Humble servant of the Nation

Should the Senate exist?

SHARE
, / 14442 482

Is the Senate real? Have you touched it? Have you licked it?

Sure, there’s an edifice, a room draped in a loud, garish red decor but does the institution itself exist? Perhaps more to the point, should it?

These existential puzzles have arisen after four politicians this year – two from the Greens, one from Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and one from Family First have been sent packing. They are persona non grata. If they thought they were senators they now know they were not and their representative careers have been or will soon be stricken from the record.

Section 44 of the Constitution stipulates the following of any person wishing to take a seat in the federal parliament:

Any person who:

(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or

(ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer; or

(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or

(iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth; or

(v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons;

shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

Full column here.

482 Comments

  • Boadicea says:

    Goodness. Trump now saying he can pardon family, friends, even himself from any adverse findings in the Russian affair.
    Crazy stuff.

    • Dwight says:

      You’ll find the Presidential power of the pardon completely unfettered.
      Article II, Section 2:
      “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

    • Dwight says:

      Clinton and Obama made very liberal use of it as you recall. In the Marc Rich case Eric Holder was involved as was James Comey and John Podesta.

    • Milton says:

      The Queen does not even say pardon for her corgies.

  • BASSMAN says:

    4 year terms mooted…totally against them. Longer to get rid of a bad govt and just an excuse to punish the marginalised earlier in a government’s term but give them longer to forget about it. Better off having three years but FIXED TERMS Bald. The average term is only 2 and a half years because of greedy leaders…..and we let them get away with it….DON’T VOTE for THEM!

    Janet for Dutts Leader….hmm interesting. She should remember he lost 6 points at the last election and holds his seat by about 1%. She says he is from the ‘centre right’. Good God he is to the right of Abbott and G. Kahn!! Dutts is so far from the centre he is in a universe of his own. Dutts has gone so far to the right we need a cloned Euclid to invent a new circle of 500 degrees. Dutts will never be leader. Going by the letters in all of the papers I read he is despised more than Abbott. Also he lies incessantly.

    JackSprat says:
    JULY 23, 2017 AT 12:20 PM YOU SAY… “CLIMATE HAS ALWAYS CHANGED”…. CORRECT…. but never at the rate it has changed over the last 100years. How will the world end? Dunno but these two come to mind. 1. Overpopulation 2. Global Warming.

    LATEST NEWSPOLL OUT:- Shorten still behind on preferred leader. Interesting though that both have virtually the same number for ‘dissatisfied’ with the way they are handling their jobs.

    Dwight says:
    JULY 23, 2017 AT 8:02 AM…“Employ the homeless to run the country”…USA
    Average pay has hardly risen since the 90’s in the US of A. Waitresses in some places are on $2.50 an hour scrounging for tips. “Yeah yeah yeah”. Inequality is worsening. Shorten is onto something here. Over the last decade in Oz, the richest 10 per cent have enjoyed almost half of the growth in incomes, and the richest 1 per cent has received 22 per cent of the gains. Hockey’s Budget proposed a cut of some 12-15 per cent in the disposable income of key lower income groups, but less than 1 per cent for those on higher incomes. I note today’s news Trumper’s base is crumbling as they see the jobs he is ‘creating’ are smoke.
    “Yeah yeah yeah” “Our grandchildren” “Liberals for grandchildren” 2019 Looter three word slogan. Just love the ring of it.

  • Henry Blofeld says:

    Enemies of the USA sit up and take note as POTUS Trump has just helped Commission the mega weapon the USS Gerald R. Ford. Linked article tells all about this potential “tool” of destruction or looking at it another way a “dove” of Peace. Meanwhile the massive USS Ronald Regan has just docked in Brisbane to give the Ships Crew some R & R.
    http://tinyurl.com/yd9nncuh

    • JackSprat says:

      I just wonder about these things.
      Big targets with all your eggs in a few baskets.

      • Razor says:

        Massive self defence capability though JS. The Kamikaze plan doesn’t work on these big boys.

      • Henry Blofeld says:

        Indeed JackSprat however as I understand it the modern AC’s have a big “shield” around them so not much can get close to them unlike the WW2 AC’s . Cheers.

      • Dwight says:

        The Aegis system integrates the air defense capabilities of all the ships in the Battle Group–including allies. The AN/SPY-1 radar can track and destroy 100 simultaneous targets at more than 100 nautical miles (those are the unclassified figures). The Navy spends a lot of time worrying about keeping the carriers safe. They’re not invulnerable but very hardened targets.

    • Milton says:

      The son of a lady I know got to go on a tour of that big ship, Henry. He was taking photos for some media mob. He was flown onto it and the passengers had to face in the opposite direction due to the forces when landing. Apparently it was one of the best moments of his life as he is into all things military. Obviously there were no go areas onboard, but as it was an on sea matter I can say no more.
      Personally i’d prefer a tour of Hef’s Playboy mansion!

      • Razor says:

        Been on a carrier, might have been the Regan last time it was here, and a few subs. Very interesting if you’re into that sort of thing. The carriers are like small cities and the subs like small coffins 😳

  • Rhys Needham says:

    I see Bill Shorten wants to introduce fixed four year terms at a Commonwealth level as well. I’m not a fan of fixed terms in many ways. There might be less risk of going ridiculously early like Bob Hawke in 1984 or Theresa May this year, but it could also keep a toxic lame duck of a Government going on a couple of years longer than necessary while it scrapes along to its catastrophic terminus, and who knows what nonsense they might get up to in that time – and it might give the Opposition even more seats than they deserve the next time they shift to the Government benches as the former Government’s, say, cricket or netball teams is too busy shredding itself in recriminations or licking its wounds to provide a credible Opposition (possibly worse if there’s no Upper House or no minor parties or maverick backbenchers to keep up the accountability mechanisms), as well as the risk of too many lunatic backbenchers getting in by accident and causing problems (as we saw in QLD during the Newman era).

    I’m all for reducing the prerogatives of a government of any stripe to capriciously call elections whenever it suits them politically, but locking things in legislative stone (an Ed Stone, perhaps?) is going a bit far methinks.

    Four-year terms I can live with, however, as long as it means the Government has more time to implement and bed down their election promises without having to run off to an election a year or 18 months after they’ve got settled and across their briefs (hopefully) and the Public Service can get a little more settled as well; without letting them get too settled and comfortable to the point where delusions of indispensability and megalomania might start creeping in, or reducing the accountability that comes with regular elections.

    Peter Dutton’s apparent proposal for a voluntary postal vote on gay marriage seems like the worst of all three options, too. Major potential for rampant jiggery-pokery and bureaucratic cock-ups, for one (and other double entendres). I can’t see the campaigns on either/any side being all that pretty either, to say the very least.

    Apologies for length and the rest.

    • Jack The Insider says:

      Goodpoints though. Those of us who lived they dying days of NSW Labor understand the downside of fixed terms.

    • JackSprat says:

      I have to agree with JTI Rhys about the last days of Labor in NSW.
      Make it 5 years variable.
      No more half Senate elections – waste of space.
      No more fixed terms for the Senate.
      Senate and Reps elections aligned

    • Boadicea says:

      I think 4 years would be much better Rhys. At least things would get done – or have a chance to at last..
      At the moment it’s a change of govt, everything comes to a halt, things are revised and reviewed for about a year, new proposal comes out and is revised or reviewed – and then it’s time for an election and the whole thing starts again.
      Result – nothing achieved.
      It ill be interesting to see which at Shorten jumps on the idea. An indication of how confident he is of winning power?

      • Rhys Needham says:

        It’s the fixing bit I’m against.

        The Senate will probably have to go to four-year terms as well, so we don’t get stuck with certain Senators for eight whole years with only the possibility of a double dissolution to blast them out (I wouldn’t mind a recall option, like in parts of the US and elsewhere, with a suitably high qualifying limit (15-20% at least) to prevent vexatious or frivolous recalls, but that’s a debate for another day, I think).

    • Milton says:

      you sound a bit conflicted on this, Rhys and understandably so. I would go for the fixed term, say 4 or 5 yrs, and have the voters rock up on the same day.
      Why? costs for one, and for 2 it will shut up the media speculation, and the govts teasing as to when the next election will be held. 3 it could enable govts to implement measures that are enabled a time to work, or fail.
      And in time a fixed 4/5 year term should instil a keenness in the minds of voters.
      as a proviso (not sure if that word works) I would like the govts be free of opposition votes, vetoes etc.

    • Razor says:

      Great post Rhys! I’m also pretty torn on the subject but lean towards them for the sole reason if a government being able to get at least a couple of fair dinkum budgets in.

      On the plebiscite thing an absolutely ridiculous suggestion by Dutton. Let’s have a conscience vote of the Parliment and stop torturing these people.

  • JackSprat says:

    OT and some thoughts on Climate Change JTI

    It is probably a tribute to “man’s” arrogance that they think that they can model something as complex as climate. The number of variables are huge and the interactions between those variables probably border on the infinite.

    They have attempted to simplify the whole process but their tools are still very primitive.

    Climate has always changed . Just ask the Aborigines who lived through an ice age, saw sea levels rise by some 70m, saw land bridges to islands and Australia cut off, mega fauna die out, whole eco structures change from lush forest to desert, and managed to live through it probably by keeping their population numbers in tune with the carrying capacity of the land.

    Come today when scientists come from a 300+ year old western tradition of “nature is there to be tamed” and they look at only a very few factors and never at the underlying cause – too many people demanding a too extravagant life style that is beyond the carrying capacity of the planet.

    Climate change is an Other Person’s Problem – “the government must do something about it but it cannot cost me anything” is the mantra.

    I have two good friends in Canberra who have the means to reduce their carbon footprint substantially but have not done anything but continually worry about Climate Change..

    So my question to anybody who worries about Climate Change is “What are you doing about reducing your carbon footprint personally”. The answer is generally nothing. So therefore it is an academic exercise.

    I have seen figures saying that the world is heading for a substantial cooling period ( not an ice age as their causes are known and it is due to a convergence of earth’s orbit, where we are in the galaxy and a few other things.)

    I have seen other figures showing that we are on the cusp of exponential temperature growth that will see uncontrollable temperature change and it is all over as we know it today within 10 years. During those 10 years there will be chaos. One has to remember that the problems in Syria started with an exceptionally prolonged drought that resulted in massive internal movements of people, a civil war and a further massive movement of people. If you look at Europe’s problems, maybe it has started?

    It does not matter who is right – the coolers or the heaters – our grandchildren will never have the comfort and security that we knew and this beautiful planet will be a distant memory.

    The reason for that is if both are wrong, the projected population increase ensures it.

    Meanwhile we have people in Canberra wanting a “big Australia” and are taking the population of this country beyond its carrying capacity while allowing the little bit of fertile land that we have to be screwed by mining.

    As I said, Climate Change is an OPP.

    • Jack The Insider says:

      Too long, JS. Way too long. Yellow card.

    • Boadicea says:

      David Suzuki always made the most sense to me. You cannot take energy out of the earth without replacing it. It is not sustainable. We have been doing that for a century.

    • Trivalve says:

      JS, there are places like the Hunter Valley where open cut mines have been allowed to proliferate beyond reason and consideration for the local populace. But Personally I reckon that the incursion of housing estates onto arable land is a far bigger problem in Australia. No-one seems to take that seriously. Big Australia has got knobs on it.

    • Razor says:

      I don’t argue we should not look after pollution and populate less. It’s the doom and gloom and rent seeking that annoys me. In fact I have a soft spot for Solar and hydro, I personally consider wind to be an ugly blight on pristine landscape.

      The computer modelling has continually proven to be totally inadequate and, at times, downright wrong.

  • Razor says:

    Loved your article on Christine Nixon the other day JTI. She was always known as a lightweight her impressive girth notwithstanding.

    It highlights the problem being experienced in many jurisdictions whereby gender is rated more importantly than merit. It does the many brilliant senior female officers no favour as they all become tarred with the same brush by the rank and file.

  • Henry Blofeld says:

    Poor delusional Gerard Henderson on todays ABC’s “Insiders”, Mr Insider, made the claim when defending ex ousted PM Tony Abbott that “Abbott is good at getting his message through!”. Strewth Gerard old bean when Abbott was PM he racked up 30 Negative Newspolls, despised by not only the Electorate and his own Party! I do hope Gerard heads off to OPSM this week for a Glasses upgrade!

    • Perentie says:

      The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Abbott is pretty good at getting his message through. That’s why he was, and is, so unpopular.

      • Henry Blofeld says:

        Indeed Perentie and we all sure got the “message” didn’t we. In Abbott’s case it seems he doesn’t get the “message”. Cheers

      • JackSprat says:

        Abbott understands the attentions span of the average vote – 3 seconds?

  • Mack the Knife says:

    Wow, this is a bit strange and should be controversial. Hope the Victoria Education dept don’t take it onboard.

    https://tinyurl.com/y8u4q39f

  • Henry Blofeld says:

    I wonder, Mr Insider, how Greens leader, Richard Di Natalie is going with his “race” to produce proof he has renounced his Italian Citizenship as he said he would a few days ago? This is I do believe a “must see” Richard!
    http://tinyurl.com/yc8r88xx

  • jack says:

    perhaps Larissa Waters problem arose because both Canadians and Queenslanders are inclined to finish their sentences with eh?

    • Dwight says:

      Now now. Not all of them. Always found it funny to be working in both places with highly educated people who do that, eh!

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

PASSWORD RESET

LOG IN