The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > An election is not a rubber stamp for three years of legislation > Comments

An election is not a rubber stamp for three years of legislation : Comments

By Andrew Bartlett, published 10/9/2007

Labor's mandate? If Labor wins the election it wants their (yet to be drafted) workplace relations legislation passed by the Senate.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Senator Bartlett is spot on with his opening comments:

'Governments are fond of asserting their “mandate” to try to justify any action they take after an election, whether they campaigned on it or not. This usually ignores even basic matters like whether their parliamentary majority actually reflects a majority of the primary vote...'

In the case of the present Government it not only didn't have a mandate for WorkChoices, it failed to put this now-discredited policy to the people during the election campaign. This explains in part its deep unpopularity.

This example makes Bartlett's comment all the more apposite: '...it is ludicrous to suggest that the winner of a two-horse race has an automatic mandate to have whatever legislation they like passed without amendment by the Parliament.'

Kevin Rudd is foolish to warn the Senate (if indeed he did so) to immediately pass legislation flowing out of Labor’s industrial relations policy, should they win the election. A mandate can only be said to exist in the most general sense - specific mandates depend in large part on how much detail is provided before the election; and any proposals for improvement of draft legislation should be treated on their merits.

Moreover, I accept Bartlett's view that people may vote a government out and an opposition in for many different reasons. An election win no matter how decisive does not give carte blanche to all aspects of an incoming government's "mandate". Again, failure to understand this principle may well be another cause of the Howard Government's unpopularity.

Howard's cynical abuse of his Senate majority should never be repeated. Ironically this abuse is against the "mandate" - promise - that he would do no such thing.

On the other hand, minor parties holding the balance of power have no great track record of dealing with that power wisely. Think GST (especially on books), think Student unions.
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 10 September 2007 11:27:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sigh,

To Politically spam or Not To Politically spam.

Well for those who are interested, here's my take on this:

http://jamespurser.com.au/blog/My_Mandate_Is_Bigger_Than_Yours
Posted by James Purser, Monday, 10 September 2007 11:56:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This mandate claim by Julia Gillard only serves to re-enforce that Labor is no better than Liberal when it comes to respecting the democratic processes of our Senate. Don Chipps reference to politicians in both major parties as bastards has never seemed so true.

The Labor party's policy on Industrial Relations has great big holes in it and they are kidding themselves if they think every other senator is going to stand by and let it pass through unchallenged.

FrankGol.....how about you try putting the GST in perspective. Some Democrats senators chose to negotiate on the GST (Andrew Bartlett was not one of them by the way) and in doing so had GST removed from fresh food, everyday commonly used medicines, sunscreen, folate supplements, first-aid and life-saving courses etc, etc.

Around the same time the Democrats also managed to force hundreds and hundreds of amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. These amendments greatly strengthened the legislation. The Democrats irresponsible with the balance of power in the Senate? I think not.
Posted by Vicki Stocks, Monday, 10 September 2007 12:24:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
if oz had cir, if oz had direct election, if oz had open government, all those problems would disappear. and yet, oz doesn't want democracy, they just want to whinge. hard to understand, although imagining the chattering class as a perpetual adolescent captures the flavor.
Posted by DEMOS, Monday, 10 September 2007 12:56:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FrankGol,

So what's the problem with having a GST? In the end the Government is going to extract the taxes it thinks it needs in order to run the country. Given this, it may as well make sure that the taxes are as efficient to collect as possible. A GST, at least, does this; apart from a few exceptions, it's applied at one flat rate to goods and services and is more broadly applied than the piecemeal wholesale sales tax was. In the end, the real advantage of the GST is that it gradually gets rid of the piecemeal and haphazard nature of the tax system and evens out the tax burden overall. Surely this is a good outcome.

How does your comment square with some lefties (I'm not sure if you're one of them) who say that Governments should tax more for spending on things like infrastructure? They seem to think that continuing the progressive, tiered income tax regime is the answer. However, most Australians do not. Ergo, the GST is the political solution that fills this gap as far as raising revenue is concerned.
Posted by RobP, Monday, 10 September 2007 1:10:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, it is interesting how some ideas gain currency. The notion of mandate seems to be just one of these ideas, and I think that Andrew Bartlett is quit correct in suggesting that this notion is quite undemocratic. Some of the other posts touch on how well the Democrats have dealt with the responsibility of balance of power. I don't agree with everything the Democrats have done nor with all of their policies. Yet I do think that over the past three decades the Dems have been an important, independent and moderate voice of social conscience in the Australian parliament. I think tht it is important, both for the country and for parliamentary democracy, to have them back, holding the balance of power and as that voice of social conscience.

(Dr) Jim page
Posted by Dr James Page, Monday, 10 September 2007 1:14:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy