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 > No paradigm shift in hung Parliament > Comments

No paradigm shift in hung Parliament : Comments

By Jo Page, published 2/9/2010

The prospect of a hung Parliament has revealed widespread ignorance about the fundamentals of our democracy.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
An exceptionally good article. Erudite with inside knowledge. Far better than anything I've read from the press gallery.

Of course Australians didn't vote for a hung parliament. It's a product of our unusual preference system. The result is a dog's breakfast where in a stoke of luck, three independents now have extraordinary power.

I am not reassured by this. I think this will destabilise the parliamentary system and we will be back at the polls in six months time.

The real loser in this will be Gillard. She know she has effectively led the ALP to a defeat, in large part by ousting the elected PM.

The author is quite right about Rudd's Question Time. It was a farce.
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 2 September 2010 10:58:03 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
Jo, Howard's Question Time was no better than Rudd's. The Dorothy Dix questions led to constant tirades from Costello and Howard.

The power being wielded by the Three Amigos was never intended by Australian voters. The trio need to remind themselves how many people voted for them compared with the electorate at large.

Hopefully, Julia will form the next Government and get on with making Australia a country that looks after its people and the environment rather than becoming a Coalition-created casino for the greedy and the rich.
Posted by David G, Thursday, 2 September 2010 12:24:45 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
Yes, an excellent article.

The erosion of the Australian parliamentary system actually began during the Hawke-Keating years, particularly in relation to the gutting of the once professional public service. Public servants are not and never were "independent", regardless of portfolio. Their first duty is to protect their minister, essentially by giving sound advice. If the minister rejects that advice, so be it, but he/she then accepts responsibility for the decisions that go wrong. That convention was abandoned during the Hawke-Keating years, with both the politicisation of the public service (including short term contracts for senior bureaucrats so that they can be dumped if the advice they give is not appreciated by the minister) and the acquisition of more power by ministers' larger (but no better informed) personal staffs.

In the present case, as Jo has pointed out, we have three poorly advised backbenchers who are deluding themselves that they are (a) entitled to special treatment and (b) qualified to determine the direction of government.

They will, in all likelihood, be conned and abandoned.
Posted by KenH, Thursday, 2 September 2010 1:39:24 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
The Parliament is said to be hung because no one party has a clear majority. The question being asked of the three country independents is whether they will 'support' the government.

But what could this possibly mean, other than that they would undertake to agree in advance to vote in favour of the motions to be proposed by the government for the next three years? If this were not so, there would be no question of requiring their support.

This shows how Parliament has degenerated under the party system into a rubber stamp for decisions taken elsewhere. It didn't begin under Hawke or Keating. It began in the nineteenth century with the formation of formal political parties with formal discipline; and has got steadily worse as each partisan government has incrementally biased the machinery in favour of its own incumbents.

The only reason stable government is thought to require the independents to undertake in advance to support the governing party, is specifically so that the Executive *cannot* be checked by the Parliament: a complete corruption of the constitution.

Thus it is not correct to say: "The primary role of the ordinary MP is to consider and debate legislation proposed by the Executive."

That may be their primary role as envisaged by the Constitution. It may be what their primary role *should* be. But it's not what their primary role is. They vote along party lines. Debate is redundant, phony, partisan, for show. All the relevant decisions are taken in private, in party meetings, often in backroom or preselection deals for marginal votes in marginal seats. Legislation is motivated by these minority and splinter-group interests. The electorate comes last.

How anyone can claim that this corrupt, unrepresentative, bullying, zero-sum method of decision-making represents the greater good of society is beyond me. It should be obvious that, barring force or fraud, any consensual decision of any group within society should have priority and be protected from this kind of divisive, anti-social railroading.
Posted by Jefferson, Thursday, 2 September 2010 2:01:25 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
There is no paradigm shift in this hung parliament per se. But there so easily could be...or could have been!

The sort of major political changes that we need are, or at least should be, central to the Greens’ philosophy. The Greens were in a wonderful position to make great things happen. But alas, it would appear that they have blown it.

Their set of points to which Labor has agreed in order to gain Green support are as weak as water compared to what is really needed.

So it would seem that the same old tired politic will continue, with us being hooked on continuous rapid growth, totally addicted to oil and not interested in developing a sustainable society.

See a general thread that I started yesterday which further explores this theme: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3936
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 2 September 2010 10:52:03 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
The issue the writer adressed came into unexpected focus with the dud costings of Abbott for his imagined surplus.
How did we get through an entire election campaign without the opposition being required to present policies and costings to the Australian people, up front and prior to any poll?
Yes, I realise labor was almost as opaque and probably would have been as disengenuous as Abbott, in the same position.
Which only strengthens the writer's underlying argument, actually.
Posted by paul walter, Friday, 3 September 2010 1:25:02 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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