<< In the end, all that matters is who can secure enough support to command a majority in Parliament. >>

<< In a hung parliament, everything will come down to the support of the independents and the Greens MP; they will have the power to make a government, and to break it. >>

George, this all sounds eminently sensible, except for one thing; the independents by their very nature should not be supporting either major party. They should be, er… independent.

Once they support one or other party their very independence and integrity is brought seriously into question, is it not?

The same should apply to the Greens.

For the independents and Greens to align themselves with one or other party on certain issues would be fine. But a general alignment for the purposes of forming a government really does seem dodgy.

However, this is just one more dodgy aspect of our political machinations to add to a long list!

So, what’s to stop the independents and Green from putting their heads together and supporting the party that they less agree with?

This party would then form government. The independents and opposition would oppose just about everything other than supply bills and the government would be booted out at the next election because of lack of action on anything!

Could it be in the interests of the independents and Green to actually do this – to support the party that they have the least in common with? ( :>/

Thank you for a clear and concise article on the current situation.

As they say – in a democracy - you get the government you deserve.

In the Lib’s case they just carped on against everything and stood for nothing. In the ALP’s case, thanks to the most inarticulate and confused campaign ever, appeared too scared to own any policy as they dismally failed to communicate on any level. For example, they failed to communicate why broadband is the nation building technology of this new century, (like everyone who votes is Gen Y, tweets every third second and lives for face book). The whole situation gave the Greens the opportunity to use the policy gap between both major parties to leap into the Senate.

The Media turned the election into a soap opera – never giving the election policies the scrutiny they deserved and the tied and apathetic voters just sucked it up.

Interesting times.........

Why not return to the law, that being the Constitution, to resolve this issue.

It is the conventions that have caused the difficulty.

The constitution indicates that the elected parliamentarians elect a speaker. It is the speaker's job to proceed from there. A natural course of action could be for parliament to elect a leader, who then forms a Party and so on. If no leader is elected then an election will need to be called.

Of course, nothing can be done until the counting is concluded.

There is nothing in the constitution about Prime Ministers, Swearing in Ministers or Parties and thus "hung" parliaments cannot happen.

So at this stage the Governor General is not involved at all - let's forget conventions.

Conventions do not replace the law.

Am I wrong in all this?

All in all, a commendably brief re-statement of the obvious, or at least the widely-understood, as to the conventions within which our Constitutional Monarchy operates.

I do note the seeming prominence of, if not the emphasis upon, that convention whereby the Governor-General acts on the advice of the caretaker Prime Minister, in the concluding sentence of the second paragraph of the article. I note it because I sense the possible emergence of a circumstance that may indicate that an exception to the following of this convention could be justified.

A news item in The Australian indicates that the Governor-General is seeking advice with respect to a perceivable conflict of interest that might be seen to arise from the relationship as son-in-law to Her Excellency of Bill Shorten, a believed major player in the events which brought the present, now caretaker, Prime Minister to office. See the news item here: http://bit.ly/9b2XvD It is to be noted that the OLO Article author is quoted in that news item.

George Williams, speaking with respect to the Governor-General's possible stepping aside, said:

"That could well be a case where the perception
might become untenable, and it would be wise
for the decision to made by someone else"

The speculation in The Australian is that the senior State Governor (of NSW), Professor Bashir, might step in.

I suggest that because the caretaker Prime Minister, too, may be perceived to be in a conflict of interest situation with respect to Bill Shorten, and that such potential conflict may influence the very advice she might give the Governor-General that would even permit Professor Bashir to step in, the provisions of Section 126 of the Constitution are the ones that should come into play.

The Governor-General acting alone could request Her Majesty to authorize the Governor-General to appoint General Michael Jeffery, the former Governor-General, to be her Deputy and exercise her full functions as Deputy Governor-General, until all question of conflict of interest has passed.

Australia trusts Mike Jeffery.

For our next GG we need to ensure she/he have no family, friends or relations. It might even be better if they have belonged to no church, union or political party. Is this what the media and mining magnates are hinting at? Maybe we should let the Queen take a direct role. What are the views of the Royalist now, as they say the system is not broken? Now if the GG came from the coalition side of politics, there would be no problems

Well said, Flo.

A minority government offers a superb opportunity for change, especially through conscience votes that would not have been possible where there is a clear majority. One only has to look back to the days of the Howard government to realise how many opportunities for change through community consensus were squandered.

Governments with solid majorities are ruled by small executives with even government backbenchers missing out on opportunities to put their oar into the development and implementation of policy.

Politicians fret about minority governments because they are always required to be on their toes and it can be difficult to get that pair to duck off for the assignation or trip somewhere.

Is the government obliged to implement all its election promises? Well, no more than usual and a minority government can do much better by easing its way out of the election pork barrelling and by moderating policies that were aimed at pleasing the few percents.

The electorate has the heaven-sent opportunity of a minority government to see that all of the best players and best ideas are not the preserve of one party. It is incumbent upon the electorate to make it known to parties and independents that it expects the whole of the parliament to contribute to good government.

"For our next GG we need to ensure she/he have no family, friends or relations. It might even be better if they have belonged to no church, union or political party."

Good thinking. How about Marvin the Paranoid Android?

No, it is not whichever party can secure a majority of 76 votes; it is whichever speaker and government can gain a majority of 76 votes. Gillard asked the public to pick which "party" should rule, and the people have said nether.

Why not hold the MPs to their word? They all claim they want to help Australia, not each other's pockets; so can't the children play together for once? We have more than twice the number of MPs needed for the portfolios, so why not select the best suited (irrespective of party) for each portfolio and also assign their 'party' opposite as a political consultant inside the ministry under a secrets-act or the like? If the opposing political consult has a brilliant better idea then he should discuss it with the Minister, and the Minister would know that his 'consulting' MP would be able to prompt very meaningful questions if needed at Question time. After a few months our MPs might actually start working for the benefit of our nation instead of their parties.

I'm hearing a lot of crazy responses to the current political situation.Fortunately,this article is not one of them.

This situation will be sorted out in the next few weeks according to the constitution,precendent and convention.Whether the result will last,who knows.The protagonists can only act in a manner which they see as practical at this time.We need to let them get on with it.There will be plenty of opportunity for comment later.

How's this ?

* Julia Gillard is prime minister until there is a vote of no confidence in her government on the floor of the HoR, then election.

* no party or independent MP wants to go to another election soon unless

(a) they/he thinks they can improve their situation out of one.

* Gillard and her government will not propose any new legislation which may threaten this status quo, at least not until (a).

* frantic horse-trading may go on behind the scenes, in and out of each others' offices, but each side (Labor, Liberals, independents, National and Greens will seek support from each other for particular legislation which they think might get the nod. Independents and the National guy will be in the box seat. Yes, not very stable, very incremental, but it can work.

* so there is not really any need for any formal coalition arrangement: until someone rocks the boat, and with sweeteners offered here and there, this ad hoc arrangement can go on for some time, until (a).

It worked in SA, a deal between Labor and the National Party MP, and it's working (?) in Tasmania. It's just that we will have to take some time to get used to the novel idea of a four- or five-sided system, rather than the 'usual' two-sided one.

Joe

I guess Flo a homeless person with alzheimers would be well qualify for the job by your description.
joke

Not homeless but close on the rest. Problem is that I have a family. I am a great grandmother. Too many in-laws.

.

Well, it looks like ...

.

a majority of Australians does not want either Gillard or Abbott.

Not many want the Greens or the Independents either.

Both the current prime minister and the leader of the opposition are internal appointments of their respective political parties.

Nobody asked us if we agreed they should hold their current positions, or govern the country and represent our interests.

Having finally faced the electorate, it now appears that neither of them is willing to accept that most Australians rejected them.

Both have chosen to ignore the result of the popular vote and are seeking to "purchase" votes which designated other candidates, again, without consulting the Australians who designated those candidates.

In my view, candidates at an election do not "own" votes and have no mandate from the electors who designated them to "sell" the designations to the highest bidder.

As Churchill rightly observed, there is no perfect democracy but it would be a definite improvement if we were to adopt a constitutional republic, instead of our current constitutional monarchy, and elect an Australian citizen as president, by universal suffrage, in order to put a cap on the eternal and, apparently, inevitable, power struggle associated with party politics.

There is no "vote market" in a presidential election. Each elector's vote stays where he or she puts it and does not get sold over his or her head to somebody he or she does not want ... at any price!

The political power in the presidential suite would certainly straighten out the ideas of all those aspiring tap and toe dancers in the political parties that infest the basement of our democracy, with their incessant intriques and conspiracies which may suit them but are completely contrary to our vote.

Continued ...

.

.

Continued ...

.

Need I add that in a democracy such as Australia, any political alliance established with the objective of forming a national government to rule the country, should clearly announce its formation and political platform to the electorate before the elections take place, not after the elections are over and the results published.

It is a basic principle of democracy thet the electorate should know exactly who and what it is voting for. Its votes should not be misappropriated and used to elect somebody who was not specifically designated on the ballot forms, nor as a booster to political power of some party that did not have the voters' preference.

Each ballot is the personal expression of the democratic choice of each elector. It is not a simple commodity that can be traded among political parties long after it has been cast.

"A priori" alliances are democratic. "A posteriori" alliances are not democratic. They are autocratic.

If the political parties are not satisfied with their scores and want to come back for a "double dip" or a "second helping" after the party is over, they should ask the electorate if it does not mind if they help themselves to whatever scraps are left over in the voters' plates that nobody else wants.

.

George Williams could you just learn about what the constitution is about before writing about it? The statement “they include that the governor-general acts on the advise of the caretaker prime minister” is in my view a constitutional nonsense! It amazes me that with my crummy English, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, I seem to be the only person who really understand/comprehend what is constitutionally appropriate, see my blog at http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati for a set out of the relevant constitutional matters regarding this issue of commissioning a person to form a government. Who will form the next government has nothing to do with the majority in the Parliament as it is a prerogative power exercised by the Governor-General and so WITHOUT the advise of the Prime Minister!
Neither Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott or for that anyone else elected for the House of Representatives are Members of Parliament until after the return of the writs when they take up a seat! And, back in 1901 E. Barton was commissioned to form a government without any Parliament existing and was subsequently elected. Don’t confuse the role of a government with that of the Parliament, and I for one having campaigned for long for electors to vote for INDEPENDENTS to bring about a lesson to the major political parties am satisfied they are getting their message.
On 19 July 2006 I defeated comprehensively the Commonwealth that compulsory voting is unconstitutional and while I do not oppose voting I oppose any form of compulsory voting and the Court upheld my cases! This my blog also displays. Voting is our constitutional rights but in the way we desire and not hijacked by politicians dictating how we should vote! See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com. As for the Greens as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view that some of their alleged issues are a constitutional nonsense. Do I need to say more?