Andrew Bartlett commenting on John Quiggin's site:
And whilst I agree a unanimous vote is very desirable, I don't agree that Nelson should seek to expul and withdraw endorsement of any Liberal who votes against an aoplogy. We need less instances of parliamentarians being forced to vote for things they are fundamentally opposed to, not more. Unanimity is desirable, but not at the price of forced and fake agreement ...The Australian Democrats were our most republican and liberal politicians.
Clinton Barnes : Were. Are. Will be again.
In 1981 Senator Colin Mason outlined the governing philosophy of the Australian Democrats as a minority party holding the balance of power in the Senate. This is the early Democrats philosophy which was guided by Chipp's belief of keeping the bastards honest. Later Democrat balances of power saw voting down money bills as being within their scope of power. (more)
The Australian Democrats usually get pidgeon-holed as a 'lefty' party, but if you look at their Senate performance and speeches they are by far the most liberal and republican party in the Australian system. They actually practice a relatively pure style of liberal democracy which is based around deliberation, debate, competition over policy and then majority support. (more)
I agree with Irfan Yusuf, Pell shouldn't be the focus of an inquiry into Contempt of Parliament in NSW. Andrew Bartlett has a longer post describing what Contempt of Parliament is. There is an argument in my opinion for that kind of executive and judicial enforcement to be removed from parliament itself and only housed in the executive. If a legislator feels they have been coerced, and the executive will not inquire into the circumstances then they should be able to sue the executive through the judicial to have their grievance heard. (more)
gilmae : I am unable to fathom exactly how advising MPs that they should re-consider their participating in a religious rite is somehow more coercive or contemptuous of Parliament than advising MPs that they will be voted out if they vote a certain way. For career politicians I imagine the latter is considerably more of a threat than the former.
George Pell is a nob but an irrelevant one with very little real power. Lee Rhiannon, on the other hand, is in a position to exert actual power - hobbled only by a lack of credibility - and as such should be thinking very hard before she starts trying to mau-mau dissenting opinion.
I suspect the principle of convention is going to be explored in a series of posts - \o/ - Anyway, convention does not have the force of law, but is assumed to have the force of practice, otherwise known as custom or tradition, and carry weight accordingly. This is the wrong way to view it, convention is in reality the sovereign's whim. Today's Senate sitting had an example with the first bill reading. (more)
Who dare mention them? Andrew Bartlett does in an adjournment speech in the Senate. Andrew questions the inflationary nature of these policies [pdf] on housing prices.
(more)
Guy : Absolutely...: There is not enough ends-based policy analysis and revision done in Australian government. Does a policy work? Is it worthwhile? What has it acheived? How can it be improved?
All of these questions are worth considering. You would think in the current climate where Australia is one of the least affordable places in the world to buy property, someone would display the political gumption required to take a close look into such matters.
Andrew Bartlett in a speech
points to a political response to citizenship being hopelessly one way - ie dominated by the state.
(more)
Andrew Bartlett has an excellent article on Parliamentary Secretaries and what they do;
What the hell does a Parliamentary Secretary do, anyway?
(more)
Andrew Bartlett in
an adjournment speech
about the issue of Palestine and Israel talks of his opinion on his role as a representative;
The petitioning document was handed to me at a rally in Brisbane some time back with the request that I table it in the Senate, so I have done so. It does not necessarily mean that I agree with the precise wording within the petitioning document, but I think it is important that people's views are represented.(more)
Andrew Murray made a
speech in the Senate Hansard for October 12th on the subject of appointed judges
and the need for legislative oversight of executive appointments to the High Court. Andrew Bartlett, another Senator from the Australian Democrats recently touched on
the same issue writing that Judges should not be elected
. SSR also
covered the issue
where
Alan argued for a Missouri Plan
style of appointing judges.
(more)
