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 > A Government frustrated > Comments

A Government frustrated : Comments

By Klaas Woldring, published 6/4/2009

The power of the Senate has thwarted both representative democracy and efficient government in Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Mandate? Reform? Both words are overused and misapplied. We have a modified two party system, and the Australian people made the wise judgement that it is time for a change as Howard is past it and the Coalition has run out of puff. The Rudd government must justify its proposed changes to parliament and the people of Australia. The only mandate it has is the opportunity to present those proposed changes to parliament and the people of Australia as the elected government.

Reform used to mean the improvement of the existing system. Now politicians apply the word to any proposed changes. Since the meaning of words changes through usage reform may or may not mean improvement.

I would like to see the house become a genuinely representative body. That means to me, that parliamentarians, except for specific issues in their party platforms on which they ran, would be free to put the wishes of their constituents ahead of the wishes of the party room. They should also be free to consider the promptings of their conscience and their view of the good of Australia ahead of the wishes of the party room.

As the house of review I think the Senate is a marvellous body. It has the capacity to block legislation because viewpoints overlooked by the major parties are there. That, to my way of thinking, is exactly as things should be. The government may be frustrated, but that may simply be the consequence of democracy.
Posted by david f, Monday, 6 April 2009 10:54:02 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
Since the powers of the States have largely been assumed by the Commonwealth, the Senate no longer operates as a forum for State review as the Constitution intends.

The States cannot legitimately review powers they don't have.

Maintaining the Senate in its present form contavenes the intention of the Constitution.

The opportunity is available to achieve equitable governance with a constitutional amendement to enact law by agreement between a women's Senate and a men's House of Representatives.

Election to these legislatures would conform with whatever electoral process is agreed to by a women's caucus and a men's caucus at a constitution convention.
Posted by whistler, Monday, 6 April 2009 11:00:31 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
Suspect the idea of creating five new states has more merit in terms of widening representation.

Which five new states ?

Newcastle-Sydney-Woolongong
Geelong-Melbourne
Adelaide
Perth
Brisbane-GoldCoast

.
Posted by polpak, Monday, 6 April 2009 11:23:49 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
Where was Klaas Woldring when the Senate was frustrating the Howard Government?
The Senate is part of our system of government, so get used to it.
DIS
Posted by DIS, Monday, 6 April 2009 1:37:04 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 DIS, he's about 10 years late with this lot.

Then he has the hide to suggest we should listen to the suggestions of senator Faulkner. WOW! Faulkner was the Hindmarsh Island man, who, in an effort to keep his aboriginal vote happy, suggested we should accept a sealed envelope, full of lies, as true evidence, in a court of law.

These academics have a hide, don't they?

And as if that's not enough, he wants to slip proportional representation in through a side door. Then we could have nation wide, the rubish they have in Tasmania.

We may even achieve the same government stability they do in Italy.

What we need is an electrol system that allows us to get rid of these academic parasites off our payrol, & into gainfull employment. This bloke, from the aptitude displayed here, & the lack of any interest in morals, may just be able to handle shopping trolley collection, at a smaller super market.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 6 April 2009 3:20:14 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
This is a confused discussion. The author points out that Steve Fielding was elected with 1.8 per cent of the vote, but does not mention that Stephen Conroy, Julian McGauran and Judith Troeth each started on less than 0.1 per cent of the vote. Senator Fielding, like they and every other state senator, had to gain a quota of 14.3 per cent before being elected. That he did it on preferences, just as they did, is neither here nor there. The Labor’s preference deal with Family First was no blunder. It would have given Labor three senators if Labor’s vote had not collapsed. It was well publicised before the 2004 election. Voters who do not approve of the preference deals that their parties do are free to vote below the line, something I always do. A party list system is even less democratic and less transparent than STV with provision for ATL voting as it prevents voters choosing any individuals but leaves the choice entirely to the party machines.

The six-year term for senators is a boon for democracy as it evens out temporary enthusiasms. The distortion in numbers of voters between the states is not a problem as the states are close to mirrors of each other in how they allocate their votes.

If the Senate becomes too difficult for the government, it has the option of a double dissolution, an option John Howard never took despite his complaints about the Senate supposedly frustrating his mandate. After all, because of STV, the Senate is in fact more representative of the way people vote than the House.
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 6 April 2009 6:28:20 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
A DD would probably lead to the Greens holding the balance of power in their own right, an easier situation than now, but less than the ideal as Labor would prefer a choice of partners to get legislation through. The Victorian Legislative Council (ALP 19, DLP 1, Greens 3, Nationals 2, Liberals 15) is almost there as when both Labor parties combine they can defeat Opposition motions, but Labor needs the Greens to get legislation carried against the Opposition. It would prefer one more DLP MLC and one fewer Greens MLC, a view that those who think Labor and the Greens are natural allies rather than competitors find hard to udnerstand.

I expected a DD because I did not think the Opposition would cave in so spectacularly on IR, but now that it has done so, I think Labor will manage the Senate successfully, accepting defeat on some issues and reaching compromises on others, so no DD will be needed. There are no issues left worth going to a DD on.

Behind all the discussion is the conflict between those who want untrammelled power and argue to reduce the role of the Senate and the role of the states (if not abolish both outright) and those who believe that power should not be centralised, which is something the Senate protects us from. Every attempt to reduce the power of the Senate, whether it be the idea of breaking the nexus or one of the various simultaneous election proposals, has been rejected by referendum, even when both major parties have argued in favour. The improvement I advocate is the replacement of the DD with a referendum of the people on legislation on which both Houses do not agree. That is probably too democratic for some of our ‘democrats’.
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 6 April 2009 6:29:35 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
“What we need is an electrol system that allows us to get rid of these academic parasites off our payrol, & into gainfull employment. This bloke, from the aptitude displayed here, & the lack of any interest in morals, may just be able to handle shopping trolley collection, at a smaller super market.”

The only way we can do that, is to ban political parties and make our political and bureaucratic system legally accountable. Currently we have a two faction single party in control, with what may be classed as of shoot cults and token independents. This party is ideologically driven and does not represent the people or it's views, it and it's supporting bureaucracy is completely unaccountable for their actions and outcomes. This is he reason our society if so dysfunctional

We need the scrutiny and review of a senate, but not in it's present form. The first thing to do, is to get rid of compulsory preferential voting, which in many peoples view is unconstitutional. Our constitution demands a direct vote for elections, not two party preferred vote, which in the end, always gives the vote to the lab/lib coalition.

We also need to introduce referendum style voting for any decision outside election polices, as this would then put the people in charge and not the elites and their vested interests. With our technology, it would be easy and logically progressive.
Posted by stormbay, Monday, 6 April 2009 6:36:53 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 Opposition always said it would not block the government's planned IR legislation in it's entirety. Many Liberal/Coalitioners did not approve the extent to which Work Choices was allowed to reduce real conditions and wages. I don't think even Hockey himself believed his own party-line rhetoric on WC and Turnbull was never a hard-liner on IR matters.

As far as the Senate goes - we can't have it both ways. The Senate is vital to debate and ensures consultation on legislation and that it is not just rubber-stamped. Look at the consequences under the Howard government which passed Work Choices legislation without an election mandate nor with any real consultation in parliament. This is dangerous politics and akin to fascism.

Many people appear to be convinced by the importance of the Senate by voting for Greens or Independents in that House to ensure rigorous debate and no presumption of a mandate. A democracy should invite discussion, compromise, debate and consultation. The nature of the Senate assists in inviting consulation before presenting a bill to the House, albeit consultation does not always take place as it might.

Mandate is an over-used word especially when our preferential and single electorate voting system means that a Party can win power with a minority 'primary' vote.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 6 April 2009 7:28:15 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
Response to comments to date.

There have been some remarkable responses to my article. Those who have a bias against academics should ask themselves what Australia would be like without them. Logically there would then be no universities. Having worked 30 years in universities I have a high regard for most Australian academics although, especially in the area of government and public management, the activism of the 1970s has declined markedly in the period of economic rationalism, a serious a loss to society. Academics are in fact gainfully employed, frequently overworked, but scandalously undervalued in Australian society.

The article itself seems to have been partly misunderstood by some. The essence of it is that parliament has to be IMPROVED and that, in my view, the first step to that end should be to change the electoral system to proportional representation. I argue, here and in earlier OLO publications, that the Senate's working has clearly been improved since the introduction of proportional representation in 1949. It therefore makes perfect sense to extend proportional representation to the House of Representatives although preferably with a PR system (Party List) that eliminates the problems with the PR system now used in the Senate (Hare-Clarke). Not only would this improve the working of parliament, it would serve representative democracy and diversity of representation well. To say that what we have now is not too bad, is nonsensical. It is disgraceful as it is! The proposed electoral reforms are not to be confused with other problems such as federal-state relations, or dysfunctional aspects of the Westminster system. Add those and the mess is complete. NOTHING to be proud of bloggers.

The knowledge about alternative electoral systems is quite limited in Australia but those who can contribute to blogs can also access the massive information on internet and Google whatever they want to know: "proportional representation" is the key word.

Klaas Woldring.
Posted by klaas, Thursday, 9 April 2009 2:40:30 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
Utter nonsense Klaas. The curse of our present system is the existence of single issue parties and candidates who can never aspire to government and bear no responsibility for the damage they do. Our parliaments needs nothing more than a strong government and a strong opposition.
DIS
Posted by DIS, Thursday, 9 April 2009 4:12:06 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
Well DIS, we have neither.

Klaas
Posted by klaas, Thursday, 9 April 2009 5:37:19 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
Precisely, Klaas, because of those dreadful single issue parties and candidates, and you want us to have even more of them.
DIS
Posted by DIS, Thursday, 9 April 2009 9:15:13 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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