Wobbles, there needs to be a balance between towing the party line and representing one’s electorate or practicing a conscience vote. It should be party policy, for all parties, to allow their members a certain percentage of dissenting votes. If a member exceeds that percentage, then they could be disciplined or expelled, but if they are acting within those bounds, then they should free of repercussions.

In fact, this should be legislated so that the same applies for all parties.

There are very important conflicting principles here; supporting one’s party and supporting one’s electorate or conscience. These are fundamental to a well-functioning democracy. So the best balance needs to be struck and then needs to apply equally to all.

If a sitting member feels the need to exceed the quota of dissenting votes against their party’s position, then yes, they could become an independent, but certainly not be free to join another party during that term.

Ludwig, there is little difference between becoming an ind or changing sides, as they still have a vote in the chamber, and chances are, they will side with the oppersite party.

I still say, they should resign and allow the next highest to step up and, if that's no longer an option then a bi election isnthe only option.

Afterall, it's the people whomshould hsve the say

Now as for costs, each case would need to be evaluated on merit and, if it's found that the change was due insufficient grounds, then the outgoing member must bare some of the costs,, either up front, or out of their ongoing entitlements.

After all said and done, it is only one person and one term.

Many are unhappy with CN, but seriously, what's the alternative.

We can expect more of the same, and that goes for federal as well, cause someone has to put the brakes on waste and labor have proven it's not going to be them.

One tows a boat. One toes the party line.

<< Ludwig, there is little difference between becoming an ind or changing sides, as they still have a vote in the chamber, and chances are, they will side with the oppersite party. >>

Rechtub, I would think that the chances are that such an independent would side with the party he has just left. Afterall, that is the party that he/she was drawn to in the first place, presumably because it best matched their philosophical outlook.

So if they vote on a principled basis and not on a spiteful basis, they should be aligned with their old party on most things.

So there WOULD be a significant difference between becoming an independent or joining another party.

I also repeat the point I made in my first post; that by joining another party, especially the other major party, they would be going strongly against the wishes of the majority of their electorate.

Becoming an independent while they are a sitting member should really be the only option, apart from a by-election.

sonofgloin,

I don't agree that Windsor's and Oakeshot's electorates wanted members who were "aligned to the right". If they did they would have specifically voted for right wing parties.

The way I recall it was they both considered which party had the most to offer their electorates generally and which were most likely to deliver those policies.

Abbott and Gillard both had the opportunity to put their cases forward and the independents made their decision on that basis.

It is my understanding that there is no provision in our constitution for political parties and we still vote for the individual and not the party. Having said that the reality is somewhat different.
If a member feels that on principle they can not remain an MP for the party they were elected from then they should have the option to resign from the party and sit on the cross benches or even joining another party. If they so wish their actions can be judged at the next election.
As for someone offering themselves for election and then once being elected resigns for no good reason, Keneally in NSW is a good example, promised to serve a 4 year term, was elected then resigned after 17 months forcing a by-election. I think there should be a parliamentary committee to review a members resignation from the parliament and if the explanation is not satisfactory then the ex-member should be made foot part of the bill from their entitlements or from their pocket for the by-election.
The criminal member is another matter they should be kicked out of parliament and forced to pay the whole cost of a by-election.
I support fixed term parliaments, not having the leader of the day going to the GG to rubber stamp an election when it suits them.