 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: What would happen if we got rid of the senate? |  |
|
It acts as a moderating influence, it also blocks bills the elected government of the day wants to put through. Exhibit A, Whitlam.
What is the worst that could happen if we got rid of it?
Parties that won the house of reps would have the power to implement their agenda. They could go full on, within 1 caveat. If they go too far, the population would boot them at the next election and the other team would erase it all and put in their own agenda. Rinse and repeat until they learned to moderate their own actions rather than relying on the senate.
New Zealand seems to survive without one.
Thoughts?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
Dave The Man 
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
New Zealand are not run by Corrupt Pollies
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
New Zealand's population is about the same size as Melbourne. It needs a council, not a government.
More seriously, I think a house of review is very desirable as a government with a strong majority can do irreversible damage in three years. The senate is elected, so if the people do not like its work, they can change it at the next election. So the case for change seems to me fairly modest.
All that said, it can be obstructionist, and I could see benefits in a model where the Senate could not block legislation outright, but could simply delay its passage. Perhaps a better system would be one in which the senate could delay a particular bill until the other side of a general election, but a government which has been re-elected (ie commands again a majority in the HoR), then earns the right to unilaterally pass legislation which has previously been referred to the Senate but blocked by it.
Personally I would prefer a model which is only partly (two-thirds or perhaps half) elected, with the remainder consisting of people who have achieved particular eminence in a serious field, without having overt or recorded political affiliation. These appointments could be made by a body independent of the government of the day. I would have no issue with this being broadly balanced with respect to public demographics (gender, minorities etc).
Finally, I think it's important that the states continue to be represented by the senate. Though it is often forgotten (mostly on the Left of Oz politics), Australia is a federation, and friendly competition between states within a constitutional structure is a benefit to Australia's civic life.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
-I might pass the citizenship test!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | New Zealand seems to survive without one. |
So does the Queensland state parliament after abolishing the Legislative Council in 1922.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | New Zealand's population is about the same size as Melbourne. It needs a council, not a government.
More seriously, I think a house of review is very desirable as a government with a strong majority can do irreversible damage in three years. The senate is elected, so if the people do not like its work, they can change it at the next election. So the case for change seems to me fairly modest.
All that said, it can be obstructionist, and I could see benefits in a model where the Senate could not block legislation outright, but could simply delay its passage. Perhaps a better system would be one in which the senate could delay a particular bill until the other side of a general election, but a government which has been re-elected (ie commands again a majority in the HoR), then earns the right to unilaterally pass legislation which has previously been referred to the Senate but blocked by it.
Personally I would prefer a model which is only partly (two-thirds or perhaps half) elected, with the remainder consisting of people who have achieved particular eminence in a serious field, without having overt or recorded political affiliation. These appointments could be made by a body independent of the government of the day. I would have no issue with this being broadly balanced with respect to public demographics (gender, minorities etc).
Finally, I think it's important that the states continue to be represented by the senate. Though it is often forgotten (mostly on the Left of Oz politics), Australia is a federation, and friendly competition between states within a constitutional structure is a benefit to Australia's civic life. |
Interesting idea re: an appointed senate – almost more of a House of Lords approach, no? Only question is who would decide who gets a seat; kind of hard for a non-political body of the kind you propose (itself inevitably appointed by the government of the day) making decisions that would, inevitably, have deeply political consequences. Perhaps it's all quite possible, but its implementation would certainly have its challenges.
As an aside, Tasmania is an interesting case where most of the people elected to the legislative council are (if I recall correctly) non-party affiliated. That's convention, not legislation, but I wonder if you could maintain an electoral system for the senate but simply ban party affiliation. Of course that wouldn't stop parties from pushing forward friendly candidates (much as I suspect they do in council elections), so perhaps you would have to have strict rules against under-the-table party dealings, just like the public service or judicial system. I'm still not sure how desirable this whole concept is, but it is an interesting one to consider, at least.
Anyway, getting back to the original thread question: while there are certainly ways we could improve it, I think the Senate is important for two reasons: a) it acts as a useful checks and balances system and reigns in excessive behaviour by the government of the day, and b) it helps break down the major party duopoly by giving a voice to minor parties and independents, who are generally totally frozen out of the lower house despite often commanding sizeable votes across the country. One thing it doesn't do, except in rare exceptions like Xenophon and Lambie, is represent the interests of the states. All party politicians almost always vote on party lines, so the original conception of the Senate as a way of representing the states equally is really just nonsense in practice.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Theoretically speaking, the Senate has two purposes:
1). To Act as the States House - This means having proportional representation of Senators from each State representing the interests and concerns of their respective State; and
2). Acting as the House of Review - Although, bills can also be initiated in the Senate in many instances, apart from appropriation bills, which can only be initiated in the House of Representatives.
I think David is largely spot on about the reality of what the Senate entails in this day and age.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Interesting idea re: an appointed senate – almost more of a House of Lords approach, no? |
Slightly influenced by it, insofar as I'd rather be governed by the kind of mature, rational discussions that characterise the HoL than those grandstanding pack howls which take place in the HoC.
But the HoL has some real drawbacks as well - it is still partly an hereditary chamber, reflecting its historic status as a house representing the landed nobility. Though the hereditary numbers are much reduced, this is not a model that makes sense to any young democracy. And the rest are party placemen, of one kind or another.
I would like a kind of emeritus house of review that stands outside the political process as far as practicable, but the HoL does not really meet either of those italicised criteria. It does, however, have the advantage of not being elected. As long as it is subordinate to the elected house, as it should be, that is a plus. I agree that it would be somewhat tricky to compose, and nothing is ever perfect in politics, but we manage to do so with High/Supreme Court judges, so I imagine we could make it work.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: Re: What would happen if we got rid of the senate? | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | It acts as a moderating influence, it also blocks bills the elected government of the day wants to put through. Exhibit A, Whitlam.
What is the worst that could happen if we got rid of it?
Parties that won the house of reps would have the power to implement their agenda. They could go full on, within 1 caveat. If they go too far, the population would boot them at the next election and the other team would erase it all and put in their own agenda. Rinse and repeat until they learned to moderate their own actions rather than relying on the senate.
New Zealand seems to survive without one.
Thoughts? |
The Senate is the house of review. It's a pity that those calling for the abolishing of the Senate ignore the facts that it works. The LNP called a Double Dissolution Election due to what it perceived as a Hostile Senate. Now they are pissed off that the Senate is even more hostile. How about presenting bills that will pass and not try to whack a whole bunch together to sneak them through. The ALP passed more bills through the Senate with a minority Government in one week than the current Government. Typical Liberal push, it's not working the way they want it so let's get rid of it. Good old Sco Mo will raise taxes now cause he can't pass a bill. Great, let's do it. Don't make the multinationals pay tax, let's make Australians pay more tax. What a bunch of clowns.  |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I don't like to talk about bad things. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: Re: What would happen if we got rid of the senate? | |
|
| Culprit wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | It acts as a moderating influence, it also blocks bills the elected government of the day wants to put through. Exhibit A, Whitlam.
What is the worst that could happen if we got rid of it?
Parties that won the house of reps would have the power to implement their agenda. They could go full on, within 1 caveat. If they go too far, the population would boot them at the next election and the other team would erase it all and put in their own agenda. Rinse and repeat until they learned to moderate their own actions rather than relying on the senate.
New Zealand seems to survive without one.
Thoughts? |
The Senate is the house of review. It's a pity that those calling for the abolishing of the Senate ignore the facts that it works. The LNP called a Double Dissolution Election due to what it perceived as a Hostile Senate. Now they are pissed off that the Senate is even more hostile. How about presenting bills that will pass and not try to whack a whole bunch together to sneak them through. The ALP passed more bills through the Senate with a minority Government in one week than the current Government. Typical Liberal push, it's not working the way they want it so let's get rid of it. Good old Sco Mo will raise taxes now cause he can't pass a bill. Great, let's do it. Don't make the multinationals pay tax, let's make Australians pay more tax. What a bunch of clowns. |
To be clear, I'm not calling for it to be abolished, just flagging the question how things would work without it
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
regan is true fullback
Joined: 27 Dec 2002
Location: Granville. nsw
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Quote: | | What is the worst that could happen if we got rid of it? |
Queensland - Joh's Queensland... |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Is it the only one? |
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: Re: What would happen if we got rid of the senate? | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Culprit wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | It acts as a moderating influence, it also blocks bills the elected government of the day wants to put through. Exhibit A, Whitlam.
What is the worst that could happen if we got rid of it?
Parties that won the house of reps would have the power to implement their agenda. They could go full on, within 1 caveat. If they go too far, the population would boot them at the next election and the other team would erase it all and put in their own agenda. Rinse and repeat until they learned to moderate their own actions rather than relying on the senate.
New Zealand seems to survive without one.
Thoughts? |
The Senate is the house of review. It's a pity that those calling for the abolishing of the Senate ignore the facts that it works. The LNP called a Double Dissolution Election due to what it perceived as a Hostile Senate. Now they are pissed off that the Senate is even more hostile. How about presenting bills that will pass and not try to whack a whole bunch together to sneak them through. The ALP passed more bills through the Senate with a minority Government in one week than the current Government. Typical Liberal push, it's not working the way they want it so let's get rid of it. Good old Sco Mo will raise taxes now cause he can't pass a bill. Great, let's do it. Don't make the multinationals pay tax, let's make Australians pay more tax. What a bunch of clowns. |
To be clear, I'm not calling for it to be abolished, just flagging the question how things would work without it |
Sorry Stui, no coffee at that time. It was a Rant after hearing that flog Bolt. |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
My vote at the next election will be between the mother of dragons and the bastard who actually isn't.
I'm currently leaning towards the bastard.
Till then all senate bills can be decided by combat.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
