Election 2010

[Jnor]

The Libs went to the last election with an agenda of parliamentary reform, and seemed pretty serious about it. Whether that reform included allowing an independent the balance of power AND control of parliament as speaker, well I'm not convinced.
After Oakeshott's never ending speech to anoint Jools as king, does anyone want him to be given another soapbox?

I believe an independent speaker would be great, but not this independent. Someone like Tony Jones, Kerry O'Brien, or Mark Colvin who wont take any shit. Not sure how you'd select such a person though.

Every single response in question time would be cut short and met with "I'll take that as a comment". I like it!

More seriously, I think if legal issues can be sorted re Oakeshott voting and being speaker at the same time, then he's the man for the job. Speaker doesn't necessarily equal soapbox and I'm happier listening to him ramble than listening to Joolia's empty spin and Abbott's sore-loser ranting

 

[waratahjesus]

I think if the abortion debate was raised again,the real monk would reappear.
Maybe Turnbull will get it on the agenda if Joolia is still in power in a year, and give himself another run at the title

i still dont understand the "monk" persona, the guy has personal values against abortion but stated that along with the fact that, his personal values dont equal whats right for the majority of australians, it seems so refreshing compared to rudd and jules statung what they think is popular at the time and backtracking if it doesnt work.

 

[Scotty]

What do you all think of Abbot proving faithless on his deal to reform Parliament as soon as he didn't get the minority Government? This has showed that he simply cannot be trusted, he has previously admitted to telling lies under pressure and now breaks his word on a negotiated deal. Mind you I wouldn't think Labour would've have been any better, in fact had Jools not got the Independants nod I expect the blood letting would still be going on in the Labour ranks and all bets would've been off.

I wonder if anybody currently in the major parties will acknowledge that we now have a hung parliament simply because a large number of voters are simply sick and tired of the major parties and there are no credible alternatives. Both Graham Richardson and Alexander Downer said this on the night of the election

The way I understood the 'reforms' that were agreed, they didn't really cover the full issues of the independent being speaker. Oakshott seemed to want to bring in these reforms so that he would have greater power in the parliament. It was always self serving, but not necessarily wrong. I don't think the reform actually allowed for vote paring of an independent, or for the speaker to vote, so I believe that Oakshott coming out against the coalition on this is actually at least 50% bullshit on his behalf.

 

[Gnostic]

Every single response in question time would be cut short and met with "I'll take that as a comment". I like it!

More seriously, I think if legal issues can be sorted re Oakeshott voting and being speaker at the same time, then he's the man for the job. Speaker doesn't necessarily equal soapbox and I'm happier listening to him ramble than listening to Joolia's empty spin and Abbott's sore-loser ranting

Contrary to the name when does the speaker actually "speak" apart from introducing the debate, naming those to take the floor and keeping the excessive unruliness in check?

That waffle from Oakshot was an embarrassment to a certain degree but it appear to me he was trying to placate some in his electorate and justify the decision he made, and this would have no bearing on his ability to do the Speaker's. If Abbott gets his way Oakshot will not take the role as he will have to relinquish his vote and the other independants will like-wise refuse for the same reason. No Labour MP (Moana Pasifika) can take the chair as from my calculations this will prevent them from having the majority that will allow them to get Supply. Likewise Abbott will be directing that no coalition MP (Moana Pasifika) is to take the chair reducing their voting block. Therefore no speaker. Any ideas on how Parliament will work then?

 

[Sully]

Tony Abbott has already put his personal views ahead of the country with his stand on the Abortion drug. He wouldn't allow it even though every opinion he got was to put it on the PBS

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

It looks like Oakeshott is out of the running as speaker now. Does he promise to shut up and go back to being irrelevant again? We haven't had an independent this annoying since Brian Harradine.

 

[Moses]

If it's currently 76-74, one labor speaker will make it 75-74, still a majority.
I understand it already takes a shitload of time for an independent to read and understand all bills introduced to the lower house, why is Rob so keen on increasing this already huge workload?

 

[Scotty]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-dodged-a-bullet/story-e6frg6zo-1225927044481

After Oakeshott nominated himself for the role of Speaker, negotiated new rules for the job that suited himself and then bargained with the government and opposition, he has "reluctantly" pulled out and now supports a Liberal MP (Moana Pasifika) for Speaker.

How the 43rd parliament will operate is little clearer following Oakeshott's sudden announcement last night, with the Gillard government still looking at reducing its practical majority in the house further by nominating a Labor MP (Moana Pasifika) or negotiating for a house controlled by a Liberal Speaker.

 

[Scotty]

I agree with Gnostic. Why would the Libs want to have the speaker, when if Labor have one it will effectively make it 75-74, meaning everytime a Labor member is sick, or out of the area (Rudd) then the votes may well come down 74-74 again. (Of course the independents could cross either way though)

 

[Lindommer]

I agree with Gnostic. Why would the Libs want to have the speaker, when if Labor have one it will effectively make it 75-74, meaning everytime a Labor member is sick, or out of the area (Rudd) then the votes may well come down 74-74 again.

In these circumstances the convention is a pair be agreed to. The appointment of a Speaker poses an unusual problem for this parliament, but not insurmountable. I see two solutions:

1. Labor + 1 Green + 3 independents have the numbers to nominate a Liberal as Speaker, which the nominee can't refuse. This would result in most votes going 76-73. But the downside could be the Speaker making life merry hell for the government as well as putting the Labor caucus offside passing up such a prestigious position.
2. Gillard and Abbott could agree Labor nominate a Speaker and Liberal nominate a Deputy Speaker and both speakers not vote.

Despite our personal political perspectives we must have a workable parliament and therefore government. I don't particularly care which side it is as long as it's competent. It's up to this lot as the elected representatives of the people at this moment to make the parliament work and get on with the job of governing the country. I, for one, wouldn't be too pleased with whomever forces the country to an early election just for their own potential petty political gains.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Quite agree Lindommer. Let's just get a speaker, do it in the constitutionally approved way and get on with it! My understanding is that the Coalition have said: the constitution says this, let's do this. Gillard, understandably is worried about her position being weakened by reducing the Labor vote by one in the house and Oakeshott is off with the pixies. I saw his performance on the 7:30 report the other night. Do we really want this man as speaker? Kerry should have layed into him but showed him some mercy I thought.

 

[Gnostic]

From Abbott's own mouth the Constitution does not prohibit the pair of the Speaker's role, the advice of the Solicitor General is that this could take place only by the informal agreement of all parties. Exactly what Abbott signed. Abbott just managed to prove that he not only lies when under pressure in press conferences but also in a calm and deliberate situation when he signs agreements that he then disavows not two weeks later. Is is any wonder that he couldn't lead the coalition to win the election against probably the second worst Labour Government in Australia's history (the worst being that of Whitlam).

I think if an early election is called, which with Abbott's increasing beligerence make it likely, there will be a massive backlash against both major parties. Everyone I have spoken to is sick and tired of both of them.

 

[Ruggo]

It is only a matter of time till Abbott cracks in this pressure cooker environment. Surely the Libs know this but it is to soon to replace him given how close they came to taking government. They really are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

[Scotty]

deleted.

 

[Gnostic]

Question for the Politics nut/historians out there, has there ever been a Party Leader who has straight out broken a written signed agreement which he personally made with other members of Parliament before at the federal level?

I think Abbott has made a very big error here, how is he electable now that the voters see that no agreement or contract is binding with him, let alone his spoken word.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

The longer this goes on, the more absurd it becomes. However, as someone who is not well versed in the minutae of constitutional law, I am a little puzzled by it all. Given that I'm not very bright, can someone explain, in words of one syllable, what the hell all the brouhaha is about?

 

[I like to watch]

before it was clear who would hold the numbers, Joolia & the monk entered into an agreement to "pair" with the speaker.
Now that the speaker should come from Joolia's team. The Monk has reneged.

 

[I like to watch]

Question for the Politics nut/historians out there, has there ever been a Party Leader who has straight out broken a written signed agreement which he personally made with other members of Parliament before at the federal level?

It is interesting that whilst both parties signed a pairing agreement for the speaker.Neither party was inclined to nominate a speaker & rely on the other party to honour the said agreement.
They both knew the other side would not abide by the agreement

 

[Ruggo]

Here is a funny thought, nominate Bob Katter into the speakers role.

 

[Bowside]

Bit of a dog act by abbott. If you give someone your word you should stick to it. I dont want to get into a debate about unkept electoral promises, because both sides are guilty of that, as are most political parties. But twice now we have seen the Liberal party agree to reform then go back on the decision.

Abbott can hark on all he likes about jools not running a legit government, but when he acts like this one must ask if he is any better than her?