Given the current impasse on leadership and policy at the Federal level, would it help to have access to the so-called people’s vote and the power of recall (usually restricted to individual members) but just sayin’. Actually there is no need to recall the whole government, just a couple of the independents would do.
Then there is the complaint [against the People's Vote] that “it would undermine the existing system of government.” This is based on the notion that the final say on political issues should lie with the numbers in the House (voting along party lines), regardless of the pros and cons of the issue, the margin of the result in the previous election, changes in circumstances and the kind of horse-trading that happens in the exchange of preferences in the election.
Not to mention horse trading to get independents and minorities into the tent.
Sorry, just dreaming again, as Andrew Bolt would say:)
A recall provision in the constitution is highly desirable as it would contribute to political accountability.
However, I don’t agree there is either a leadership impasse or a policy impasse.
The leadership issue is a circus but it will be sorted next week, if not sooner. If it was an impasse, it would be impossible to resolve.
The government is certainly implementing all the wrong policies, but that’s not an impasse either.
DavidLeyonhjelm
21 Feb 12 at 10:01 am
Is there now going to be a daily Cat thread on different ways Abbott can seize power? It’s getting rather pathetic.
Have some trust in the Australian democratic system.
m0nty
21 Feb 12 at 10:04 am
Well monty I said yesterday Oakeshitt should have a shot at the title as an offer to insulate the ALP, then get a safe ALP seat next election, at the latest possible date. It is the only way he’ll be remembered. it might just be crazy enough to work, like shooting the moon.
We ought to have this provision anyway, regardless of current events.
.
21 Feb 12 at 10:09 am
Why?
We’ve ended up beholden to a toxically dishonest far left moron who remains unelected and who in turn is beholden to an even more unrepresentative bunch of flea ridden marxist throwbacks and braindead self obsessed egomaniacs.
Democracy, my arse.
Rabz
21 Feb 12 at 10:16 am
I said in another post that if anyone except Rudd is chosen, the LP can expect trouble to continue
It would be worse if he was on the backbench (even if he were demoted)
I don’t think The LP can sack him because he’s an elected member
He’ll continue to bother whoever is leader
Because of his perceived popularity in Queensland
(Personally I live in Qld and I haven’t seen any of this perceived popularity but with Rudd’s expertise I have no doubt he can manufacture one if only for the moment)
So the LP is between a stone and a hard place
Is that an impasse?
val majkus
21 Feb 12 at 10:17 am
Spot on. People are too caught up in the theatre of it all.
TerjeP
21 Feb 12 at 11:08 am
Forget about recall, what we need are term limits.
Fred
21 Feb 12 at 12:00 pm
We need the power to veto legislation by CIR. Even if the legislation is old. We don’t need to recall parliament if we can stop stupid legislation.
TerjeP
21 Feb 12 at 12:22 pm
Recalls are stupid.
All they’ll lead to is orchestrated outrage and professional petition gathering. The left will find it easier to do this, to order, via unions, universities and the love media.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 12:31 pm
No they’re not C.L.,
Grey Davis had to go.
They’re like our weak form of ostracism. I hope we bring back the crime of asebia.
.
21 Feb 12 at 12:33 pm
“our”
Bloody hell, we don’t have them yet!
A hangover of discussing US politics ad nauseum.
.
21 Feb 12 at 12:34 pm
Rabz is right, though.
Democracy was suspended in Australia in 2010.
We have a junta at the Federal level that ‘functions’ only because two members wilfully defied the wishes of their constituents to settle childish scores with the National Party.
Labor, per se, lost the election.
Gillard is Australia’s first ever twice-unelected prime minister.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 12:34 pm
The fewer elements of the US political systems introduced into Australia the better. The last thing any government needs is some group of activists armed with a recall power looking over everyone’s shoulder like some form of supra-parliamentarian Brian Harradine.
The ultimate sanction is to change the government. Just ask Alan Carpenter, John Brumby, Kristina Kenealy, Anna Bligh and Gillard/Rudd/Shorten/Crean/Combet.
You could ask Rob Oakshotte about representing his constituents but that might interupt his mowing round after the next election.
H B Bear
21 Feb 12 at 1:02 pm
The Australian people should be punished and not have a way out that way they might think about their vote next time.
kelly liddle
21 Feb 12 at 1:43 pm
Hey TerjeP, does CIR mean Citizen Initiated Recall or something like that.
If so, how would that work?
Anne
21 Feb 12 at 2:28 pm
Perhaps this whole “leadership” thing is a confection.Perhaps Gillard et al have concocted the ‘challenge’ by Rudd to cement her position as leader of the Green socialist alliance. Gillard would then promote this as some sort of ‘mandate’ to put off the inevitable demise of the Left. The only reason to do this is to create even more policies that The right would find difficult to unscramble
Phil E Steyn
21 Feb 12 at 2:39 pm
That is an utterly ridiculous scenario, Phil E Steyn.
But completely plausible, as we’re talking about the ALP.
Gab
21 Feb 12 at 2:43 pm
Let’s get rid of the Senate and Federalism.
You can do that through recall.
.
21 Feb 12 at 3:30 pm
Tomorrow on the Cat: Rafe asks – is Quentin Bryce a Manchurian Candidate, and if so what’s the secret phrase to make her dissolve the Government? Much excitement over this concept by Dot.
The next day: Steve Kates threatens to eat worms if Abbott isn’t in the Lodge by teatime. The comment thread doesn’t reach double figures.
The day after: Samuel J looks at the constitutional ramifications of cutting ribbons, and whether there’s a clause in there somehow that can imply a dissolution of the government through the simple act of severing a length of silk.
The day after that: Alan Moran calls for an Australian Spring. Long discussion over whether Obama would use “airpower” to disperse crowds by Mk50 will be ignored by everyone.
The following day: Sinclair Davidson is too busy arguing minutiae of 80-year-old history, so Judith Sloan is deputised to blame the lack of a Liberal Government on Bill Shorten.
m0nty
21 Feb 12 at 3:48 pm
minty,
My Manchurian candidate is Oakeshitt.
If we’re wrong the ALP will win Government with a sizeable majority.
.
21 Feb 12 at 3:52 pm
Recalls are an inefficient way to deal with citizen dissatisfaction with the legislative process. A far better way is to target the legislation itself via citizen initiated plebiscite/referendum.The CIR should also apply to overturning points of law in HC appellate decisions, as these decisions are always, by defintition, political decisions.
There is no evidence to justify fears that the CIR process will be hijacked by left-wing cranks. A casual look at the history of s.128 referendums in this country should relieve anybody of such fears.
Opposition to this form of CIR is led by left-wing reactionary oligarchs like Professor George Williams. That in itself should be reason enough for CIR!
Peter Patton
21 Feb 12 at 3:59 pm
The LDP propose that the CIR be used in a negative purpose, that is, only to strike down legislation.
.
21 Feb 12 at 4:01 pm
. – if getting rid of the Senate gets rid of Bob Brown it’s worth a thought.
Keating’s lasting contribution to Australian politics is correctly labelling the Senate as unrepresentative swill. While containing some members of merit, it is used by both major parties as a dumping ground for their most favoured party hacks and time servers.
While we’re at it, why not lump Tasmania onto Victoria? Tasmanian statehood makes about as much sense as the ACT parliament does for a medium sized country town.
H B Bear
21 Feb 12 at 5:53 pm
Recall is a dangerous weapon in the hands of your political opponents. recalls are currently being used to protect union power from economic reform in is it wisconsin?
The rotation of power is common in democracies, and the worst rise to the top, so it is wise to design constitutional safeguards to minimise the damage done when those crazies to the right or left of you get their chance in office, as they will.
the recall election was one of the major electoral reforms advocated by the Progressive movement in the United States during the early 20th centuries. that history alone is grounds to oppose recall elections.
When the legislator is uncertain about voters’ preferences, a group with extreme views may be able to successfully use the threat of a recall to force legislative outcomes closer to its preferences
see http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__academics__colloquia__law_economics_and_politics/documents/documents/ecm_pro_059688.pdf for a public choice analysis of direct democracy and recalls.
One reason Madison favored representative democracy characterized by political institutions designed to make enacting laws difficult was to guard against the tyranny of the majority.
The veto-gates throughout the legislative process – including committees, bicameral consideration, rules governing debate and amendment, and some super-majoritarian voting requirements – are designed to slow legislation and block the enactment of the vast majority of proposed bills.
Jim Rose
21 Feb 12 at 5:58 pm
Jim
Try to squeeze Australia’s historical, constitutional, and political contexts into the US picture simply will not work. The US has nothing like the history of democratic legitimacy that Australia was born with.
Peter Patton
21 Feb 12 at 6:05 pm
PP,
the checks and balances of Australian federlaism are greatly undermined by the Feds collecting most taxes.
as Peterson put it: there no good tax except for a federal tax. a common view of state premiers.
Jim Rose
21 Feb 12 at 6:11 pm
dot
Just had a squizz at the LDP site. There’s a lot of interesting ideas there. One that I fundamentally disagree with is on compulsory voting. I see voting more as a responsibility, than a right. You learn a hell of a lot about democracy – its pluses and minuses – from studying ancient Greece. I am persuaded by Pericles – as recorded by Thucydides:
While the Roman started well in imitating Greek civic attitudes, they messed it, and went tits up as a result.
Peter Patton
21 Feb 12 at 6:20 pm
dot
I had a squizz at that LDP site. There are some interesting ideas there, but one I fundamentally disagree with is their opposition to compulsory voting. For me, voting is a responsibility, not a right. You can learn a lot about the silences and shadows of modern democracies by studying ancient Greece. I agree wholeheartedly with Pericles, as recorded by Thucydides:
Our
Rome started well by imitating Greek civic virtues, but went tits up when it abandoned those virtues.
Peter Patton
21 Feb 12 at 6:28 pm
Why do posts keep getting swallowed here?
Peter Patton
21 Feb 12 at 6:28 pm
dot
I had a squizz at that LDP site. There are some interesting ideas there, but one I fundamentally disagree with is their opposition to compulsory voting. For me, voting is a responsibility, not a right. You can learn a lot about the silences and shadows of modern democracies by studying ancient Greece. I agree wholeheartedly with Pericles, as recorded by Thucydides:
Our
Rome started well by imitating Greek civic virtues, but went tits up when it abandoned those virtues.
Peter Patton
21 Feb 12 at 6:29 pm
Jim
My emphasis in that post was more on democracy than federalism. I advocate the establishment of a purely constitutional Court, whose authority would be above the current HC. All nominees for that Court would be subject to rigorous public grilling on their views. During this process, we could weed out the rabid centralists of the ilk who have dominated the HC for too long.
Peter Patton
21 Feb 12 at 6:38 pm
PP, if judges are the last line of defence, all is lost.
But to be fair, see David E. Bernstein, Only One Place of Redress: African Americans, Labor Regulations, and the Courts from Reconstruction to the New Deal. Duke University Press, 2001) and http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/114-3/Bernstein.11.30.pdf Judicial Power and Civil Rights Reconsidered
Bernstein contends that prior to the mid-1930s many ordinary people, including racial and ethnic minorities, found the U.S. courts to be their only defense against legislation that limited their ability to better themselves in the market. As politicians in the North abandoned them, and Southern politicians waged war on their rights, the courts gave them at least a modicum of protection.
Jim Rose
21 Feb 12 at 7:10 pm
Jim
Once more, I am always underwhelmed by any resort to an undemocratic slave society like the US as guide for Australians.
Peter Patton
21 Feb 12 at 7:14 pm
H B Bear
Would you support a Senate chamber, if it were constituted by some other method than equal number of Senators from each state?
Peter Patton
21 Feb 12 at 7:47 pm
Conscientiously objectionable sortition in three classes for rotating nine year once only terms.
Also: I would elect the senate list nationally but weigh the votes from the smaller states as an inverse of their share of reps.
If it is unfair at least it is explicit and major parties cannot artificially exhaust smaller party votes in half senate elections.
But with that I would prefer just straight up four year set terms for both.
.
21 Feb 12 at 7:58 pm
You could even do sortition on an equal basis for each State.
.
21 Feb 12 at 7:58 pm
To be honest I haven’t given it much thought beyond the fact that Tasmania’s 0.5m people having the same representation as NSW’s 7.3m is somehow offensive to representative democracy. The fact that Bob Brown and Brian Harradine are both from Tasmania probably colours my thinking too.
The Senate has a useful review function and I would not support any move to a unicameral system at either Commonwealth or State level. I cannot see that the Senate operates in any real way to support States rights to justify a State based apportionment of quotas. If you accept that premise, you probably move to a single national electorate with quota based on the number of senators required to get the job done. Senate terms of twice House of Reps terms and half Senate elections may allow the Senate to take a slightly different view on the national interest in the upper house.
Having said all that, I am in favour of the government in the lower house having the greatest possible opportunity to implement its policies – good or bad – before going back to the electorate. Government by committee where everything is watered down to the lowest common denominator is rarely consistent with the best possible outcome. Give me crash or crash-through with Jeff Kennett over negotiating with Windsor, Oakshott and Wilkie any day.
H B Bear
21 Feb 12 at 8:51 pm
Sinc (or whoever)
Dragging just one of those posts out of the spammer would have been fine.
Any clue what triggered the spaminator, so I don’t do it again?
Peter Patton
22 Feb 12 at 3:15 pm