Rob Oakeshott’s now abandoned candidacy for Speaker [see previous post here] has shone a light on the arcanae of the Speaker’s voting rights, and how they were envisaged to operate under the Parliamentary Reform Agreement the government and opposition both signed onto.
To get your head around how it all works, I’d strongly recommend reading Stephen King’s post at CoreEcon.
(Oakeshott’s candidature also produced a number of articles in News Limited papers explaining why an Independent could not be independent as Speaker, and discovering hitherto unknown virtues in such previous partisan incumbents of the Chair such as Ian Sinclair and Leaping Leo McLeay. But that’s another story…)
Oakeshott’s strategic withdrawal showed that in no way was the guy grandstanding. His was a valid attempt to test the ‘will of the parliament’ to acceptance of the ‘new paradigm’ and it is a fair call on his part that the system was found wanting. We will never know if he would have been nominated by anyone, fellow independent’s included. I think it is an ominous sign.
Stephen King’s article is very interesting and I an see why Mr Abbott has good reason to believe he can turn things his way. Week one of the new Parliament is shaping up to be a ripper. One trusts the PM will continue to display her usual sangfroid – dignity, stability and a fair dose of reasonableness will win the hearts of the people who matter.
I don’t see why one even needs a speaker to be an MP, if it’s the case that (s)he is not to vote.
Pick a retired judge or a barrister, or some ex town clerk.
The fairest outcome might be to have pairing but no casting vote and motions and amendments failing if tied. It means that we would have been sure of having a decision about who the government was to be after any election. (The opposition has to have a majority to drive any change.) The government and opposition would need the support of three of the four independents to get something through.
Unfortunately, the constitution is quite specific about the speaker having the casting vote.
Pairing would have been complex with Oakshott as speaker since the pair may have to change with each motion
I’m with Fran@3 on ex judges, or a panel of special judiciary (promotions for professors of constitutional going into semi retirement and put in a panel so individual loads would be reasonable might be interesting).
However, with all the talk of the Speaker in the Reps, why should I have seen no talk on the President of the Senate? If we are looking at changes in how the Speaker is chosen to improve the system, then exactly the same arguments and rationale (rather then pretexts) for change apply to the President.
The Constitution is pretty firm on the separation of legislature and judiciary. It’s also pretty firm on Parliament making its own rules. Ex-judges are not of the legislature, and shouldn’t be anywhere near the House of Reps. Also, without a speaker, there’s an even number of MPs, so an irresolvable tie can occur.
Dave@5: The President gets a deliberative vote and not a casting vote, so the Senate situation is different (and more sensible in my view).
In the UK, the Speaker exercise the casting vote according to a strict set of conventions. The Speaker would always vote for a first or second reading but against a third reading or an amendment, etc. We could introduce something like that here. The Speaker would be eligible to participate in the pairing arrangements on the condition that he or she follows the British conventions on the use the casting vote.
Mr. Rabbit’s Thoughts About the Speaker.
I know I did agree to pair
Whoever held the Speaker’s chair.
Now though I am a bit lukewarm
About that contract for reform
Of parliamentary practices
Without a few appendices
Since those bolshie independents
Put Labor in ascendance.
What they did was detrimental
To my plans for ‘kind and gentle.’
Clearly they were asking for a fight,
Choosing Left instead of doing what was Right!
Top heavy with second rate lawyers is the problem,rather than who gets to be Speaker.A classic case of precedents at law choking what can be done.Constitutional related precedents have never worked well for this country.An example would be the Constitution itself as worthy document given the very small turn out of people voting for it originally.And the recent refusal of matters related to the Intervention in the Northern Territory re, the dropping of matters race and particularly Aboriginal,without a right to class action,now!?Thus the clowns at Get Up are not providing a service by their insistence on voter registration,when already existing registered Aboriginal voters were subjected to a U.N. appraisal that said that Intervention did not meet its standards.The party of Evatt,has made Law and the Constitution as it is even more invalid..only the wonderfolk of Federal Court Jurisdiction keep the charade of the Constitution intact.Australia is Afghanistan with more pretence.
Seems to me that Abbott is manipulating this situation to give himself the best chance of forcing an early election. There’s no doubt the hard heads in the Coalition have done the same kind of mathematicak calculations and come up with this present obstructiveness as their best option.
True, it is probably impractical for Oakeshott to be Speaker,for his own political survival, and as I’ve said before, he lacks the experience to do the job. I’ve been thinking about Oakeshott. Sure, he’s a goose, but there is no doubt about the man’s principled, moral courage.
One party or other is going to have to bite the bullet about this, come Monday. Sure, its likely Labor will end up with a one seat majority -thery must have the casting vote – and be in the hands of fate if there is a by-election. They’re going to need to keep a tight rein on their members to ensure none of them do anything that upsets the Independents (specifically Windsor) but so long as they behave with honesty and integrity they won’t have problems. But that’s the problem, isn’t it? We know from past experience that will be a very difficult ask to keep up for 3 years.
John commented:
That is true, and for good reasons, but it is scacrely relevant here. An ex-judge is clearly not of thejudiciary, and neither would be a lawyer or constitutional professor, or a town clerk …
It is, which means that parliament can decide to appoint anyone it fancies, though it would of course require an amendment to s35, which specifies the person to be a member of the House.
I can of course imagine an artifice, in which someone who is a member of the house (e.g. Harry Jenkins) is elected and then appoints a proxy to act for him who is not. The GG is after all, not our HoS — the reigning monarch is — the GG is merely the monarch’s proxy. Thus, a precedent arises.
or “of” anything else, except perhaps “the citizenry”.
I agree (of current judges), but Garfield Barwick in 1975 does set a precedent.
Yet we would have a speaker. s40 means he or she has a casting vote. The parliament could agree to this or agree that if at the conclusion of a count that if the numbers were even, the matter would be deemed defeated and withdrawn before the acting speaker was called upon.
Paul @ 10 I think we should all beware of falling into the MSM’s derision of Oakeshott’s naievite. He made a very good case for himself and his actions with Kerry O’Brien the other evening. Principles and moral courage are rare in political life today. Let’s value them without reservation, particularly when they come with a good mind and warm heart. No reputation is safe these days from the sophistry of Abbot backed by the might of News Ltd. I see Oakeshott, the more vulnerable of the two independents as their current target. One wonders what they will use to undermine Tony Windsor’s credibility.
Paul @ 10 – I’m not sure that Abbott is really pushing for an early election, but rather just a mid-term change in government. The independents would most likely prefer a change in government than another election so its within the realms of possibility.
hear! hear! Patricia WA.
Patricia WA @ 12,
My ambivalence about Oakeshott is not formed by the MSM, but by my own impressions of his own behaviour. Apart from TV news/current affairs etc, which I view with unbridled scepticism and cynicism, my exposure to the print media is mostly through links on LP and the occasional item on Google News, I never buy newspapers and haven’t for years, except for GLW, and that not frequently.I gave up listening to RN years ago. So,and I’m sure you’ll be assured by this, the MSM is like water off a duck’s back to me.
Re Windsor: some years ago, I think when he was a State MP, the Nats tried to embroil him in some scandal, the details of which I can’t remember. He shot them down in flames. Believe me, he’s big enough and tough enough to look after himself. Oakeshott is the vulnerable Independent. He gives me an impression of fragility, along with his nobility It does worry me what Abbott and his evil minions inside and outside of Parliament might do to him.
The fact that you can imagine it doesn’t make it legal. The role of the Governor General in exercising the Queen’s executive powers is expressly provided for in the Constitution – it’s not a “precedent”. You can’t simply interpret section 35 in a manner that suits you.
Since you acknowledge this approach can’t work without a contitutional amendment, why discuss it further? If you’re going to discuss constitutional reform, surely there are bigger fish to fry than quibbles about the role of the Speaker.
That should have been “constitutional” amendment, of course.
You can’t simply interpret section 35 in a manner that suits you.
You can if you are engaging in a spot of DIY constitutional law.
Sure, the High Court would strike Fran’s suggestion down in a nanosecond, but so what? This is just a blog, where people say anything and everything for shits and giggles.
Tim said:
You’ve mixed up two different things. It’s true that neither I nor anyone else can interpret s35 in a convenient way. In my scenario, the speaker is a Member of the House. His or her proxy need not be. The GG situation is codified of course, but it shows that offices can be operated by proxies, and that this is not repugnant to the system.
Until fairly recently, the constitution did not recognise political parties, and it still doesn’t recognise cabinets, or “pairs” in this context. Indeed, taken literally, the GG is a dictator constrained only be the scope of powers listed in the constitution (while the monarch is out of the country).
As a matter of practice, the business of parliament operates on arrangements between those there.
There are, and some of them I’ve outlined elsewhere. That doesn’t mean that in the meantime, this fairly narrow technical matter ought not to be tidied up. Sacrificing a member of parliament who, in theory at least, is supposed to be able to argue his or her constituents’ concerns and possibly determine whether the government stands or falls, so that the big chair can have somebody’s posterior in it does seem ludicrous.
Sam
Ah … I see … you are an appelate court judge? A barrister? A constitutional law expert? Have a postgrad degree in constitutional law? No?
That view seems to be clearly reflected in your initial claim.
Wait a second, Fran, are you seriously suggesting an unelected ex-judge gets a casting vote in the House of Representatives? Because that’s about the most antidemocratic thing I’ve ever heard.
Agreed, but so what? My pointing out that Fran is talking nonsense is in the same vein.
Nope. Your scenario of the Speaker appointing a non-MP “proxy” to fulfil his functions requires an an assumption that the reference in section 35 to “member” impliedly includes a proxy.
No it doesn’t. The GG is a constitutional office with specified powers. The GG’s functions can’t be exercised by a proxy. You haven’t really thought this one through.
Subject to constitutional requirements.
What seems more ludicrous to me is the view, implied in your comments, that it is permissible, and consistent with the system, for an elected member of parliament to appoint an unelected proxy to sit in his or her place and perform his or her functions. Like I said, I don’t think you’ve really thought it through.
I’d also suggest that seeking a constitutional amendment to ‘rectify’ something which is nothing more than an artifact of a particularly close election, and which has yet been shown to be a problem, is a bit of an overreaction.
is yet to be shown to be a problem. Sorry ’bout that.
Fran, stop digging.
John Said:
A state of affairs that can be explained if one assumes that
a) you have an eccentric view of democracy
b) you’re unfamilar with the concept but have heard that it’s supposed to be good
Tim said:
Yes it does. If the parties agreed to that, someone would have to challenge the arrangement. If they did, it would be tested. That would take more than a nano-second.
Nope, you haven’t. The Proxy” for the GG is the PM and he or she doesn’t get a mention in the Constitution.
It’s always fascinating what people find ludicrous. Thanks for sharing. FTR though, the parliament would appoint the proxy, perhaps on the speaker’s recommendation.
oops … MODs … please correct blockquote tags …
TIA
Sam said:
Stop hand waving …
Come on you two!
Looky me.
Now group hug and say “new paradigm”, three times.
Good, that’s better.
Does the solution lie in addressing the apparent inability of the speaker’s pair (the “bunny” in Stephen King’s post) to vote when the speaker makes a casting vote.
Is there a practical or constitutional constraint here, or is the concern simply to avoid a tied vote?
Fran, the PM is a minister of state appointed in accordance with Chapter 2 of the Constitution, and a member of the Executive Council which advises the GG in accordance with that chapter. The conventions which govern the relationship between the GG and the PM are entirely consistent with the written constitution, a clear contrast with the arrangements you are suggesting.
True enough, although since in practice their legal advice would inform them that the arrangement is unconstitutional, the parties would not agree to it in the first place.
This juvenile snark is unfortunate, Fran.
Which is why I find the notion that such a person could delegate their responsibilities to an unelected proxy surprising. I note that you’ve changed your proposed arrangement so that Parliament would choose the speaker, which still doesn’t get around the constitutional issues, of course.
Tim said:
Much as would be the new conventions surrounding the speaker.
That’s an entirely separate and political question, not a legal one. People might well say that it might not stand up and then it would be up to them to decide whether the politics of it all was worth it. As you say, this is the first time the matter has arisen. As they are conservatives, they might well decide the game wasn’t worth the candle. That has nothing to do with whether the arrangement would withstand legal challenge.
The Golden Rule applies, Tim. I assumed you sought it.
Locus standi fails.
These were not the responsibilities that they were given in virtue of election, so this observation is curious.
I’m not attached to a particular model but it does seem perverse that a speaker should be at the expense of the government. To date, the seat differential has rendered this moot, but it was always perverse in theory.
Im not sure on the constitutional argument: while s40 clearly prohibits a deliberative vote for the speaker – there’s nothing stopping the parties ridding another MP of their deliberative vote via a matching pair. This clearly comes under the power to make rules for the house. So its still back to the agreement.
But even if the ALP accedes without a pairing arrangement and keep Jenkins on: its still 75-74. That even allows one indie to abstain on any vote and for a pass on the speakers vote where there’s a tie.
*Sigh*. No Fran, what you’re suggesting is inconsistent with the written constitution as it is. Hell, you’ve already acknowledged that it would require a constitutional amendment.
Not sure what you mean by this Fran. There was no snark in my comments. The word ‘ludicrous’ first appeared in an earlier comment of yours (and I didn’t read it as snark). I shouldn’t have to point that out.
I haven’t the faintest idea why you put this in here, but: nonsense.
Since either side would challenge its legality the moment they perceived a political advantage in doing so, it’s difficult to envisage any Parliament adopting this arrangement in the absence of someone spiking the Parliament House water supply with LSD.
Also, it’s not a case of “people might well say that it might not stand up” – the relevant legal advice would a tad stronger than that, given the enormous stretch required in intepreting the constitution in a manner that would make it valid.
Of course, nobody in Parliament is actually suggesting that such an unconstitutional arrangement should be adopted, nor are they likely to. The only person suggesting it is you.
No, I didn’t say that. I said the situation has arisen because of a very close election.
Perhaps, although it depends on your conception of how parliament and the executive government should operate, I suppose. That need not be based on recent practice. But it appears you haven’t read the Steven King article that Kim linked to in her post, because if you had, you’d realise that having a Labor speaker is not necessarily ‘at the expense of the government’. That depends on other arrangements (which don’t require amendments to, or bush-lawyer interpretations of, the constitution to set in place).
Tim Said:
It would if you wanted the speaker to be qualified other than by being a member of parliament. Of course, s35 saysd nothing about speakers’ proxies.
Such disingenuity … I quoted the snark above, not that I mind, but as I said, the Golden Rule applies.
You would if you understood the Golden Rule, but you’re choosing not to … which is a shame, I suppose, or perhaps it isn’t.
Well if it had been spiked it might well seem like “a nanosecond” but I take it you’re agreeing that it would be a lot longer than that, and in the interim both sides might think it in their interests to simply accept the deal, which would seem to strike at your basic claim.
Which in this context, is the same thing.
The link hasn’t been working, but in practice though, the speaker always has been “at the expense of the government”.
No, the idea that a speaker can appoint a proxy who is not a member of parliament is inconsistent with the constitution as it is. Enough with the bush-lawyering, Fran. It isn’t nearly as clever as you think it is.
Now you’re attacking my honesty and motives – a poor substitute for substantial argument. Wow – you’re really having a tantrum over somebody calling you out on your bush-lawyering, aren’t you? Actually, I really didn’t think the comment in which I used the word ‘ludicrous’ was snarky, but you’re free to read it as snark, of course. But I’m sorry you did so.
But the comment you quoted was an instance of me responding to a comment by Sam, which was directed to me.
I don’t know why you keep banging on about this – the ‘nanosecond’ comment was Sam, not me, and it obviously wasn’t intended to be taken literally.
FWIW, I don’t think the High Court would require lengthy deliberations to form the view that a law passed by relying on the casting vote of a speaker who was not a member of parliament is invalid.
My ‘basic claim’ that the arrangement is unconstitutional? I don’t think so. Anyway as I said, nobody is actually proposing this arrangement except you, so it’s a moot point.
I don’t really see how, although I’m not particularly concerned either way.
Fair enough if you couldn’t open the link. The proposed pairing arrangements under the ‘parliamentary reform’ package potentially make it advantageous for Labor to hold the Speaker’s chair.
Fran’s bush lawyering is indeed silly, but on this blog we have bush lawyers aplenty. Also, bush engineers, bush doctors, bush economists, bush pedagogists, bush historians, bush agronomists, bush chemists, bush everything.
It’s all part of the fun that are the intertubes.
The trick is to take none of it seriously.
Of course, but sometimes it’s fun to argue.
It is fun to argue, but it beats me why anyone cares what is said on a blog.
Tim said:
I know nothing of your motives here. I could guess but that would probably not be helpful. Certainly though you ignored my text:
and implied, and continue to imply that I thought the term “ludicrous” was snark. You’re not stupid, so disingenuity presses itself forward as an explanation.
That’s a form of dishonesty, but it’s more usefully put under the rubric of non-responsive dialog.
Yes, in which you decided to take a personal swing at me. That’s fine, but you can scarcely complain if I respond in the same tone. The Golden Rule applies.
Fair enough. Your opinion is settled.
Arguably so. Very little of what I propose is being proposed by others. This is the default condition, but personally, when I’m proposing stuff, I’m not greatly concerned with what others are proposing, though I can scarcely ignore it. I’m motivated by what I regard as most closely approaching the optimal, all things considered. I’d like much more radical changes, as you know, but we are discussing the speaker …
It would be better if they got some adequately qualified person in to do the job, since it is clearly a fairly trivial one, at least, when the mouth in question is in the chair and making the noises and signs like some cop directing traffic in the days before he was replaced by traffic lights.
Fran, if you re-read your comment, to which I responded, you’ll see that your snark (which I quoted) was immediately beneath your quote of my comment containing the word “ludicrous”. That was why I made the assumption that it was the characterisation of your argument as “ludicrous” that offended you. However, I accept your explanation that it was actually my comment to Sam.
I wouldn’t have read the comment as a “personal swing” myself, but on re-reading it I can see it could have been read that way. I’m sorry if it offended you.
Your repeated accusations of dishonesty, on the other hand, are clearly personal, and unwarranted. If you are fair, you will withdraw them.
Not to mention reasonably well informed.
Anyway this is becoming a derail so I won’t go on about it any further.
Well Tim, I thought your own take on disingenuity = dishonesty was rather extravagant, but as I don’t regard you as a dishonest person, I’m happy to withdraw the imputation, given that you suggest I’ve made it.
I agree that we are now in thread derail so I too will leave it there.
I’d have thought that the concept of someone other than a member of parliament giving instructions to members in the House – telling them to shut up, ejecting them from the chamber etc. – is pretty repugnant to the whole system. The last time it was tried there was a war and the reigning monarch lost his head as a result.
Hal said:
I’m a schoolteacher Hal. I do that sort of stuff for a living
More seriously, why would that be a problem? When two people have a dispute, they can agree on an arbitrator. The speaker is merely ruling on who gets to talk.
Fran @ 25 I do love hypotheticals but…
The issue is that no party won the election – just in case you didn’t notice. The 90% of ties when a coalition or party wins a comfortabe majority of seats no issue.
Fetch the comfy chair. (Apologies to Monty Python)
HarleyMC
Hardly. You will note that the governing coalition controls 76 seats and the losing coalition controls 74. That’s a win as large as that of Menzies in 1961 (62-60), and in that one, Menzies lost the 2PP as well and conceded a swing to the ALP more than twice that achieved by the coalition the other way this time.
But it was still a win.
oops … should be “nearly twice”
“More than nearly twice”? That’s almost nonsensical.
So replace the ‘more than’ with the ‘nearly’, like she clearly meant. Do I have to chew your food for you too?
Fran you’re trying to cover your tracks unconvincingly. post at 25 you said party won,at 45 you start to talk about a coalition. Think before you post rather than after people point out your factual errors.
You’re posting on this topic like a happy clapper, it undermines your credibility on other issues when you are publishing rubbish on this issue.
HarleyMC
It’s fun to pick up on minor points of expression. I do it myself from time to time.
However here you are trying to turn a semantic quibble into something more.
The party that “won” the election is the party that leads the government (i.e. “the ALP”). This is unusual because normally, when the ALP wins it not onl;y leads the government but has an absolute majority of the lower house. This is in contrast with the Liberals, who win elections but are almost always dependent on the Nationals to control the lower house.
Because the coalition alliance is long established feature of Australian politics, we tend to treat “the coalition” as if it is a single party. There’s a “coalition party room” analogous to the ALP caucus. Of course, it’s not a single party. Sometimes we say “the Liberals won the election” and we have even said “John Howard” won the election as he was the PM between 1996 and 2007. Most know what is meant by this.
The ALP won the election, though it is for now, an ALP-led coalition.
Quibbling, then throwing insults, may make you feel empowered, but it gives you no standing to evaluate anyone’s credibility.
Write novel and plausible things on topic for a while. When you have done that, I will accord your posts more weight than I’m inclined to now.
See what I mean about Fran Barlow taking over threads in LP? I’m serious Fran, start your own blog and post pix of your cat and half the posters here will flock there I’m sure. Until then, or until moderators wake up to this, Fran Barlow will be the lantana of LP.
I’m not sure how my posting harms you Andrew, but if people make claims that interest me, I am going to respond.
To return things to the rails, Abbott’s reneging on the agreements won’t necessarily wreck this parliament even if they make things more difficult than they have to be.
Fran did make the valid point that Gillard is no worse off than Menzies was in 61. I was around then, albeit not 21 or voting, and I remember that Calwell moved no confidence in the Government at least twice soon after parliament reconvened.
Menzies survived and after that initial heat (which like now led to parliamentary fitness/health programs and similar) things returned to business as usual. Once Menzies sensed that public confidence had returned he went to the polls in 63 for an easy win.
While the indies are in leverage control Gillard would be well-advised to look at counter-attacks, especially on reforms which might be popular. I could imagine fixed 4-year terms going down well with the long-suffering voting public.Everyone, except the coalition, who prefer to be in permanent electioneering mode, would be in favour. The coalition could be exposed a bit in opposing.
It could work, with a bit of constitutional tweaking even with a Westminster system depending on confidence on the floor of the House. If the Government loses that, somebody else can form a government for the duration of the term. If nobody can and the Governor has to dissolve the House, then an election can be held but that parliament can only run for the duration of the remaining term. And there would be no public funding for such an election.
Should be sufficient deterrents for playing funny buggers in the House.
This is what Tony Windsor thinks about Abbott’s bad behaviour. He ain’t impressed.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/tony-windsor-doubts-labor-will-last-full-term/story-e6frf7l6-1225928656733
Don Wigan
Some years ago, I’d have thought so, but here in NSW, where we introduced this, we now have a government that is well past its use by date and is simply counting down the days.
They have been in this condition fro miore than half their term, and indeed, they were kind of lucky to get in in 2007. They have absolutely no incentive to do anything but get all they can out of being there because everyone on a margin of less than 8% has to think his chance of a continuing career are very poor.
Come March, the pain will be replaced with a new pain, but there are no winners in this.
One possibility might be a system in which if, during the last year of a parliament’s life, 40% or more of the members thought there should be an election called right now, then an election would have to be called within six weeks.
Reposted from another comments thread. I’m getting awfully mixed up here.
Fran,
While I agree that Labor is cactus at the next NSW State election, one should never ever underestimate the ability of the Loony Right in the NSW Liberal Party to shoot themselves in both feet. Under such circumstances Labor could win (barely)and the argument for full four year terms woyuld be sustained.
In any case, its in the nature of the Westminster system that governing parties after several terms descend into dysfunctionality to one degree or another. At which point, unless they are being boostered by a minor party’s preferences, we dump ‘em.
Bob Katter has also weighed in against the welshing rabbit.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/24/3020914.htm?section=justin
Paul Burns commented:
I don’t agree. Yes, the Libs could seriously mess up, but that is a persistent unknowable risk which underlines why fixed four year terms, are undesirable. The ALP has done that very thing so far, but if it does benefit from some miracle, and fall over the line, then plainly that might have happened after a three-year term.
If you had a four-year term that the parliament could cut short where things were in a rubbish enough state for the opposition to think it might be time to test the mandate.
It’s unlikely the opposition would pull the trigger unless they really thought they could win, and they’d have to be a little careful using the trigger recklessly, and in any event, the government would always get three years at least. A government that was comfortably ahead in the polls would be pretty happy with the opposition pulling the trigger a year early, because they’d get a conveniently timed election without being accused of playing politics with the timing. And if the opposition were reluctant to pull the trigger, they couldn’t move no confidence without risking the claim that they were unwilling to “take it outside”.
Nobody should be surprised that Abbot’s behaving this way. Seems to me it can partly be explained by Abbott’s short term aim of creating a situation where he can either force a change of government on the floor of the house or force an election. In the long term, its no surprise. I can’t remember when there has been anything like honour or truthfulness on the Coalition side of politics, its been so long since they were guided by the normal decencies.
Since all the Independents have expressed dismay at the Coalition’s behaviour, I can’t see the Independents changing their suport from Labor soon. If the 1940s are any guide, history shows Independents only resile from supporting governments after they’ve made a decision to support them because the Government party is unfit to govern or because a Government member is perceived to have misled Parliament.
Abbott and his mob have clearly misled the Independents, and even before the Parliament sits the Liberal have well and truly proved they would be well and truly unfit to govern.
Fran @ 58
your thinking is predicated on the situation of an unpopular government stuffing up early in a four year term and thus deserving to be kicked out. This is not the normal situation and in the NSW case has only happened over a long term of government. Assuming all Governments, whatever party they are, stuff up badly near the end of a series of terms in succession, the raison d’etre behind four year terms still remains (even when governments aren’t effectively governing as is the cae here nowadays)namely to give governments time to govern, rather than be caught in a permanent election cycle. To go back to a three year term, would be a return to the bad old days.
(Though I don’t approve of long terms, really, if it means the Liberals are going to be in power longer. Do hope that doesn’t make my argument too inconsistent,)
Ignoring the very silly argument about changing the formally defined role of the Speaker (though for the record Fran, you should have listened to Sam @ 24), there’s a couple of points to be made about Tones’ reneging on the deal.
1. He’s not getting another deal from Windsor, Oakeshott or Wilkie any time in the life of this parliament, maybe even mad Bob Katter will change his mind.
2. The speaker doesn’t get a deliberative vote, but does still get a casting vote. So it’s now 75 – 74. One abstention or absence can still be covered by the Speaker. So carelessness is still covered (though the whip has got a job ahead of him). More than one missing vote probably means something is amiss politically, which is really no different from what we already had.
Tones only hope for forming government in the next three years seems to rest on winning a byelection in a currently marginal Labor seat. The chances of this I would rate as slim. I predict that Our Julia’s popularity will increase, and people will come to greatly dislike Tones aggressive negativity.
Re four year terms, here in Vic we’re loving ‘em. Though our government, for an eleven year outfit, is reasonably popular.
I wonder if the Government will now try to entice Katter into the Speaker’s chair.
Peter van Onselen writes…
Pretty good summary, but I do not think he needs to be in any doubt about what Labor would have done if it had lost.
They would have stuck by what they signed up with.
Abbott is totally untrustworthy when he says anything or even signs up to it.
Really though, at the moment Paul, in NSW the four-year-fixed term is being judged in the light of the popularity of the ALP regime here so anyone running against it is simply going to point to NSW and win.
I can’t imagine that if Anna Bligh said “let’s have a fixed four-year term” that would be all that popular either.
And right now, people are feeling a little bit snippy about the Feds too … and I doubt either side would fancy handing the other four years to do their worst.
In theory four years, or even five, might be good. That might make throwing out a one term government more likely as people might well think they had seen enough. Howard might have been chucked out in 2006. Maybe Costello would have run in 2003. Who knows?
But in practice it is very tricky, and what we really need is a better standard of politician, if we are to have them at all.
Wilful said:
I did listen. I concluded it was self-serving, as he had no case and simply wanted to nuke the discussion to cover that.
Tim said:
That occurred to me as well, and it would annoy the hell out of Abbott. That might be a good enough reason for Katter to do it, or we could have a Crook in the chair.
Fran, I’m not going to buy into it, except to say that you’re talking about constitutional changes, which no one else is. A referendum on this matter isn’t proposed or likely any time soon.
Wilful said:
Even if this turned out to be so, why would we care? To the best of my knowledge, matters raised here don’t have to survive a “probably going to be considered in the next 12 months by elite people” test, and if that filter is imposed, this site will become a lot less interesting.
Not all of what I proposed as possible required constitutional changes of course, though in the longer run, that would be tidier.
Fran @ 65,
Fran,
That’s all very well, but in the longer scheme of things, the constitutional change to a four year term here in NSW was done by referendum in a change to the State constitution. (Its so long ago I can’t really remember.) To see thing through the prism of the current Labor Right here is a benighted short-termism. (Or for that matter the Libs : doesn’t msatter what party is in Government in NSW, sooner or later the scum always floats to the top, (something Keneally probably didn’t realise when she went into State politics, being an American-Australian and all).
I like Keneally.
Can we haz Smileys back plz.
There is speculation by Chris Uhlman on ABC-TV that a Qld coalition guy is considering the Deputy Speaker position.
Couldn’t find anything about it online. I guess the main interest will be whether this type of arrangement will allow the Speaker to pair against the Deputy (or simply swap roles when the Speaker wanted to cast a vote on the floor).
Couldn’t imagine the Welsher Rabbott being too happy about it.
I have just read the piece on Crikey concerning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech to the UN claiming 9/11 was a US conspiracy. Astounding.
But as I was reading the article it occurred to me that there is some similarity in the approach Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has to politics & Tony Abbott’s. Now I am not claiming that Tony would have people tortured or killed for disagreeing with him that is going to far. The similarity is the need for combat. They both are keen to poke a stick in their opponents eye and keep challenging for a bare knuckle fight. That is their only strategy and when not on that turf they look uncomfortable.
For all the claims about Tony Abbott being a good communicator I dont believe this is correct. Sure he can throw out one liners “Big new Tax”, “Stop The Boats” but if pressed to debate or justify a stance to an informed opponent he starts to blather and fall back on cliché.
My real worry is that if he were successful in this strategy and form a government he would still pursue this strategy as that is all he knows. Rather than governing the country he would then embark on a series of stacked enquiries using the resources of government. His new goal being to eliminate the opposition. It would make John Howard proud but I remain perplexed that the general media are not being more critical of his behaviour. Part of the problem me thinks is that they also love a bare knuckle fight and Tony is always promising one.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbott-plays-hardball-on-pairing-tradition-20100924-15pdi.html
More shenanigans!
The strategy is clear.Make the house of reps unworkable and use all methods to cripple any government action.
Right from the outset of his leadership he promised to oppose and all the horse trading around wooing the independents was just fluff.
Fran, still trying to to buy into this fruitless argument, but you know how many referenda have succeeded in Australia.
Murph, that’s shithouse. But bloody pointless. The government will simply have to hold over important bills. It’s not like a no confidence motion can be moved just because the Min Foreign Affairs, the Min Defence and the Min Trade all happen to be out of the country.
I hope this blows up in the scumbag’s face.
Breaking news: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/24/3021064.htm
he Federal Government has found a Coalition MP who is prepared to be deputy speaker and pair with Speaker Harry Jenkins, the ABC understands.
ABC News 24 political editor Chris Uhlmann has been told the deal is close to being sealed.
Any such move by a Coalition MP would preserve the Government’s two-seat majority and would no doubt enrage the Opposition and its leader Tony Abbott.
This lunchtime Queensland Liberal MP Alex Somlyay, who was dumped as the Opposition’s whip in the recent reshuffle, told ABC Radio Current Affairs that he had been approached for the deputy speaker’s job and was considering his position.
Earlier he told ABC NewsRadio that he would speak publicly on the reported job offer later today.
The major parties are locked in a brawl over who should fill the role after the Coalition backed out of a deal to have to have the speaker paired with an opposite member during divisions.
Walking away from the deal yesterday, Mr Abbott argued that it was unconstitutional.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard and independents Bob Katter and Tony Windsor have attacked Mr Abbott for going back on his word.
“Murph, that’s shithouse. But bloody pointless. The government will simply have to hold over important bills.”
If it does slow some things down that is a gov. advantage. It needs to play a waiting game till the Senate turnover, anyway.
And the pair game plays both ways. Liberal backbenchers and shadow ministers will get just as shitty if they cannot take leave.
I reckon Tony is shooting himself in the foot.
Some days just seem like they get better and better.
Abbott might now be temporarily snookered, but he’ll come up with another plot no doubt. All he seems to be doing at the moment is kicking own goals. Now, I don’t follow football that much, but when a footbaler was that persistently stupid, they wouldn’t want him on the team would they?
[Collingwood to win!]
Who else remembers the scene in the first Aliens movie when the cyborg is suddenly outed and starts spinning around and thrashing wildly while others look on in wonder. Somehow I can almost imagine Tony doing this if the deal is put in place.
I fear for Alex Somlyay though. The attack pack of Andrew Robb, The poodle as well as Tony will be monstering him.
Wilful said:
Very few and again, this is part of our other argument on voting systems and data gathering — the binary in which if one major tribal block says nay, the idea sinks due to the structural inertia built into the system.
Yet I can see how the MPs on both sides might think this fairly minor change worth it. Giving up an MP for no good reason does seem to be pretty silly.
I fear for Alex Somlyay though
Well, obviously he’s decided this is to be last term. He can pick up a few extra perks and top up his pension. What are the Liberal nasties going to do? Put a cement overcoat on him and drop him to the bottom of Lake Burley Griffin?
It’s quite simple really. They tell him he’s a rat. He tells them to fuck off. End of discussion.