In recent comments there has been a suggestion that Opposition parties aren't there to offer alternative detailed policies to the government's. The opinion cited issues like differences in resources.

This clearly encourages playing the man, obstructionist tactics and (non public beneficial ) political party (benefiting) games.

Surely under a democracy (such as it is) the party with the most votes should be allowed to have it's mandate...albeit under scrutiny.
A good example of this is the conservative refusal to accept the majority opinion of Australians and seek to improve not obstruct Labor's (albeit flawed) Carbon plan and timetable.

Unlike 'work choices' the govt were given the mandate to find a solution.How well they did it will be the subject of the next election.

Instead many conservative don't believe AGW and simply obstruct. Which by default imposes the conservative over the will of the Majority of the Australian electorate.

It seems to me that the only democratically correct purpose for the opposition (and cross benches) is to amend but pass the Governments mandated policy and develop their own comprehensive alternative policy. Demonstrating that they are the Alternative government in accordance with the electorates declared mandate rather than an undemocratic cabal.

This raises the obvious questions.

What is the purpose of the opposition ?
'opposition for opposition sake' or alternative government?

Why don't they get on and do it instead of their ignoring the wider public's wishes.

NB this applies to ALL parties and I side with the public mandate regardless of party.

"In recent comments there has been a suggestion that Opposition parties aren't there to offer alternative detailed policies to the government's"

That would suit the Liberals who have previously claimed, even when going to election as the government of the day, that they did not have to put forward policies, voters should vote for their STYLE of government. They have also argued that they should be elected because only they can be 'economic managers'.

Of course the Liberals regard themselves as having a divine right to rule, so elections are superfluous.

If I had my way though I would do everything possible to make it easier for independents to be elected to both houses. All major political parties are advantaged against independents, to the extent where it is almost impossible for an independent to be elected.

The reason the Libs have no policies is that their backers refuse to be up-front about their shoddy goals. like ensuring that workers' conditions and occupational health and safety are those of a third world country.

If you listen carefully you can hear him now, echoing theough the years.

Yes it's examinator, from 10 years ago.

"Of course the Oz voters were too smart to give Howard complete control". "That's why they voted differently for the senate, to keep some checks, & balances, & temper the conservative's power".

Now, of course it's a different story. He doesn't want the voters will to apply, not now. How predictable.

Any one with half a brain knows that Ruddies desire to get a CTS in place, before Copenhagen has nothing to do with Global Warming, or even it's new name, now the warming has stopped. They also know it's nothing to do with good policy for Oz.

They know it's Ruddies application for that big job at the UN. He wants to prove he can deliver Ozies to the UN power brokers, all trussed tied, & helpless, on a platter.

Any one should be able to see that he's too bl@@dy stupid to know anything about global warming, but that doesn't matter. He doesn't care about such things. His only interest is his huge ego, & desire to call the shots. It's a pity we don't have someone a bit more capable facing him.

Examinator has a big ego too. It stops him seeing that Ruddy despises dummmies like him, even more than he hates people like me.

It would be funny, really, if I didn't have kids & grandkids who's lives will be diminished because Ozies could not see through this bloke.

Hasbeen,
*10 years ago* I'm intrigued where did you dig that up from? source please. I wasn't on OLO then? in fact I wasn't on the net in Australia, at least under this pseudonym.

FYI at that time I was in the middle of gaining qualification in computer programing and project management. Your past history isn't too big on accuracy.. but what the heck.

You really should read the context of what I say.
I did say MANDATED policies not rushes of un-mandated ideologies like "Work Choices" et al. I do agree that un-mandated lurches are fair game and therefore the fall back position is a hung senate. Note my criteria.

In this case the people of Australia specifically voted for the govt to address AGW. Not liberal intransigence.

In fact, this topic asks the question about the purpose of the opposition.
NB if Labor goes off in un-mandated I'll still hold the same view and support the hung senate.

I also said the the Labor's carbon reduction scheme was flawed, I could have said woefully inadequate, however, the opposition's choice is to honour the mandate (the people) or force a minority.

Even if I had changed my mind that shows an open mind (which I doubt that it does). Dogma is for those who don't think for themselves.

You must not place too much faith in hasbeen.
He comes across as a grumpy conservative unable to understand mainstream thoughts.
As focused on non existent conspiracy's as anyone in OLO.
And blind enough to say every one who thinks other than him is being conned.
I am right but the rest of the world is mad type stuff.
Fact is we yes most Australians, are more than happy with our direction and leadership.
In the middle of his third term in office Kevin Rudd may feel the first winds of a true opposition, one able to focus on policy's other than opposition.
Constructive opposition has to wait for an emptying of baggage , the deadwood must be got rid of.
Talent exists in the ranks of Conservatives, after the National get over their war with them selves, and conservatives are one party, with talent , they will return.
Say 2018?

i can only agree with hasbeens quote[regardless of who made it when]

clearly..if you dont got the numbers in both houses...YOU DONT GOT A MANDATE...the opposition has its duty..in opposing those who claim mandates...even if salivating..secretly...for the new cash cow

the opposition..has the opposing side of the debate to present...if they do it properly...we give them the numbers...in lue of the numbers...then they need to hang..so called mandates from a high limb

in truth the whole..two party/demo-eratic farce..is revealed in the two parties..serving the same elite adgendas...there needs to be a better way

persoinally i feel we should elect specific/minesters...into specific portfolio's...thus they can claim a specific mandate..based on their thesis/policy..in a given area...

but not into other non mandaTED AREAS...minesters ..s..thus dont represent one geographical/area..but a specific minestarial policy area...it forms a war type cabinet..

where specific people...are given the control over specific areas...where a policy..that is claimed mandated...begins with the thesis the mandate is claimed under..it there in their electorial thesis

you may infer that minestorial selection..should be upon specific minesters competing..within an open electorial process..based on a test or minimum standard...

thus to get nomitated there would be a course[..or minimum qualification level...to gain/claim mandate...for specific mandate under a specific thesis..submitted by each prospective minester..

and distributed..as part of the electorial process...where we can make specific informed remedy..applicable to specific portfolio areas..where we elect one with specific mandate...and the other specificlly rebutting

there is no mandate..for this new tax...

at least howhard had the numbers..however treasonous his final mandated choice was...his claimed mandate..killed his rule...as will this new tax destroy the ...lol..2 party appartheit system

"What is the real purpose of the opposition and why don't they do it?"

Good question. Objectively, I'd say the reason you don't hear much in the way of Opposition policies is because any bad idea they come up with will be shot and hung out on a fence like a wild dog, while good ideas will be quietly subsumed into Government policy and rebadged as always having been part of the Government's agenda. As oppositions lose both ways in this scenario, they tend to stay schtum because it's the least bad option.

The real cause of the problem is the unbalanced nature of the Parliament and the way the Government has all the resources while Oppositions have very little. But a further Catch-22 is that if oppositions come out and admit as much too often, they can become forever associated with weakness, thus compounding their time in opposition.

The fact is that oppositions are out in the wilderness as long as electors decide to leave them there. What policies they come up with are only one part of getting back into power. Getting back into power is their real aim and it's a complex balancing act from their point of view.

'In this case the people of Australia specifically voted for the govt to address AGW. '

OMG.

OMG.

Is this the level of lefty self-delusion?

I don't recall that referendum?

'mandate'. Utter tosh. The only mandate that holds true would be for a single issue party. Of course such a party would never get elected.

People vote for the least worst 'raft of measures'. Some issues are 'specifically voted' for, the rest are lumped in with them (job lot). Nobody counts on an issue by issue basis, so to say anything like what pontificator claims is deluded.

Such a lack of understanding of the westminster system.

H
So true we do choose between tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber. You really should read all the comment and consider the context if not previous stated views of the author.

I agree the system is comprehensively dysfunctional. We (the greater electorate) votes on personalities. I've often said the last Liberal Government wasn't simply John(what was his name?), it was the entire party....sadly that's the system. No where, no how, would I say it's a good one. On a good day it's adequate.

Notwithstanding how else do we distinguish between voted for policies and flights of ideological fantasy? For that matter, how else do we judge when a party has broken its 'election promises'? What do we do, according to you, platform policy/issues don't matter and the only way to set policy is a referendum.

Given Referendums require HUGE majority in context that elections are won on lost on usually less than 8%. Did I mention the HUGE expense and the HUGE impracticality of it.

Oh yes, they pertain to constitutional matters. AGW rewrites the constitution how? Perhaps you should think a little deeper before writing?

BTW AGW was a key issue at the last election

Define a 'key issue' and describe how it is legitimately measured to obtain a 'mandate'.

Are we running the country on mandates from opinion or exit polls, or just the ones the lefties designate as 'That one was important, and that's what the voters were really voting for', to maintain their delusions.

H,
It was a major platform policy. That's the way it works accept the party accept the list of policy is it correct ideal etc? (sigh) Reread my posts.

Ok now what's your view of the real purpose of the opposition? then explain why it's so good...that was the topic remember that? (obfuscatious attacks are so tedious and pointless they make the questioner look silly and closed minded.

The prime purpose of opposition is to return to power.

It focus is primarily to clearly show the values it stands for and to demonstrate that the ruling parties policies are failing.

The ruling party having the ability to influence events needs to draw up a detailed plan and implement it. The opposition cannot do this, as the plan would rapidly become outdated as the ruling party changes the political landscape.

What the opposition is clear on is that it is opposed to the ETS proposed by Labor. The split is between those that feel that there is an opportunity to influence the format of the ETS for the better, or those that would prefer to see no ETS.

Public opinion seems to be in favour of delaying the ETS until after Copenhagen.

Labor had climate change as part of its agenda, but never had any specifics.

I am also in favour of a ETS in some form, but agree that it should wait until after Copenhagen, as I see no benefit in ramming though legistation that might be out of date in a few months. The moral authority reason is BS.

Damn straight Houellebecq you beat me to it.
Adding to that:

-The limited choice of individual electorates don't actually get to vote for who they want- but whichever LOCAL candidate is better than the others

-That a party's mandate is based SOLELY through how many (arbitrarily drawn) regions vote for a member of the same party (obvious problem for independents), and this mandate may well be based on the approval of only 30% of the population, because they were the biggest MINORITY.

-ANY purely representative democracy, policy is decided on the whim of a swinging voter/swinging party minority- secure seats (or secure opposition seats) are entirely neglected.

-And the simple fact that the parties can put the electorate on the back seat if it seems nobody wants to risk the (similar) opposition, or doesn't think the chances of everyone else coincidentally voting an independent or third-party are very high (three years down the line).

Anyway, the opposition has no role at all except to promote itself through whatever dubious claims it thinks will get sympathy. And even then (as far as Australian voting history is concerned), fails to do even THAT, as people seem to stick with the main party until things get so extremely bad a minority of swinging voters in a few marginal electorates oust their representatives and effectively tip the balance of power.

There are plenty of countries across Europe that have better models- and at least they were conceived to be actual democracies- unlike Westminster which seems to have the destitute monarchs, lords and aristocrats in mind more than the peasantry.