The Abbott Government has consistently said that it has a "mandate" for legislative action that they undertake. I am not arguing against the idea that they have an obligation to enact policies consistent with the desires of their supporters, that is the role of government (or, at least, political parties voted in based on the policies they advertised pre-election). However, I take issue with the idea that they have a broad sweeping "mandate" for policies (true, they don't claim that all of their policies are mandates by the Australian people, but it is a word that I hear somewhat infrequently from this Government). The fact that I heard it though always irked me somewhat, mainly because I disagree that one can claim that they have a broad scope for a mandate. So, I was wondering how the Australian political system could be better informed as to what Australians actually wanted. I got to thinking somewhat about the 2012 American Presidential Election, and how Colorado had popular initiative that coincided with the elections, and I was thinking how this could apply to Australia. In Australia, we either vote for Government in order to pass legislation or, in times of great national interest, a referendum is held. Voting for political parties, whilst a good indicator of where the nation sits politically at any given time, is not, however, always the best indicator for how all Australians feel on all policies. Neither do I believe that polls are a good indicator of how a broad range of Australians truly feel about issues either. Finally, referendums allow all Australians to take part in the political process directly, but are only held to enact changes to the constitution. So, where do we go from here? This is where the popular initiative in Colorado got me thinking. This closest thing we have to a popular initiative in Australia is a non-binding referendum, otherwise known as a plebiscite. What I was thinking was what if, at every election, a popular initiate was held on a broad range of issues. None of them would be binding, but they would allow for all Australians to partake in the political process and have their voices heard, and it would give governments a more accurate idea of how the population feels about certain issues. (I also think that it would allow people who are dissatisfied with the voting process, i.e., donkey voters, to at least have their voices heard even if they do not support any parties). I think that this could do many things, aside from giving governments a more accurate idea of what Australians are truly wanting. Mainly though, I think that: 1) It could eliminate social issues from distracting government from the more important issue of the economy. Imagine, for example, that there was an initiative on gay rights, and that the overwhelming majority of Australians supported it. Who cares about which party gives a conscious vote or not when the raw data says it should be done? 2) It could allow the government to focus on issues which directly affect all Australians. Whilst social issues are important, a stable economy is what allows people to have money in their pocket and combats poverty. As well, it could also give broad indicators to government on what areas of the economy the Australian people feel needs addressing. A simple question like 'Do you think climate change needs to be addressed?' could give a government, regardless of which side, an idea on what issues they feel should be addressed, and go about it in a way that suits them ideologically. Am I being a bit naive here, or does this sound like something that Australia could benefit from?
I think the gov takes about mandate to try and remind the independents, and to a lesser extent the opposition, to stop being selfish greedy politicians and that the houses are meant to allow the elected government to actually run the country. It's the elections where people get to choose governments, its not the job of the independents and opposition to sit there purely for their own political opportunism. Give the incumbant a go, and let the people decide. The opposition and independents should be a safety valve not a collar used to throttling the 'enemy' in power. It happens both ways of course, but as a long time viewer of question time I still hold the view the ALP is by far the worst. Did Kevin Rudd ever answer a straight question while as PM, ever - not without trying every tactic to avoid it... and independents seem to be greedy self serving knobs putting their electorates before the nation is not a good thing. It is of course a circus most of the time so everyone there is responsible.
That is something that I am struggling with. I am thinking that it can be both an amalgamation of political parties putting forward a certain number as well as what can be seen as long-standing and popular concerns. The results would not be binding, I am thinking of having it more as an indicator on how society feels about certain social and political issues to better inform government. So, the questions would be more like: "Do you think the government should do something about climate change?" rather than "Do you think the government should repeal the carbon tax?" And I am simply thinking of this, again, as a way to take some social issues which serve more as a distraction away from the limelight as well as informing government of the general attitude of other political issues.
Oh, I do agree that it is the government's responsibility to govern, it was more just in the early days of this government, the word was chucked around a fair bit and it never sat well with me 100%. I am thinking that this is more of a way for governments to make informed decisions on what issues are important to the Australian people and what social issues we can take out of the foray which add nothing to, what I see as, the more important issue of the economy. That's why I don't want the questions to be specific to certain policies, such as Sovereign Borders or Carbon Tax, but more general ideas. That way, when a government does act on these issues where there is a clear and distinct majority, even if people don't support the measure, there can be no argument that it's not what the Australian people want. They can still enact policy according to their party's ideology. I've watched question time and as a long time cynic, they're both just as bad as each other. It's not just question time either: Q and A and other talk shows, politicians have a tendency to talk around any issue if it's not advantageous for them to speak honestly.
The government is made up of representatives. They're under no obligation or duty to allow the party that forms government to pass whatever it wants.
That's funny, when Abbott was the Opposition Leader he was asked if he was going to oppose something or other and he replied. "Of course, we are the opposition, that's what opposition means". Something like that. Firstly, the government only got about 30% of the vote. Secondly, not everything the government does is put up at the election. Thirdly, we choose a government who generally are what we believe are the right one to govern us, it does not mean we agree with their views on everything or even most things. For example, some voted in Abbott purely because of the "Stop the boats" line, due to unfounded fears of terrorism.
They are actually under a moral obligation to do what their electorate wants. What serves their electorate best.
Rock Ape Abbott and the LNP politicians began their term with deceit, paid out more deceit, and are now shovelling it around by the truckload. None would know what a mandate was, let alone be capable of delivering on one!
Sure, that's not what I said so you may or may not agree with my point still.... - - - Updated - - - The most!! Of course not, that would be impossible. You get a chance to vote them out.... but if noone gets the chance to develop an informed opinion the system breaks down, hence my post.
There are two sets of rules. One for Abbott, one for everyone else. Let's look at some of the arrogant stuff the he vomits out. Gillard won the vote 71 to 31 ... 61% When Abbott faced a revolt by his back benchers the vote was 61 to 39 .... 60% Yet he rabbits on about his mandate to be prime minister. He talks about having a feral opposition, blocking his policies yet Abbott himself said when opposition leader. Back to the so called mandate. 32% of the vote is not a mandate. He really only had three policies that he offered for a mandate. Stopping the boats. Bringing the budget out of debit. Paid parental leave. These are what got him across the line. But he had provisos ... No change to pensions ... fail. No cuts to health ... fail No new taxes .... fail No cuts to education ... fail If, and a big if, he did have a mandate to bring the budget back into the black, he had a mandate to do it without cutting, pensions, health, education or imposing new taxes
Then he found out how bad the ALP had really left the government, true story His words there look accurate, of course oppositions are meant to oppose things they have serious concern with. Unfortunately the ALP and Green's are showing themselves to hold up stuff for purely political reasons, sometimes even when they'd previously supported the same ideas. It goes to the DNA of the ALP, to screw things over for power, but the Green's were also suffering it under their previous leadership out of desperation to appeal to the keyboard hero's who believe all the anti-establishment, anti-business propaganda by the Socialists, Union's and Education sectors. It's working for the Green's so they'll keep it up as well I guess. Senators need to realize they are there for the nation first, electorate second.... else nothing would get done.
