Conscience voting in the Australian federal parliament

This article examines the merits of conscience voting and the historical record of parties imposing discipline when matters of individual conscience are raised in the Australian federal parliament. It examines three examples of conscience voting in which legislators were freed from their normal obligation to vote as their party requires. These involved bills to do with euthanasia, research involving embryonic stem cells, and the abortion drug RU486 - all issues posing parliamentarians with difficult questions of personal morality and highlighting the contentious intersection between religion and politics. Voting records on these bills are examined in detail as is the interaction, once party discipline was removed, between the voting decision and residual party loyalty, gender and religious affiliation. Although parties allowed legislators to vote according to their conscience, party differences remained apparent. However, gender and religious variables did challenge majority party opinion. Conscience voting remains the exception rather than the rule in the Australian parliament. Party leaders on both sides prefer predictable outcomes and to retain executive control of the legislative process.