More loyal to the King, to Israel and the U.S. than to Australians.

I think the Lidia Thorpe / King thing, was merely an inevitable point in our history.
Sooner or later someone with indigenous blood would rise to the level of Australian Senator, stand up for the indigenous, and tell the King to go and get stuffed.

We should all just accept it and move past it.

What are Australian values?
What are Australian interests?

One horse of this 2-horse race thinks its unquestionable loyalty to a genocidal nation lead by religious extremists.

Somehow Australia to them equals 'Christian values'
and Christian values equal Judeo-Christian values, which is bs
And even on that basis they are a minority.
Christians only represent 44% of the country, they are in an unwinnable position on this basis.

I've seen articles in the Australian which expect us to immediately pledge to disregard the ICC's arrest warrant should Netanyahu or Gallant ever come to Australia.

How is unconditional loyalty to Israel in Australias interests?
It's not logical.

Unconditional support of the U.S. to ones own detriment is also not logical.
- Plenty of nations stand as examples right now in the world.

Its not deranged to say "Your're not my sovereign". It is deranged to gate-crash a formal event wearing some dead animals and shout your opinions as though anyone else there cared a jot what you think. A serious case of narcissism with this shiela.

" Hummmmm. we have a bad case of "King Worship" from the Trumpster."

Now you might have to read this a few dozen times to understand it, but there is a middle ground here. Yes, really, in most things there is a middle ground not that you've ever noticed it. So just because I don't think its in the slightest appropriate to rave about you views in a singularly inappropriate place doesn't mean I don't agree with those views or at least a subset of them.

I've said it many times before (but more than 24 hours ago, so clearly beyond your memory), given the right referendum question I'd vote to remove the monarchy from our constitution. But I'd never vote to accept that some bozo who got elected on a sliver of votes has the right to speak out in a deranged fashion at an otherwise unimportant event just so as to satisfy her narcissistic traits.

Rhian,

<<in both cases their behaviour deserved to be condemned.>>

Well really that's for the voters to decide at the ballot box. Any move in parliament will be politically driven. We know from history. It is important the public keep an eye on what members of parliament are doing, as I strongly doubt Labor or Liberal members of parliament would face any type of censure or censoring simply because the numbers from other politicians and political parties are not there. It would have to be something really serious, or generally it is ignored or brushed under the carpet.

Another question coming into play is with morals and a censure motion or censoring as it becomes a debate on what is acceptable and what is not. Once again, it really should be something for the public to decide when they vote at a future election.

If people had a better understanding of some of the appalling things being done by existing politicians, including in the Senate in terms of legislation for example and other matters, many would vote differently, but all we have here are two politicians being singled out, yet the actions of Labor/Liberal and other politicians are regularly ignored, particularly when there is broad support for a particular piece of legislation and change and people voting on party lines under "acceptable standards" or what is considered that by some in parliament.

I want politicians in Australia to have freedom to move, act and vote but be held responsible by the voters, before, during and after election campaigns. It's a balance issue, but at the end of the day a few politicians can't remove elected representatives who may act in a way some of them find off putting, the voters though can and should.

NathanJ

I also want politicians in Australia to have freedom to move, act and vote but be held responsible by the voters. Only voters have the power to decide whether the senators’ behaviour means they don’t deserve to keep their jobs. Rightly so.

But every legislature in every country I can think of has standards of behaviour it expects its members to abide by. In Westminster parliamentary systems such as ours, the penalty for failing to comply is weak and inconsequential; precisely because, as you say, members are ultimately accountable to the electorate, not the legislature, government or party. The senate only has the right to condemn behaviour that breaks the rules. That’s all a censure motion does. I think it entirely appropriate that the Senate should set standards of conduct, and that it should express disapproval of members who don’t abide by the rules. That has no effect on the senators’ freedom to move, act and vote.