Readers with whom I have disagreed about their support of parliamentary “consensus” government might be interested that we have found some common ground.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
On August 15 The Australian hinted (again), quoting a Mr Chaney of NAB and Woodside, at the Labor Opposition in the Senate working with the government to – cutting to the chase – wipe out the minority party balance of power in the Senate.
There is precedent for this. It is nevertheless a big step – all the minority senators were elected fairly under the system. Yet the logic of their elimination is simple – Labor and the Coalition have the overwhelming support of the people.
Should it be they who, between them, decide what measures will pass, or should the PUP and Green senators work it out with the government because Labor vote in Opposition like robots?
I must not oversimplify – this will involve Labor compromising its Opposition. But could it be faulted for this – by “oppositionists” like me – for allowing the vast majority of the people to govern the nation?
And not the Clive Palmers, Christine Milnes and Jacqui Lambies?
For anyone who sees this as a plot to smooth the government’s way, can I also mention that on March 29 Leigh Ivin (“Destruction of land water is at stake”) raised the question of local member Mr Joyce’s purchase of Pilliga property in relation to whether he had inside knowledge of its coal seam gas potential – knowledge Mr Joyce denies.
The questions Mr Ivin raises about this – questions one step short of a criminal allegation as I take it – have not to my knowledge been answered in the appropriate place – here, to his electorate, and in my view, reflecting a general position – need to be.
Stan Heuston
Oxley Vale