Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Now that the publicity scurrying is temporarily over in the Senate, just what was gained by the delays?

There is no excuse for the opposition which would not be bipartisan if we went to war - real war, and yet they would be traitorous now if we had a Bush/Howard War against Financial Ruin.

In disparaging the Australian capitalists as co-ideologists with the American mob of greedy financiers, I notice that even Barack Obama is losing his prayer for the parties to forget their selfish attitudes in this crisis.

Peter Hartcher in today's SMH writes:

"This must be a time when leaders in both parties put the urgent needs of our nation above our own narrow interests," the President pleaded. Did Obama succeed? Of course not. Democratic congressmen who owe favours to Hollywood studios inserted a tax write-off for the costs of making movies. Another Democratic measure sought to do a favour for just three specific hospitals. A third Democratic measure offered an insurance exemption for tradesmen working on boats, but only ones over 65 feet long. This was a privilege that was evidently too good for the poorer classes of yacht-owners. A fourth would allocate $200 million to lay new lawn on the National Mall in Washington."

Of course we know that Menzies changed the name of his party to "Liberal" to fool voters that he was not a capitalist. However, what sort of people are they?

In America they are called Republicans and in Australia they are called Liberals.

Some dickered re their electorate, while others dickered for the unemployed while, at the same time delaying a package that was intended to reduce the number who will be unemployed.

Every player in this game supported the Government except the Liberals, Greens, Family First and Nick Xenophon.

Big and small business was horrified.

NE OUBLIE.

Ernest William: "Paul Morrella, you claim to be able to predict issues of interest. Will you please give me your take on the outcome of the Senate's current party orientated deliberations?

I don't "claim" any such thing. I've previously put forward a few market forecasts, which btw happened to be correct.

I've got an opinion on what the current 40b plus stimulus will mean for the Australian economy. I will revise that opinion in line with any changes to the package.

The system and indeed the personalities in which any package comes (or doesn't) about are of minor interest to me. I haven't bothered with an opinion on such things. I don't see any point in changing that course.

Paul Morrella, you claim to be able to predict issues of interest. Will you please give me your take on the outcome of the Senate's current party orientated deliberations?

I would genuinely like to cause this forum to consider the implications of the current set up of the Senate and the method of its election.

I believe that it is easier to vote for a party in Senate elections than it is to vote for a person. Therefore, if the sometimes huge Senate voting sheet only produced the names of the candidates then it may help to reduce the financial powers of the respective parties.

If the voters who are truly interested in the composition of the Senate want to know what they stand for, there are always methods to find out.

I wonder if the Channel Ten news reader will accuse Kevin Rudd of a spending spree when the Federal Government uses taxpayer's funds to help the taxpayers who have suffered so greatly in the devastating fires in Victoria?

Perhaps a good sign is the embarrassed look on Bob Brown's face lately - perhaps he realises that the $950 to some eight million Australians may not be for cutting down trees etc.

NE OUBLIE.

I hope that with the beginning of the Parliament 2009 this thread will receive a lot more attention as the dysfunctional and, may I say, unconstitutional manner in which the Senate actually controls our nation.

If we were in a conventional war would the remnants of the Howard "New Order" and their new extreme capitalist leader act in this disgraceful manner?

The emergence of Peter Costello from the back benches only highlights the wobbly behaviour of the opposition for the sake of opposition, and at a time when the entire western world is entering a recession caused by the greed and mismanagement of the US capitalist system.

Does he hope that we have all forgotten his lies and blunders and that the myth of his economic genius still helps his image?

Report from ABC's Mark Simkin, 30 August 2000.

In 1995, the then Opposition unveiled its debt truck, a battered vehicle that trundled around the country advertising Australia's high level of  foreign debt.Opposition leader John Howard and Shadow Treasurer Peter Costello said the debt was an indictment of economic mis-management and a key factor in higher interest rates.

Peter Costello added: "We're pleased to put foreign debt on the agenda in this country because we don't want Australians, bit by bit, to watch their productive assets and their productive capacity go into foreign hands. There's a question of nation identity about this. Do we as a country want to be in hock to the rest of the world?"

(Emphasis added).

At the time of the 1996 election net foreign debt was $193 billion. After the Howard/Costello government had finished with it, it was over $500 billion. Costello put us in hock to the rest of the world.

Without any humility which his political cowardice warranted, he goes on Lateline and claims that the Howard/Costello government gave to Labor an economy free of debt with about a $20 billion surplus.

Could Australia ever trust the lies hiding this man's incompetence? Like his hidden budget deficit and recession in 2001?

Paul Keating is right – all major economies must never again allow the greedy capitalists of Wall Street to cause such an international disaster while lining their own pockets.

The sickening truth about the world economic downturn means that all responsible governments must do everything they can to maintain stability.

That includes the capitalist US Republicans who are causing trouble for the Obama administration, even as the capitalist Turnbull and his "New Order" are doing so in the unconstitutional Senate at this very time.

We have to finally solve this problem for Australia's future. The Liberals and their fellow travellers only care about themselves.

Considering the mess the financial world is currently suffering, a double dissolution may give us a chance to correct the present situation which has the Senate minorities actually running our country and can overrule the Government any time it likes, using any excuse. At least we should call for a sitting of both houses of Parliament and televise the arguments for the public to decide.

The issues facing any western government, including the US and Australia, are too immediate for any latitude in effort caused by petty political squabbling.

Turnbull and his Liberal/National coalition are only using their tactics to destabilise the elected government of our country. That has been shown by the number of times they have agreed with the Rudd/Swan policies and immediately they are put in train, the Turnbull mob cries foul.

Under any circumstances at all, their behaviour is treacherous to our nation and for cheap political gain. The media should shake off their capitalist cloaks and straighten them out.

NE OUBLIE.

Ernest William, do you advocate the UN having a larger role in Australia's progression or any other nations for that matter?

Ernest I agree with your take on the original reason for the senate, however as with all aspects of our society they have been hijacked by an elitist ideological agenda. People aren't really interested in this subject because it's too hard for them, anything to do with changing the system is hard for those who rely upon an ideological bent for their psychological and social sustenance. So the thought of change is frightening to them, as it would require effort and accountability from them within the society, something most people fear and avoid at all costs, until it's too late.

Even the high court, which is a political weapon of the elite, won't touch any of the unconstitutional system that keeps them in power and control. So we will continue with an unconstitutional senate which represents the elite and not the people of the states. If the senate voted as one bloc for their state, they would take the controlling party line. Which would put the people in an even worse situation then they are today, as chaos would result, or get worse than it already is. Until senators are directly chosen by the people, nothing will change.

I understand the lack of interest in this subject due to the media exposure of so many national and international problems - so I will just thank those who considered the subject worthwhile, especially the editors of Webdiary.

Just as a parting note, any genuine concerned voter should consider seriously any reported reviews of this contemporary Senate.

We, the Australian people, deserve to have a popularly elected House of Representatives, nationally voted for to govern our country based of a proportional population agenda, without any unnecessary interference.

But, and I keep repeating this obvious fact, since each State has more or less Federal seats, what is to protect those States with less population?

What issue, if any, would demand the Senate to exercise interference ? Federal issues which do not specifically disadvantage a particular State should not have any concern for their State elected Senate representatives.

We have six States, and with the NT and the ACT (two each) are reorientated by 76 voters in the Senate! Fair dinkum.

Soon, the Federal government of Australia, faced with the most horrendous financial downturn of any of our Governments since 1929, will be accused by the now dysfunctional Senate of behaving, in no matter what they do, of inappropriately solving a national issue!

Did the people of Western Australia vote for the Queensland Senators?

And did the Western Australian voters expect the Senators of Queensland to protect the rights of Western Australia government voters?

I'm getting carried away but, if anyone reads this opinion, just take a sincere. logical and reasonable look at the Senate Committees and the Senate themselves in the near future.

The government of a people is what they deserve.

NE OUBLIE.

Ernie old son, you didn't reply to any of my points, are you a lawyer or a just a supporter of the status quo. Check out how the Swiss operate, they have referendums for any important issue, they also have common sense approaches to many things our political system can’t handle.

Why support or try to rework something which has failed, or try to replace it with similar systems which are also failing. We don't want a return to how the senate operated, but a new system which empowers people and not disenfranchises them putting all the power in the hands of a bunch of nincompoops.

We need a political system without parties and we can do away with the senate in both federal and state jurisdiction, when we have fully accountable governments and bureaucracies, backed up by criminal law. In my opinion just about all those serving in governments Australia wide should be charged with misrepresentation, fraud and deception as they are all elected under false pretences and corrupt voting procedures. Let’s take the debate forward, not backwards as seems the case on most occasions.

Why do people always look back clinging to the past and steer clear of viewable change? Must be the ideological programming and indoctrination they seem so reluctant to give up to become free, responsible thinkers and doers.

... absolutely beyond belief.

Why have a Senate in the first place?

Why did the framers of the Constitution include a Senate?

There is no real comparison between the original Australian Senate and the House of Lords or the American Senate.

The total and uncomplicated reason must have been for the smaller States to be protected from being unfairly treated by those much larger States which had several more Federal seats at their disposal?

I believe that there must be a simple way to return to the real function of the Senate - the one State vote for the protection of that State.

IMHO I believe that the changes made - protected by the seemingly limitless ability of the Senate unless the Parliament otherwise decides - has virtually created another House in competition with the House of Representatives and, in many cases, has the same power as the popularly elected Federal government. Fair dinkum.

Does this mean that the State elected Senators really run the country?

If not, we may hopefully have a referendum, (but not with Howard's "Republic" methods), to learn the feelings of the people who surely should be fed up with the unruly and sometimes childish behaviour of the wannabe politicians in the Senate.

If any Webdiary contributors are in doubt, consider that at 78 years of age, and still trying to fairly understand many things, I could be elected to the Senate if I received the top billing of the ticket of one of the major parties!

How scary is that?

NE OUBLIE.

Ernest I would agree senators must vote as one and in agreement, but who has the power to change the current situation or make them directly elected, instead of indirectly through parties and preferences. However we face one presently insurmountable problem, the strangle hold the legal profession has over all aspects of our lives. The first step to having equality and justice in our parliaments and courts, is to remove the legal profession and their methodology, rewrite everything in plain understandable Australian and remove the right of technical semantic defence.

The constitution may seem well written, but the legal profession wrote it and has abused it ever since, enabling them to control the direction and freedoms of societies. We have a weird situation in Tasmania: more than one person is elected in every electorate and they all come from different parties, meaning the electorate is fractured, disenfranchised and doesn't have a chance to be heard. As always the party system get the benefits of this approach.

The legal profession writes the rules, laws and legislation of the Senate, as they do for everything in life. They write them in ways which only benefit them in any eventuality with power and money, they write them so only they can understand them. Consider this, lawyers have the last say in all things to do with any law, they prosecute, defend and are the judges, they control every court from the lowest to the highest, in common and commercial law. They are probably the biggest majority in politics and use academic and illusionary knowledge to hood wink people in to false impressions of what they are saying. They deny what everyone understands is their meaning by using semantic technicalities, and dismiss any form of challenge to their power with more semantic babble and threats. Yet their knowledge of life and any subject relating to the operation of societies is minimal and in most cases non existent.

So the dilemma for the people is, no matter which way they turn, they get screwed. Look at the bureaucracy, they use legal and nonsensical jargon in the same way, they babble on yet never say anything unless it advantages them or their vested interests.

We have to change our entire system, or nothing will change for the positive. The Senate should be the house of review so as to protect the states. Each state senator should vote as one block together, to that end. But then we have the situation of all members of parliament voting in undemocratic and deceptive ways, as they vote as a party and not as representatives of those who elected them. So we the people are faced with a completely corrupt system of government and law system, which represents the legal profession and those they support. Lawyers are the most ethically corrupt profession there is, as they justify their support of the most vile situations in commercial, common and constitutional law all the way to the top by claiming impartiality, whilst they are the opposite.

To get justice in the Senate, we have to remove the cause, the legal professional. Which in reality does nothing for anyone but themselves and those who support them the most, to the detriment of the people. There is nothing logical in any of our political systems they all just place power in the hands of the corrupt party system. Remove all political parties and everything associated with them, then we may get people who can do the job properly and a system we can begin to trust and shape as an intelligent and evolving race. Not just a toy for the elite to use and abuse at their perverse ideological leisure.

The Constitution shows why the Senate and in fact both houses of parliament aren't doing their job for the people or a viable future. It states "directly chosen by the people of the State”, not directly chosen by a party and indirectly chosen by the forced two party preferred corrupt voting system.

Alan Curran, I agree with you, but do you concede that your faction of the lib/lab coalition is as corrupt and deceitful as labour along with the other hangers on? I once thought the greens may bring some sense into the future, but as you say they are a basket case, What else can you expect from a bunch of academics and bureaucrats, especially when you see the country wide result of them being in control of dwindling services and methodology.

Getting rid of the states would be the biggest disaster ever to happen to Australia, just as getting rid of the Senate would be another step towards total dictatorship by the wealthy elite. If we had a system with a 22^nd century approach, empowering the people to take action through a referendum style government and made all working for the public, owning or running busionesses totally accountable for their actions and outcomes, we may get somewhere.

Keep the Senate, the states and local government. Otherwise you'll remove the final vestige of people’s individuality and feelings of community, which is disappearing as the ideologically controlled become more obsessed with the dying bigger picture. They forget the bigger picture came about by the work of the small and independent communities, it can't exist without them and we are seeing the results. Our social biodiversity is being destroyed, as is ecological biodiversity. There's only one outcome from this drive to single point control and reasoning.

Ernest, I believe the Senate has been destroyed by the two party system we have inherited. Most Senators vote along party lines and have little loyalty to the states they are meant to represent. It becomes a house of review only when a minor party holds the balance of power.

I have a little protest with my vote by voting for a minor party more often than not.

It is hard to see why a small state such as Tasmania has as many Senators as NSW or Queensland. It doesn't seem to be very democratic if you believe in one man one vote.

The Senate has probably passed its use by date. Then again I would get rid of states altogether if I had my way.

Maybe a Senator should represent shires rather than states. 

That would seem fairer to us that live so far away from state capitals.

I think there is a lot of waste in having seven or eight police, health and education departments for a small population such as ours.

My vote get rid of the Senate and get rid of the states.

Cheers and Happy New Year, John

Ernest William, your concerns regarding the Senate are based on reality and I believe genuine concern.

However, as you know, in politics all sides play their own game. I am sure you know in your heart that if Rudd Labor could gain control of the Senate by some underhanded method, they would do it in a flash and to hell with convention.
Throw into that mix the idiot Greens, a party that is a complete waste of time and money, that is a front for Labor, and it becomes a circus.

Maybe Keating was right after all.

Thank you to Webdiary for allowing me to raise this subject as a worthy article for debate.

But - look at the interest. Are my concerns based on reality?

I am sure that there are many other issues which are considered more important in the current national and international arenas.

Perhaps my timing was out, but I will contribute to the thread that I have been allowed to create so that it won't be an entire waste.

I still think that each State would gain by a stronger, non party orientated and more parochial voice in a Senate that I believe was established solely to protect their interests.

In saying this, I believe that none of the parties (or aspirants) who continually complain about the Senate will support such a debate.

NE OUBLIE.