11 October 2005.

  [85].    M Grattan, ‘Coalition stung by the senator and his opposition cohorts’, Age, 13 October 2005, p. 9.

  [86].    P Coorey, ‘Fortnight that cornered PM’, Australian Financial Review, 1 December 2017, p.10. Note: O’Sullivan did not introduce his private senator’s bill.

  [87].    See, for example, M Grattan, ‘Turnbull backed against the wall by rebel nationals on bank inquiry’, The Conversation, 27 November 2017,  E Bagshaw, ‘Disgruntled MPs take lead for bank inquiry’, Sydney Morning Herald, 28 November 2017,
  p. 6 and A Tillett, ‘Nats to give Christensen leeway to cross the floor’, Australian Financial Review, 20 November 2017, p. 1.

  [88].    A Ferguson, Banking bad, HarperCollins Publishers Australia, Sydney, NSW, 2019, p. 200. For a description of the campaign by the Nationals for a Royal Commission into the banking industry see Banking bad, pp. 193–204 and D Atkins, ‘Interview with Adele Ferguson: insights into the Banking Royal Commission’, RN Big Ideas, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 21 August 2019.

  [89].    Ibid.

  [90].    M Grattan, ‘Turnbull backed against the wall by rebel nationals on bank inquiry’, op cit. See also P Coorey, ‘PM tries to head off bank probe’, Australian Financial Review, 30 November 2017, p. 1.

  [91].    M Turnbull (Prime Minister) and S Morrison (Treasurer), Royal Commission - banks and financial services, media release, 30 November 2017. It was also reported that the banks ‘asked for the inquiry’, M Kenny, ‘Government in name only as Turnbull changes tune’, Age, 1 December 2017, p. 5.

  [92].    See, for example, C Knaus, ‘The Liberal party is self-destructing over energy. Here's what you need to know’, Guardian (Australia), 20 August 2018, ‘Christensen won’t cross the floor’, Courier Mail, 5 December 2017, p. 6, J Walker, ‘Sugar hit: George won’t go over cliff for PM’, Weekend Australian, 4 March 2017, p. 1, P Karp, ‘George Christensen predicts Coalition will axe backpacker tax after threats to quit LNP’, Guardian (Australia), 18 September 2016 and Editorial, ‘Super solution must be Prime Minister’s priority’, Australian, 22 July 2016, p. 13.

  [93].    See, for example, M Knott, ‘Nats support Christensen as whip’, Canberra Times, 20 February, p. 5, M Connors ‘MP “sorry” for quit threat’, Courier Mail, 20 February 2017, p. 10 and E Bagshaw, ‘Time to end the Coalition: Christensen’, Sunday Canberra Times, 25 February 2018, p. 5.

  [94].    P Hartcher and L Bourke, ‘Joyce names his price for support’, Sydney Morning Herald, 13 August 2018, p. 5.

  [95].    P Karp, ‘Scott Morrison may face second parliamentary defeat – this time by the nationals’, Guardian Australia, 15 February 2019.  

  [96].    Australia, Senate, ‘Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 5) Bill 2018’, Journals, SJ 140, 14 February 2019.        

  [97].    P Karp, ‘Scott Morrison may face second parliamentary defeat – this time by Nationals’, Guardian (Australia), op. cit.

  [98].    M Steketee, ‘Wets freeze up in Howard’s way’, Australian, 17 October 2001.

  [99].    See, for example, L Oakes, ‘Power plays: doctor who-dunnit’, Bulletin with Newsweek, 23 August 2005, p. 12. In an article about Barnaby Joyce’s floor crossings, Oakes suggested that ‘... Liberal attacks raised his profile and added to his cult hero status’.

  [100]. F Chaney, ‘Parliament: our great expectations’, in Papers on Parliament, no. 23, Parliaments and constitutions under scrutiny, The Senate, Canberra, September 1994, p. 87.

  [101]. Quoted in W Snowdon, ‘Second reading speech: Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2005’, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 November 2005, p. 26.

  [102]. J Slapin et al.,‘Ideology, grandstanding, and strategic party disloyalty in the British Parliament’, op. cit. p. 17.

  [103]. For details of the preliminary study’s fate of floor crossers see McKeown, Lundie and Baker, Crossing the floor in the federal parliament 1950–August 2004, op. cit., p. 3.

  [104]. D Willumsen and P Ohberg, ‘Toe the line, break the whip: explaining floor dissent in parliamentary democracies’, op. cit., p. 705.

  [105]. Ibid., p. 706.

  [106]. B Joyce, ‘Adjournment’, Senate, Debates, 21 March 2013, p. 2399.

  [107]. See Australia, House of Representatives, ‘Immigration policy’, Votes and Proceedings, HVP 70, 25 August 1988 and Australia, Senate, ‘Immigration policy’, Journals, SJ 87, 25 August 1988.

  [108]. I Macphee, ‘Liberalism gets a hearing again’, Australian, 20 June 2005, p. 15.

  [109].  S Bennett, ‘Wright, Sir Reginald Charles (1905–1990)’, The Biographical dictionary of the Australian Senate, op. cit.

  [110]. J Massola and M Koziol, ‘Christensen resigns as Nats whip’, Canberra Times, 1 March 2017, p. 10. See also M Grattan, ‘Untrammelled Christensen may become even more outspoken’, The Conversation, 28 February 2017.

  [111]. P Bowers, 24 February 1967, op. cit.

  [112]. A Reid, The Gorton experiment, op. cit., pp. 335-6.

  [113]. Five Liberal deputy leaders crossed the floor: Eric Harrison, Harold Holt, William McMahon, John Gorton and Andrew Peacock.

  [114]. Thirteen Nationals deputy leaders crossed the floor: John McEwen, Charles Davidson, Charles Adermann, Doug Anthony, Ian Sinclair, Ralph Hunt, Bruce Lloyd, Mark Vaile, Warren Truss, Nigel Scullion, Barnaby Joyce, Fiona Nash and Bridget McKenzie.

  [115]. Deputy Labor leaders Jim Cairns (who was also Deputy Prime Minister 12.6.1974–2.7.1975) and Tom Uren crossed the floor in November 1968 to vote against a motion to adjourn debate on a Tariff Board annual report. The motion was passed. Labor MPs who crossed the floor in the division were not expelled from the party. See Australia, House of Representatives, ‘Tariff Board-Annual Report, 1967-68-Ministerial Statement-Motion To Take Note Of Paper’, Votes and Proceedings, HVP 67, 28 November 1968, pp. 340–341.

  [116]. S Bailer, ‘To use the whip or not: whether and when party group leaders use disciplinary measures to achieve voting unity’, op. cit., p. 163.

  [117]. Tony Abbott defeated Malcolm Turnbull for the Liberal Party leadership on 1 December 2009. The party room voted 55 to 26 to oppose the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills.

  [118]. S Boyce, ‘Third reading speech: Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2]’, Senate, Debates, 30 November 2009, p. 9595.

  [119]. R Viellaris, ‘Queensland senator crosses the floor’, Courier Mail, 3 December 2009, p. 11.

  [120]. L Wilson, ‘Lib crosses floor on same-sex’, Australian, 21 June 2013, p. 6.

  [121]. T Barrass, ‘Howard olive branch may rescue Moylan’, Australian, 16 August 2006, p. 9.

  [122]. L Tingle, ‘Coalition all at sea over politics of dissent’, Australian Financial Review, 18 August 2006, p. 83.

  [123]. G Mcmanus and J Frenkel, ‘Senior Nat turns on Joyce’, Courier Mail, 5 August 2005, p. 6.      

  [124]. D Humphries, ‘Joyce falls silent on Telstra privatisation’, Sydney Morning Herald, Herald, 6 August 2005, p. 9.    

  [125]. See Australia, Senate, ‘Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 2005 [and related bills]’, Journals, SJ 45, 14 September 2005.

  [126]. Quoted in G Starr, The Liberal Party of Australia: a documentary history, Drummond/Heinemann, Melbourne, 1980, pp. 171–72. See also W Wentworth, ‘Suspension of Standing Orders: Civil Defence Council Bill 1955’, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 June 1955, pp. 1358–60.

  [127]. Ibid., Starr, p.172.

  [128]. W Wright, Thesis, op. cit., p. 96.

  [129]. R Jory, ‘Sir Tom broke the mould and a bit of wind as well’, Adelaide Advertiser, 2 November 2013, p. 56.

  [130]. S Longstaff (chair), ‘Democracy is failing the people’, RN Big Ideas, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 24 October 2019.

  [131]. Australia, Senate, ‘Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1986’, Journals, SJ 130, 7 October 1986. The Coalition supported the ALP Bill.

  [132]. ‘Democracy is failing the people’, RN Big Ideas, ABC, op. cit.

  [133]. Ibid.

  [134]. B Joyce, ‘Second reading speech: Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016’, House of Representatives, Debates, 19 October 2016, p. 2575.

  [135]. J Slapin et al., ‘Ideology, grandstanding, and strategic party disloyalty in the British Parliament’, op. cit., Footnote 6, p. 17.

  [136]. In 2016 the NP had five senators. NP backbench senators Bridget McKenzie (Vic.) and John Williams (NSW) crossed the floor, NP senators who reportedly abstained: ministers Fiona Nash (NSW) and Matthew Canavan (Qld) and backbencher Barry O’Sullivan (Qld). CLP minister Senator Nigel Scullion (NT) also reportedly abstained. Australia, Senate, ‘Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment (Shotguns and Shotgun Magazines) Regulation—Proposed Disallowance’, Journals, SJ 16, 21 November 2016.

  [137]. L Bourke, ‘Nationals walk in late-night Senate revolt over Adler shotgun ban’, Sydney Morning Herald, 23 November 2016,
  p. 4.

  [138]. F Chaney, ‘Parliament: our great expectations’, op. cit.

  [139]. D Hamer, Can responsible government survive in Australia?, Second edn, Department of the Senate, Canberra, 2004, p. 203.

  [140]. M Grattan, ‘Washer calls for wheat bill deal’, Age, 8 October 2012, p. 6. Note: Crook sat as an Independent until 8 May 2012.

  [141]. Ibid.

  [142]. ‘Defeated Tuckey given a little credit’, Age, 23 August 2010, p. 8.

  [143]. C McCauley, ‘Campbell, the gold rebel, puts himself at the extreme centre’ Age, 12 November 1988.

  [144]. D Greenslees, ‘High noon for Labor's Wild West maverick’, Australian, 29 November 1995.

  [145]. D Hale, ‘Second reading speech: National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010’, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 March 2010, p. 2971.

  [146]. Note: Damien Hale is not included in the study’s floor crossing statistics.

  [147]. N Griggs, ‘Second reading speech: National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010’, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 February 2011, p. 690. See also N Adlam, ‘Griggs fights nuclear dump’, Northern Territory News, 22 February 2011, p. 4.

  [148]. Australia, House of Representatives, ‘National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010’, Votes and Proceedings, HVP 24, 22 February 2011. The Bill passed both Houses and received Royal Assent on 4 April 2012. See Parliament of Australia, ‘National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 homepage’, Australian Parliament website.

  [149]. ‘Dumped senator slams the party’, Australian, 17 September 2001. Tambling retired at the 2001 federal election. C Smith, ‘Tambling to retire from politics’, Northern Territory News, 18 September 2001.

  [150]. F Chaney, ‘Parliament: our great expectations’, op. cit., p. 87.

  [151]. J Walpole and R Kelly, The Whip’s office, Standard Note, SN02892, House of Commons Library, United Kingdom, 10 October 2008, p. 4. See also UK Parliament, ‘Whips’, UK Parliament website.

  [152]. Ibid.

  [153]. ‘The Whipping system’, The Parliamentary Review, 7 March 2018.

  [154]. ‘May’s Deal suffers the biggest Government defeat in modern Commons history’, Conservativehome blog, 16 January 2019.

  [155]. C Bowen, ‘Changes key to a rejuvenated Labor party’, Weekend Australian, 13 July 2013, p. 15.

  [156]. Ibid.

  [157]. Ibid.

  [158]. In late October the party whip was restored to 10 of the 21 MPs, who were now free to seek re-election as Conservatives. See P Walker, ‘Tories restore party whip to 10 MPs who sought to block no-deal Brexit’, Guardian, 29 October 2019.

  [159].  K Lyons, ‘Whips and votes and early polls: what is going on in UK politics?’, Guardian (Australia), 4 September 2019.

  [160]. Ibid.

  [161]. J Cleverly (@JamesCleverly), ‘It is a very long-standing convention that an MP who votes to remove executive power from their own government and hand it to the opposition has the party whip removed’, tweet, 3 September 2019.

  [162]. P Cowley, ‘What makes a Tory MP rebel–and what are their red lines on Brexit?’, op. cit.

  [163]. McKeown, Lundie and Baker, op. cit., p. 4.

  [164]. D Humphries, ‘Joyce falls silent on Telstra privatisation’, op. cit.

  [165]. F Chaney, ‘Parliament: our great expectations’, op. cit., p. 87.

  [166]. R Broadbent, ‘Adjournment: parliamentary conduct’, House of Representatives, Debates, 12 September 2019, p. 69.

• Licence

  © Commonwealth of Australia

  

  Creative Commons

  With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

  In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.

  To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

  Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.

• Disclaimer

  This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.

  For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament. All links are correct at the time of publication and are not subsequently updated.

  Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian at webmanager@aph.gov.au. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Entry Point for referral.

Related

Research Paper

The deterrence advantage of nuclear-powered submarines in a contested Indo-Pacific

By Karen Elphick

33 min read

FlagPost

International Women's Day 2025: Beijing plus 30 Marching Forward

By Dr Kate Laing

4 min read

FlagPost

New government supports for the ABC

By Nell Fraser

5 min read