Crossposted from Hoyden About Town
I said this in comments on a previous post regarding the NT Indigenous Emergency Plan, and I want to expand on the theme, as it feels like some electoral scales may have fallen from my eyes.
I really want all the political actors working against Howard to Not F*ck Their Response Up. He’s made the big bold public move, this is a chance for Labor, Greens and Democrats to loudly assert and credibly back up totally defensible claims that a Labor Government and a Senate where Dems/Greens hold the balance of power is the best way for the Federal Government to best implement and be held accountable for the actions required to effectively attack the need to protect these vulnerable children.
With the current composition of the Federal legislature, Howard’s 6 month plan is pretty much a done deal. The extra police and troops will be on the ground, the restrictions on grog and porn will be in place, the health checks will begin and the indigenous lands entry permit system will be at least partially dismantled. The question is, how do we make sure that it’s not the Liberals still calling the shots at the end of the 6 months, so that the necessary measures can be continued and the counterproductive measures can be curtailed?
Obviously, many people are pushing Labor as hard as they can simply to get rid of Howard and his likeminded Libs. Ideally, the Liberals losing government in the next election will at least mean that the worst-case land-grab scenario will be totally off the table, and that a more measured, collaborative approach to the sexual abuse crisis can be implemented.
But what if the Libs squeak it in in the House of Representatives? It may well come down to Rudd’s leadership on this issue on which Howard has staked such a large throw. Kim at LP has a post up detailing why her disappointment with Rudd’s response means her vote will be going to the Greens. Many people are attacking her for this choice, and nearly all of them are underplaying the importance of the balance of power in the Senate. Brian Harradine succeeded in having some extraordinarily socially-conservative (even reactionary) legislation passed as an Independent Senator because his vote held the balance of power. Andrew Bartlett recently posted on the vital importance of a balanced and independent Senate, a Senate that can actually fully debate and scrutinise the legislation drafted by the lower House without having procedural fast-tracking foisted upon it by a government Senate majority.
My concluding observation contains some obvious self-interest, but fortunately its accuracy is backed up by history. The risk from a change of government is much reduced if that government is overseen by a balanced Senate which is able to function independently and take a common sense, evidence based approach to scrutinising what the government is doing and proposing. Similarly, the chances of change being more balanced and properly thought through also increases with the greater checks and balances that an independent Senate can bring. So regardless of whether we change the government at the coming election or not, we need to change the Senate to return it to a balanced independent body that can help the public keep a proper check on what that government is doing.
The oversight role of Senate needs to be hammered home in every discussion of the Indigenous Emergency Plan. Those disappointed with the Labor response so far can be reassured that so long as they don’t give either Libs or Labs a Senate majority, then the Senate can exercise proper checks and balances to any government implementation of the NT plan.
Many people are, quite rightly, asking for a non-partisan response to the NT sexual abuse crisis. The big problem with that is that it’s almost impossible to abide by in an election year. So I would ask anyone who, for long-term ideological reasons, is planning to hold their nose and vote either Liberal/National or Labor to form the government in the upcoming election: don’t give either of those blocs control over the Senate. Give the country a record number of Senators who don’t come from either major bloc instead. Independents, Australian Democrats and Greens Senators galore, please!
This is the only way that I can see to end up with a truly non-partisan implementation of long-term actions that will end up making a real difference to abused indigenous children.
Related:
Anna asked us last week to examine Who do you trust?
Mark expands on bi-partisanship/non-partisanship.
Well, there is two ways to look at this.
The other way is that the people democratically elect a government to do a job, and a minority controlled senate only gets in the way of what the people have democratically chosen.
What your argument generally means, is that ‘even though we expect to lose the election, we still want to control the flow of policy’. Which to me is rubbish.
The election every 3 years is the oversight. Not the minor parties noone votes for and only get in through preference deals.
That’s the same logic which led to WorkChoices, Steve. It’s axiomatic, I’d have thought, that the role of the Senate is to refine and improve legislation, not just give the government whatever it claims it has a mandate for on a platter. The whole dimension of continual accountability which is a core part of democratic politics is negated by the Bush/Howard idea of having “accountability moments” only when there is an election. We may as well not have a legislature at all, let alone a bicameral one, if that logic is to be accepted.
Ps - very valuable post, tigtog.
I think this “emergency” should be a wake up call for all of us to get onto the front foot in highlighting just why a non-Government Senate majority is so vitally important.
Really sounds like eyerack doesn’t it.
Will specially chosen journalists be “embedded” with the armed forces as these “Falluja-ise” each recalcitrant, indigenous camp.
And since we don’t want any pesky humanitarian Centrists in the Senate, no need to worry about accountability while the goon squads visit places like Palm Island.
“Abu Gharaibs- not that we know of…”
Nice post. I have always been in favour of splitting my upper an lower house votes as no matter who the government is, it is nice to have that ‘check’ in place.
Getup! is also interestedin the senate.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/getup-plan-to-end-government-senate-majority/2007/06/26/1182623873174.html
More than just non-Government, but I think its important that the balance of the senate leans towards the opposition point of view, to act as a bit of a brake on the rate of change. Eg if Labor wins the lower house in the next election, then ideally I’d prefer the Democrats to hold the balance of power. But since they’ve imploded thats highly unlikely. And as much as I dislike the liberals I’d prefer that they would hold the senate rather than the greens have the balance of power.
Of course if the libs won the lower house I’d prefer that Labor/greens hold the senate - which makes selecting who to vote for in the upper house rather tricky. Too bad we can’t have conditional voting!
Excellent post, tigtog.
I’m in total agreement with Mark regarding your argument, Steve: the whole purpose of a bicameral government system is to enable checks and balances. If we don’t accept that, then there’s no point in having a Senate at all, and that argument extends through to the very foundations of our Federal System, where Commonwealth and States are also meant to check and balance each other.
Aren’t you the revolutionary, Steve?
I agree that Australia is best served by an independent Senate in which neither major party holds control. And I certainly believe that the party that holds executive power should not control the senate.
It becomes too close to the dictatorship of the majority for my liking.
I fear the current era of minor party control of the senate may be at an end. Principally because of the implosion and disintegration of the Democrats.
The Democrats being a party of the centre (sometimes centre right, sometimes centre left) was able to garner support from the disenchanted from both major parties.
The Greens I fear are too far to the left of the Australian mainstream to draw the level of support that the Democrats had in their hey day. So I don’t believe they will as effective in drawing the disaffected voter.
I’d be glad to be proven wrong. But I don’t think I will be.
I dont think the Democrats have imploded,and,I am sure if you want them to be in the Senate,as a member you will be welcome. Andrew Bartlett since I have continued to lay my opinion down in his blog, has proven to me at least to be hard working,cannot always say that about others who use the word,and in using the word think they have been doing the word. Problem for me is I am essentially a dictator with democratic type patience,knowing full well,there are so so many people like myself,and the only joy really is ensuring that the patience can fire the blunderblus..a strange weapon in my memory somewhere, or spelling similar to that,that fires like a loud foghorn in the minds of other dictators who are a bit light or empty on some subjects. I doubt ,however,that I would have the patience of the Senator,for people and detail,whilst what he is up against are failing minds covering that,by insistence… assertion,and an all to willing media to prefer the dodgy that you know than those who know the dodgy. But then again they overkill sometimes. The Senate needs repowering,and, I sort of believe, the lower house doing its fangdoodles regularly, sees it as a afterthought that, embarasses them. Now that does sound like a good job for me?.
tigtog, I’ve got to head for bed, but you ask, who do I trust?
Neither very much. The only politician who has spoken with real insight and understanding is Andrew Bartlett. Hence yes, the senate, but in Qld unashamedly Bartlett.
Brough’s most recent explanation of himself is here.
Rudd gave an account of why he signed up to support Howard on Cairns radio.
Then he went off and signed up to the Pearson plan for Cape York.
Further searching the ALP site unearthed this policy document. I’ve only had the merest skim of it, but it seems to float strangely.
What do you think?
Well, I see your point about the bicameral government system, my argument above isn’t a strongly or passionately held one, but I disagree with the state/federal comment. It seems to me the state/federal thing is a hangover of the way the country was founded, rather than any intended effect of accountability. When deciding whether to join the federation it is not likely the governors etc would have considered voting themselves out of a job.
England has a ‘Federal’ Government, and a load of local councils, it isn’t divided into provinces or states. Here we have an extra layer of what is now largely duplication of efforts and tax taking in between. You could argue we are bigger than England and it is thus necessary, but that doesnt make sense to me either, given modern transport and communications, distance means very little now, and London by itself has close to what our whole country has in population.
The division of responsibilities wasn’t drawn up as a way of dividing accountability or setting up checks and balances, it was a way of justifying going to the trouble of having a Federation beyond just more efficient customs duties, without the colonies having to give up too much power.
i’m dragging Bowie into the debate
I’ve got to go to bed now…but i’m about to pose the question as to whether the red shoes represent the obvious cultural imperialism, or do they represent RED shoes, (or the old hard left).
Stay tuned~!~!
The balance of power thing has always been problematic for me. On one hand having the Democrats or the Greens having the balance of power with a Labor government would be perfection for me.
However the flipside of the coin is having some Harradine/Family First/Fred Nile type person having the balance of power.
People here who know more about Australian Constitutional history that myself may correct me, but I thought that the architects of Federation thought the Senate as the ‘States’ house to safeguard the States’ rights in the Commonwealth of Australia.
Now it has become a rubber stamp.
Having an non-government Senate is vital. The stats on the degree of oversight being provided by the Senate at the moment make you wonder why we bother having one.
It isn’t at all clear that this will happen. The headless chooks are still doing circle work on most of this.
The grog ‘bans’ are likely to be nothing of the kind. An Indigenous MLA in the Territory today called for all alcohol to be bananed in Arnhem Land (not a new position). But the Fed Govt doesn’t appear have a clear idea on this topic. They seem willing to allow remote community ‘clubs’ to continue to function, so what is the the ‘ban’?? Porn is even more obscure. It currently isn’t sold in remote communities (at least not openly), most is purchased in Darwin. It will be a symbolic ban at best. I wonder if the ban extends to rock art, which contains significant sexual themes. Maybe Gen Mal will send out the Censorship Review Board to check all rock art for compliance with the new rules. Health Checks remain an objective with no clear ideas on implementation. Not much is likely to happen on this front in the next 6 months.
Let’s pray for a good result in the Senate, but in the meantime the Govts own muddled thinking will probably be the most effective check on its ‘plan’.
Well, no, because the Senate is also democratically chosen. “The people” are not one homogenous group, and even in a landslide election, you usually have 45% of the people who voted against the winning party– that 45% does not become irrelevant over the next three years, and the proportional representation system used to determine who wins Senate seats helps us to avoid a “tyranny of the majority” situation.
The trick is for the voters in Canberra to toss out Gary Humphries at the next federal election (sadly ironic because he is in some issues a social progressive).
A.C.T. Senators Humphries (Liberal) and Lundy (ALP), just like the two NT Senators, must face the people whenever there is a House of Reps election. They do not have six year terms under the Constitutional provisions that apply to all other Senators from the States.
Assuming Humphries were to be deposed for, say, a Green Senator from the ACT, and assuming Rudd takes the House, then the balance of power would shift to the left immediately following the election, and not six months later in July 2008 when all other Senators take their places.
And Steve Fielding might be bribed like Harradine was to support some “family friendly” parts of a new legislative agenda. Then Rudd will be able to hit the ground running with a cooperative Senate.
On the NT Shock and Awe operation, it is worth remembering that the proposed removal of aboriginal community permits, and suspension of any other aboriginal rights that might impede the operation, upon which much of Captain Brough’s military style invasion depends, will have to be legislated for with a recall of Parliament during the winter break.
It is then that we will see how committed Rudd is to the preservation of aboriginal land rights for the longer term. Essentially he should decline to support the five year timetable, and make his support for the rest of the legislation conditional on a review after the next election, by which time we might have a better idea about how a sustainable program of assistance might unfold.
The present operation is another back-of-the-envelope quick fix, not dissimilar to Howard’s 10B water plan earlier this year, and reeks of political opportunism. While a majority of voters might support “doing something, anything” right now, I suspect that voter support might begin to wane as we hear more about the fear arising in the hearts of many aboriginal mothers and grandmothers in the NT about another stolen generation.
Captain Brough is clearly unable to understand that deep fear is very real and not the result of “bully-boy scare tactics” designed to steal his political thunder.
I never really understood representation in the senate, to be honest.
I mean, Newcastle and the Hunter Valley on its own has more population than all of Tasmania, yet Tasmania gets 12 Senators?
Anecdotally, Grace, people are talking about aboriginal families already hightailing it out of the targeted townships. They fear their children being taken away, even if they’re not one of the abusive families. Who can blame them given our track record?
Good points about the ACT Senators. The balanced Senate is the key, I’m utterly convinced. Even though I want Labor to defeat the Lib/Nats in the Lower House, I don’t want them to have the Upper House either.
Actually, i was talking to some everyday howard battlers today, and i’ve been impressed at exactly that; at the level of compassion they have for the fear many aboriginal families in communities are feeling. Yes, they said, something has to be done urgently, but it needs to be done with the utmost of care and wisdom.