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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

I agree with the view that the Senate should carefully analyze any legislation which comes before it, assuming that the Labor Party wins, and that they quickly bring forward major changes to Industrial Relations legislation. Any proposed legislation needs to be carefully considered to ensure that it complies with policies which were put before the people for their consideration. If there is some departure between the relevant bill and the policy the Government should have good and cogent reasons for the departure, and those reasons would have to be carefully considered.
I also agree that the 'mandate' concept has been well and truly overworked by both major political parties over the years. However given the intense debate which has occurred in relation to industrial relations I think it is fair to put forward the view that this would be one topic in relation to which the Labor Party would be able to claim a 'mandate', if they win. However it should not be forgotten that the 'mandate' concept cuts both ways. Heaven forbids what will happen if the present Government is returned. It is almost too horrible to contemplate

As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I am on record that if Labour is elected it has a mandate in regard of seeking to abolish Workckoices AWA’s. However, it is a different issue when it comes to the Senate (regardless if labour were to control the Senate) as Senators are elected to represent the States. Something Andrew Bartlett also ought to keep in mind when voting for the Aboriginal invasion of recent! The Senate is obligated to scrutinise if the legislation proposed is in fact appropriate for the States they represent and if not they have a duty and obligation to pursue the legislation to be amended to be acceptable to the Senate.
This, is totally ignored currently by Liberal, National, Labour and also some Green and Australian Democrats senators!
Andrew may correctly point out that the Senate has its own position in the parliament but he seems to totally disregard this when unconstitutional legislation came along regarding Aboriginals because it happens to suit his liking’s.
As such, we need Andrew to be consistent and practice what he preaches, all the time!
As for the GST, at Sunday markets items are sold for the same prices as in supermarkets and other stores, just that the supermarkets and other stores are including GST and the markets sellers just keep that GST for themselves! Yet, neither the Taxation Department and/or Treasurer Peter Costello has done anything to deal with this issue. Meaning that those earning an honest income are having to make up the shortfall in taxes! Andrew, where are you........ to pursue this issue, finally?

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, I think you may have Senator Andrew Bartlett confused with somebody else. I'm not aware of any other sitting politician who has dedicated himself/herself to the plight of our indigenous friends in the same consistent long-term manner as Andrew Bartlett.

You talk of unconstitutional legislation which I can only guess is in reference to the recent intervention into the Northern Territory. Did you not realise that Andrew Bartlett opposed this legislation? I suggest you check out his blog and get your facts straight www.andrewbartlett.com/blog

Vicki Stocks as I recall it Andrew himself commented that the Federal Government had the legislative powers to amend their own legislation as it deemed fir and proper. This I make clear is not so. The Commonwealth of Australia when exercising powers within Subsection 51(xxvi) can only pass legislation for all people of the Aboriginal race, not just some of them.
As such, the Commonwealth cannot willy nilly amend its legislation to apply to some Aboriginals and not to others!
And, within Territorial sovereign rights it has no powers to deal with Aboriginals as a race because the States and Territories lost that power since the 27-5-1967 referendum approved the amendment of Subsection 51(xxvi).
To me it is with Andrew the pot calling the kettle black. Sure, I still value that he raises certain issues but in my view he does himself make also gross errors concerning constitutional powers and their limits. I am not the one who will ignore any abuse or misuse of constitutional powers and limitations and view it appropriate to expose the so to say double standards applied.
Considering the time Andrew is in the Senate and considering his involvement in committees I for one would rather have preferred a display of competence in constitutional powers and limitations. After all, if Andrew lacks in that then how can anyone rely upon what he does in the Parliament if he is unknown to what is constitutionally permissible or not?
I have no doubt that if I were to put every member of parliament through a test on constitutional powers and limitations, regardless if they are lawyers or not, then each and everyone will fail the test. And that is of concern as it means we have a political driven government rather then a constitutional driven government! Hence the unconstitutional invasion into Iraq, as an example.

I find myself in agreement with Andrew Bartlett's article.

Andrew, I would be intersted to know your thoughts on (now former) Labor Premier Beattie's style of Government in Queenlsand.

He is also a master at claiming mandates to do just about anything from an election which he won only because the Liberal National Opposition was judged to be more incompetent and more pro-business than his own Government.

The obvious example is unpopular forced council amalgamations done at the behest of the Property Council of Australia, which were not put to the electors at the last state election in 2006.

Brains trust debate:
I wonder if the Democrats had not so admirably and illogically
placed a GST on books--we may have discovered what every nation in
Europe already knows--the only result from compulsory medication
of a whole population over an extended period simply creates what is entirely missing in Australia--ie intelligence.
[see decline of japanese iq by 3-6 points in a single decade as an indicator what brilliant minds we allow to bamboozle us.

http://www.fluoridation.com

I imagine that the Fourteen Nobel Prize winners work probably need to disclose their citation methodology[sic]...

Politics by merit,not consensus--thanks.

Many argue that the Constitution is outdated, etc, but as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I have extensively researched constitutional provisions and the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution and while I may have certain reservations about the Constitution in overall it still proves to be very workable. Just that politicians want more and more power and devise any system to get it, regardless how unconstitutional it is. After all, to challenge that conduct is meaning you face huge legal cost while the abusers use taxpayers monies to fund their abuses.
As Andrew is well aware of my past correspondences, I pursue the creation of an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN, a constitutional council, that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to constitutional powers and limitations. Now, if this was in place then many of Andrews own complaints would likely no longer eventuate because there be finally a source of appropriate information what is or isn’t constitutionally permissible.
Yet, I for one am not aware that Andrew, despite his various complaints, has in any way supported the creation of the OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN.
Hence it can be assumed that he rather have that the Federal Government legislate, no matter how unconstitutionally it might be, and then leave it up to the ordinary Australian, regardless how poor they might be, to fight huge legal battles, if they somehow can afford this, to try to get JUSTICE!
“KEEP THE BASTARD HONEST” hardly appears to be the Australian Democrats real intention where they refuse/ignore to pursue this constitutional council to be created to seek to avoid abuses and misuses of power!

Senator,
It is incumbent on the Senate to review legislation, and in some cases amend, however it is not in the Senate's brief, to reject the legislation of a duly democratically elected government of any persuasion.

SHONGA,

See thats where you are wrong. The Senates job is to represent the states. No where in the constitution does it say "The Senate shall approve all legislation put forward by the House of Reps".

I would also point out that the Senate is as democratically elected as the House of Reps.

The Senate is actually the House of review. It is to represent the electors State interest even so the same electors also vote for the Federal representatives in the House of Representatives. As such, every elector votes for a Senate member (for State representation) and a House of Representative member.
Legislation proposed by the Federal government in the house of Representative may be perfectly reasonable for the government but Senators may reject the entire legislation on the ground it is making inroads into State legislative powers in an unconstitutional manner. It is for this purpose that the Senate actually was created, to ensure that the Bill (proposed legislation) is acceptable to the State representatives in the Senate!
As such, the Federal government could claim to have a mandate for something they pursued in the election and the senators could argue that they were elected to oppose this kind of legislation and as such also have a mandate.
Regretfully far to often Senators sell their soul, so to say, to be able to become a Minister even so the Framers of the Constitution intended that the “Government of the Day” would be only those who were elected to the House of Representatives! There is a conflict of interest for a Senator to represent the State and its interest and then acting as a Minister to represent those of the House of Representatives! Section 64 of the Constitution does allow however a non-elected Member of parliament for up to 3-months to be a Minister.