Governments of either persuasion don’t like it when they don’t get their own way in the Senate. 

Don't mess with the Senate. Picture: Kym Smith.

However, in recent days the Rudd government has taken the levels of whingeing, moaning and sulking about so called ‘Senate obstruction’ to new levels. No doubt this is all part of a deliberate pre-election strategy, seeking to justify the government’s failings and perhaps even the need for a double dissolution election.

No less than five senior Ministers fronted a press conference last week accusing the Senate of the worst obstruction in 30 years, while the Prime Minister shouted ‘get out of our way’.

The Prime Minister took hysterical pre-election spin another step further when, incredibly, he compared himself to Barrack Obama and the troubles he is facing in getting health care reform through the US Senate.

Whatever the merits of Obama’s reform proposals, where Kevin Rudd did nothing to progress health reform for more than 2 years in office, at least Barrack Obama put his political neck on the line pushing for the passage of his healthcare reform plan in his first year in office. Kevin Rudd promised the world on health before the last election. He supposedly had a plan to fix public hospitals.

Yet, rather than implement that plan he did nothing post-election other than run a 20-month review, followed by a review into that same review with photo opportunities around Australia. Yes and he sought to impose a number of spending cuts on privately insured Australians to help fund his reckless spending in other areas. And now, with the proverbial five minutes to go before the next election we are promised another plan to fix public hospitals.

But I digress.

Getting back to the main point – our Senate is not obstructionist. Our Senate is doing the job it was set up to do. As Senators we are doing the job we were elected to do and that is what the public expects of us.

As legislators we have a responsibility to make a judgement on legislation put forward by the government of the day. Put simply, if the government puts forward good legislation we will support it, and if they put forward bad legislation, which in our judgement is not in the public interest, we will oppose it.

At times of course the government will cave in to pressure from the Coalition and crossbench Senators and reconsider bad legislation or negotiate necessary improvements. Take the government’s attempt to cut patient rebates for cataract surgery in half. A measure which would have hurt hundreds of thousands of mostly elderly patients, who would no longer have been able to afford access to this life changing surgery or who would have been forced to join lengthy public hospital queues.

Or the government’s attempt to impose a $100 million funding cut on chemotherapy treatment, which would have hurt thousands of cancer patients across Australia. Senate scrutiny and ultimately opposition forced the government back to the drawing board on both of these, leading to better outcomes for patients across Australia. There are many other such examples.

However, some measures cannot be improved even by amendments. The government’s great big new tax on emissions for example, which if passed would push up the price of everything, cost jobs and put pressure on our economy without reducing global emissions. Or Labor’s broken promise on private health insurance rebates, which would lead to additional pressure on our public hospitals, increased costs and fewer people in private health insurance. Or the government’s attempt last week to push through legislation to force the break-up of Telstra – a publicly listed company.

No pre-election mandate, no proper justification, serious implications for hundreds of thousands of mum and dad investors and tens of thousands of Telstra staff and why? To cover up the government’s failure to deliver on its ill-thought out pre-election promise to deliver on a national broadband network.

With all this it is important to remember that the Coalition cannot stop legislation in the Senate on its own. Government legislation only gets defeated if other Senators agree with our judgement that a particular piece of legislation is flawed and not in the public interest.

At times, the government gets their way even though in our judgement they shouldn’t have. The government’s reckless spending through its $42 billion stimulus package is a high profile example of that. The government was able to get that through the Senate after negotiation with crossbench Senators. Considering the results of the home insulation fiasco, the widespread waste and mismanagement in the school halls program and the upward pressure Labor’s reckless spending has put on interest rates since.

If only the Senate had stood firm on that occasion as well.

Governments not having a majority in the Senate makes for better policy outcomes and for better government. In the House of Representatives the government has the power of numbers and will always win the day, even if they’re obviously going down the wrong path.

However, in the Senate, given the government doesn’t have the numbers they have to better justify their decisions – not only to the Senate, but ultimately to the public at large. That is an important safeguard.

This is a deliberate part of the checks and balances imposed by our forefathers on any Commonwealth Government in our Constitution.

The Rudd government has become arrogant very quickly. They don’t accept or respect the legitimate and important role of the Senate to scrutinise legislation and the performance of the government. Yet, considering the Senate’s track record both in recent times and throughout our history, it has served us very well as a safeguard against bad government.

92 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acker says:

      10:35am | 17/03/10

      Mathias I actualy prefer the senate level of government than the state level of government. I don’t have an issue with the upper house federally but I think their are too many members in state upper houses when lobby groups such as the shooters party start getting seats.
      I’m for abolution of state governments.

    • Mathias says:

      11:13am | 17/03/10

      Hi Acker - I think State government’s are important. We are a Federation of States (and Territories). Checks and balances on government power, making decisions impacting on people’s lifes as close as possible to where people live, having the capacity to do things differently in different parts of our large country (and see what works best) are all good reasons to support our current system of government. That doesn’t mean of course that there is no scope for improvements, there is. And it doesn’t mean that current State governments are all doing a good job. But the appropriate remedy against an underperforming government is to throw them out an election and put somebody better in charge.

    • acker says:

      01:11pm | 17/03/10

      Mathias ..I’m on an local hospital committee in NSW and I saw a case where the (non medical) General Manager of the Regional Health group was advertising for a Personal Assistant for her Personal Assistant while the Wagga hospital falls to bits.
      I’m getting sick of the bureacratic crud at state level sucking the funding out of Australia. Give me 30 Super Regional Councils anyday and a uniform health and legal system across the country.

    • Peter says:

      03:38pm | 17/03/10

      Mate agree with you on the councils bit, bring back power to the people..

    • Politically incorrect Formersnag says:

      04:36pm | 17/03/10

      acker, I’m with you about, abolishing the states & having larger, regional councils. i am a QLDer, we recently had our state government (which does not have an upper house) ram through a plan to amalgamate many councils.

      The merits of that plan have been debated ad nauseum before & since. Their excuse was, “that many were too small” & merging would make them all, more viable or efficient.

      Well if that is true, then why can’t they also be running the local school, hospital, police force, etc. Everything that states do, could either be handed down to local govt, or up, to the fed/national level.

      Are any of your fellow Mexicans, seriously suggesting that the other 2 levels of government could possibly, be doing a worse job than the current NSW red/green/labour state govt.

      i disagree about “the shooters party” though. if we had full proportional representation in the national senate, then even “the communist party” would win 1 seat & that is fine. Every lunatic fringe group, would win 1 seat, but the majority of people would vote for main stream parties.

      Governments of either side, would continue getting their bills past through, with some reasonable review &/or amendment.

      BTW how do you feel about those regional councils being drawn up according to real geography. The boundaries, being water sheds, so that a complete river system, could be the local/regional govt. EG, the entire Murray Darling system in one council, or Greek style city state.

      Mathias Cormann, credit where it is due, this is the best interactive article i have seen on any blog site, getting back to almost every comment is brilliant, all other “puncher” authors could learn from your excellent example. I sincerely hope you will recheck it later tonight or first thing tomorrow.

      Now for the brick bats, local representation, is the ultimate expression of “states rights”. People in the Kimberleys have been whinging about “faceless bureaucrats” in Perth for years. Like wise north QLDers complain about them in Brisbane.

      Any major party, campaigning on a platform to reduce the number of incompetent politicians & bureaucrats, by abolishing the states, would win 2/3s of the popular vote, nation wide, at the next federal election, guaranteed, lay down mazaire.

    • acker says:

      06:12am | 18/03/10

      I saw former NSW Premier Bob Carr on TV yesterday (I think on Sky Agenda with David Spears) suggest that he thought State governments would end up becoming smaller and with part time rather than full time politicians, because if Health does go federal he says there is not a very big workload at a state political level. And that it would be hard to justify having the current amount of State Politicians and State Ministery size on the public payroll.

    • Mathias says:

      07:54am | 18/03/10

      Hi Politically incorrect Formersnag

      Firstly thanks for the compliments. Much appreciated.

      I agree that the States could (and should) do better. In particular, in a large State like Western Australia decentralisation of government power is important. Because you’re right for someone in Kununurra or Derby, Perth is just about as far away as Canberra.

      I don’t agree though that at referendum 2/3 of people would vote for the abolition of States. I am pretty convinced that any such a referendum would fail comprehensively (partly because I would be campaigning strongly for the NO case… smile )

    • acker says:

      08:21am | 18/03/10

      Would you be against smaller state governments if Carr’s predictions or something else that reduces the functions of state governments come about ? Are part time State politicians a possible future option much like local councilors who keep a day job ?

    • Mathias says:

      11:01am | 18/03/10

      Acker I’m always in favour of smaller government. Whether that is Federal, State or Local government smaller government interfering less in people’s lifes is best!

    • Ragool says:

      10:44am | 17/03/10

      The Senate protects from good or bad government. I wonder if anyone has done the costing for wages on the 72 Senators, let along the ones in the State Upper Houses.
      If for argument’s sake the Senate was abolished how much money would the tax payer save from Senate wages, along with their entitlements, super, office staff, etc…
      Is the Senate value for money, if they go untested for 6 years at a time (and in NSW 8 years)? Why do we need so many from each state? Would the result be the same if we had 6 instead of 12?
      Rudd and Abbott could get a lot of political mileage from running on a platform of abolishing the Senate, for the simple fact that it decreases the amount of politicians- which has a lot of traction amongst the voting tax payer.
      Those who do justify the Senate’s existence appear to be the one’s who want to benefit from what has been colloquially referred to by many in the Lower House as a “Political Retirement Village”.

    • Mathias says:

      11:27am | 17/03/10

      Hi Ragool - you will find that good legislation is supported by the Senate. At times even good legislation needs to be scrutinised and slowed down to ensure it is properly understood and that all flow on consequences have been appropriately considered. A good government will engage with the Senate to make the case in favour of a particular course of action, and in doing so will aim to take people across Australia with them. If something is good sound policy and well supported by people across Australia you’ll find that the Senate will not stand in the way of it becoming law if and as appropriate.

    • John A Neve says:

      11:19am | 17/03/10

      Mathias,
      Whether the Senate has a role to play in our so called democracy, depends surely on it’s makeup?

      Sadly for some years now the Senate has become a party political tool. With the ability to vote above or below the line. Plus the fact many people just don’t care, the names of candidates are less important than the party.

      Good or bad governments can come from any side of politics, so if we have a bad government, whose party also controls the Senate, how does that give us good government?

      Senators should be voted in on an individual basis, scrap the line. also there should be no indication of their party affiliations. Only then might we get some honest apprasial of the lower house.

    • Tom says:

      01:06pm | 17/03/10

      I think this is a valid point. Certainly the fact that Steve Fielding (among others) does wield a reasonable amount of power despite only getting in on preferences is somewhat concerning.

    • Mathias says:

      02:24pm | 17/03/10

      Tom - despite getting in on Labor Party preferences of course. 

      In any event - out of 76 Senators only 32 are Labor, with 5 Greens, 1 Family First/Fielding, 1 Xenophon and 37 Coalition.

      This is not rocket science, the government needs the support of at least 7 non-Labor Senators to get its legislation passed by the Senate.

    • Maree says:

      02:53pm | 17/03/10

      John A Neve: Agree. Some good points. I often wonder about John Howard’s win over Mark Latham which also gave the liberal party control of the senate. Had labor still controlled the senate “Work Choices” would most probably never got off the ground.

    • Mathias says:

      11:37am | 17/03/10

      Since the number of Senators was increased in the early 1980’s only one government had a majority in the Senate and that was the Howard government (in its final term).

      Because of the way proportional representation works out it will no doubt be rare into the future for any government to have a majority in the Senate for any length of time.

      Good or bad governments can come from any side of politics of course. And you’ll find that the Senate throughout its history has enforced proper scrutiny of legislation and the performance of government on government’s of both persuasions.

      The point is that’s a good thing. Government’s at times will try and rush things, not think through the consequences of their actions properly. Nothing wrong with some proper scrutiny.

      As it happens the current government is the Rudd Labor government, and they don’t like the scrutiny. And under scrutiny a number of their proposals have fallen apart to the point where they themselves withdrew from them or watered them down (eg cataract rebates cuts, funding cut for chemotherapy treatment, watered down changes to the Medicare Levy Surcharge thresholds and there are many other examples).

    • antman says:

      07:56pm | 18/03/10

      Should we be concerned that our duly elected representatives don’t know how to correctly use the humble apostrophe? Perhaps you left out a noun following each (mis)use of “government’s”?

    • Drewboy says:

      11:37am | 17/03/10

      I think you have a very narrow view Ragool. Why does it always come down to money? I want my taxpayer dollars put to good use also, but I’m happy that it is being spent on a check and balance process.

      If Governments were able to whatever they want, we as a nation would be in some serious trouble.

    • Ragool says:

      12:46pm | 17/03/10

      My narrow view is also a realistic one. I’d rather a government of conviction than a government anchored by inaction. If it stinks I can vote it out in 3 years.
      With the existence of the Senate, we get watered down policy which is as good as no policy at all.
      If the argument comes down to more politicians vs less, I will go with less. I’d rather give more money to front line health services, teachers and infrastructure programmes, and not paying for a dozen back bench senators to go on a couple of hundred thousand dollar junkets to Europe so they can “examine” other governments.
      I’d rather the Senators who have true conviction, put their money where their mouth is and run for a lower house seat. Maybe 20% would succeed.
      All politics should be local and representative, not provincial and proportional.

    • Mathias says:

      01:15pm | 17/03/10

      Exactly Drewboy.

      This is about appropriate checks and balances on government power. We should always be suspicious of governments that want absolute power and complain about constitutional checks and balances that have withstood the test of time. There is a simple way to get legislation through the Senate - either put up good well thought out legislation to start with or improve it if it can be following proper engagement with the Senate. Broken promises, which are just part of an ideological crusade like reducing or scrapping private health insurance rebates for millions of Australians should of course never be supported. Liberal-National Party Senators have made it clear that we will not let Labor get away with breaking this most emphatic pre-election promise and that we will stand up for our health system and for 11 million Australians with private health insurance.

    • Astrosodi says:

      03:44pm | 17/03/10

      Hi Ragool
      You might not have a chance to vote out a party if there is no scrutiny. A government with no accountability is not a good thing, regardless fo which side of politics you’re on.
      Ideally, as Senator Cormann describes, the Senate is comprised of enough members of diverse political persuasions to stop the extremes of policy going through, and promote the best outcome for the most people.

    • Harquebus says:

      11:39am | 17/03/10

      Without the Senate, the Labor Government would most definitely be a one term government.

    • Mathias says:

      01:20pm | 17/03/10

      Well Harquebus, you have me nearly convinced (that we should let the Rudd Labor government get away with doing whatever they want)... smile

      In all seriousness though - we have a responsibility to make judgements about what is in the public interest, and not just be guided by what is in our political self-interest.

      You’re right though - If the Senate did not protect the Rudd Labor government from itself and Australians were subjected to the full force of Labor’s ideological assault no doubt KRudd’s honeymoon would have been over even earlier.

      The bottom line truth is that a strong Senate, in which the government of the day does not have a majority makes for better government.

    • DigiDave says:

      11:58am | 17/03/10

      And the fact is most Bills are actually passed.  I don’t know if you have the stats Mathias, but I recall a figure of 81% passed in recent times.  Not sure how that can be called obstructionist ??

    • Mathias says:

      02:04pm | 17/03/10

      Hi DigiDave - since the election of the Rudd Labor government in November 2007, 85.2% of all legislation was passed in the Senate. That includes 67.85% of Rudd government bills passed without amendment. For those who of you who want to do the maths - a total of 392 pieces of legislation have been dealt with by the Senate since the Rudd Labor government first fronted Parliament in February 2008. Out of those 334 have been passed. 266 Bills were passed without amendment and the remaining 68 with amendments or ‘requests for amendments’ (read improvements). For completeness sake there are currently a further 51 Bills before the Senate being dealt with one by one. Clearly, just looking at the stats, the Senate is clearly not being obstructionist.

    • Mathias says:

      02:40pm | 17/03/10

      PS. that information is current up to 12.45pm today!

    • DigiDave says:

      02:40pm | 17/03/10

      Thanks Mathias. Nice to know your stats are very up to date too!

    • Overflow says:

      12:06pm | 17/03/10

      “Senators should be voted in on an individual basis”

      Do you seriously think the average voter is going to vote below the line?? 

      and talking of party political lines which party does not allow their members to cross the floor??

    • John A Neve says:

      12:27pm | 17/03/10

      Overflow,

      Not too many years ago there was no line, people still voted.
      If people dont care, why bother to vote at all?

      What has crossing the floor got to do with party politics?  Or are you suggesting all politicians should have a concience on all issues?

    • Harquebus says:

      01:37pm | 17/03/10

      John A, if a political party dictates that representatives must vote on party lines (not cross the floor) then, that representative represents their political party, not their constituents.

    • Gavin says:

      02:48pm | 17/03/10

      Constituents far more commonly vote for their party preference rather than the individual candidate in either house. Not all do this, but I bet my bottom dollar than more do than don’t. Therefore when the electorate of XX voted in John Smith MP of the Labor Party, for example, they voted for the Labor brand. They voted for Labor’s direction. A party MP is a delegate of the party who endorsed them, funded their campaign and in most cases, got them elected under the party brand. They need to work within the team that got them there and move forward with their party in delivering governance, and dissatisfaction with the party direction will be addressed at the ballot box. If they want to cross the floor because they think their constituents will love them forever, fine, they can disenfranchise themselves from the party and run independently if they believe believe they can.

      (PS - I only use ALP as an example as they are currently in Government).

    • bruce says:

      12:23pm | 17/03/10

      “Governments not having a majority in the Senate makes for better policy outcomes and for better government.”

      Mathias, on one hand I agree with you on this but on the other I get frustrated when initiatives that the government wants to progress are stalled in the senate.

      I take the view that whoever is in power is genuine about implementing changes that are the best for Australia. The best judge for whether those changes are correct are the Australian people. At the end of the day there is an election every 3 years where the politicians will be accountable for what they have done.

      John Howard, for instance, introduced workchoices (which he strongly believed was in the best interests of the country) when he had control of the senate and this was one factor which caused him to lose the 2007 election.

      At the present time I would prefer the government to be able to implement its agenda for the country, give time to see the impact of those changes and then see them accountable at election time.

      At the present time I get the feeling that big initiatives are held up to give the impression that the government is not delivering

    • Mathias says:

      01:46pm | 17/03/10

      Hi Bruce,

      I understand your point, but I can assure you that big initiatives are not being held up to the give the “impression” the government is not delivering.

      The government IS not delivering on the things it promised it would, and is trying to push things through the Senate which it said before the election it would not.

      The Rudd Labor government for example never put it to the Australian people that they wanted to pursue the break up of Telstra - a publicly listed business, owned by more than 1.4 million shareholders with about 30,000 staff. Surely a decision like this should not be rushed, and surely the government should have to demonstrate the merits of such a decision?

      On the other hand the government gave a most emphatic promise before the election that they would retain the existing private health insurance rebate arrangements. Only to turn around in government to try and reduce or scrap private health insurance rebates for millions of Australians.

      All of us who were elected to Parliament as individual members of Parliament made commitments to the people that voted for us - should we just throw all of that overboard just because we’re not the government.

      At the end of the day members of Parliament are a representative sample of the Australian population. The discussions taking place here are representative of the diversity of views across the community.

      As for myself, I represent the great State of Western Australia in the Senate where 11 out of 15 House of Representatives seats are held by Liberal MP’s (with 6 out of 12 Senators). Should we not be articulating the views of our communities and of our State. I respectfully put it to you that we should.

      Finally - in terms of your proposition to just let them get away with whatever they want to do (or rather ‘implement their agenda for the country’) - the problem is that some things, once put in place, are pretty well irreversible. Take the government’s proposed ETS for example. Senate scrutiny through various Senate Committees has revealed that it would push up the cost of everything, cost jobs, put pressure on our economy and put our energy security at risk - and all that without helping to reduce global emissions. The problem is, once in place it would be near impossible to close it down - even if it clearly is not in the public interest to have it continue. The carbon permits essentially confer a property right with a value attached to them. Even if there is an overwhelming consensus down the track that the ETS is no good it would be terribly expensive (to taxpayers) to ever shut it down.

    • bruce says:

      03:57pm | 17/03/10

      mathias, thanks for replying to my note.

      I understand your point of view..it is a difficult topic.

      I would say though that John Howard was also guilty of putting in place big initiatives that were not put up before the election. I know he did come out before the election for the GST change which was good…..but I dont think he did for work choices.

    • Mathias says:

      06:28am | 18/03/10

      Your right Bruce, he didn’t for Work Choices and look what happened. We lost government after doing so well in the previous election that we won a majority in the Senate in our own right.

      That’s why Work Choices is dead now.

    • monkeytypist says:

      12:19pm | 17/03/10

      The line that “all governments call the Senate obstructionist” cuts both ways.  All Senates that are dominated by non-government Senators block large amounts of government legislation, by virtue of strict party discipline.  Cormann’s argument that “we’re only doing our job” would have a lot more strength if he could point out the times that he voted against his own party in the interest of good governance, or particularly when members of his party didn’t simply echo their Lower House vote in the Senate.  Without that all of the claims to be “representative” and “democratic” are just bluster.  The Senate is not a “states’ house”; it’s a “parties’ house”, and it’s very deliberately not particularly representative.

    • Mathias says:

      01:48pm | 17/03/10

      Hi monkeytypist. Having only been in the Senate for about 2.5 years I have ‘crossed the floor’ and voted against the official Liberal Party position on three occasions - all related to Labor’s flawed ETS.

      The reason I did was because I considered that it went against the interests of my home State of Western Australia and because I made a judgement that Labor’s ETS would do nothing to help reduce global emissions yet was going to have significant implications for our cost of living, jobs and our economy generally - particularly in regional areas.

    • Mathias says:

      02:08pm | 17/03/10

      By the way - it’s not fair to say that as a Senate ‘dominated’ by non-government Senators we have blocked large amounts of government legislation. Out of 392 pieces of legislation introduced since the election of the Rudd Labor government the Senate has passed 334 of them (266 without and 68 with amendments), That is about 85.2%!

    • bruce says:

      11:38am | 18/03/10

      mathias, that is an interesting statistic (85% of legislation passed). I think the liberal party should promote that stat more.

      it seems like you have responded to quite a number of the posts to your article. i congratulate you for doing this.

    • julia says:

      12:27pm | 17/03/10

      Ragool is right. Let’s cut the $100m or so it costs a year to run the Senate. I am sick to death of my husband telling me that Estimates has found a $100m blowout here, or a $50m blowout there, or Kaiser got a job that was never advertised and he may or may not be qualified for because there was never a position description.

    • Ragool says:

      12:39pm | 17/03/10

      Estimates are always politicised and rarely based on factual evidence. Look at the utegate affair for a prime example. All these Estimates committees do is give air time to nutters like Abetz and Joyce.
      So what if Kaiser got a job that was never advertised to do, even if it was advertised to you really think a different person would have got the job.

    • Mathias says:

      02:53pm | 17/03/10

      Ragool, I don’t think that’s a fair assessment of Senate Estimates (nor of my valued friends and colleagues Eric and Barnaby).

      Yes there are moments of political theatre. But mostly Senate Estimates is a thorough process probing the performance of the government.

      Before an election governments make promises. Every year the government delivers a budget which is the financial plan for the next four years. Senate estimates is the process where Senators ask questions of departmental officials across the whole breadth of government from 9am in the morning until 11pm at night about how things are going compared to plan/budget.

      Personally, I have to say that Senate Estimates is one of the most valuable and yes robust parts of the democratic process. That’s where we can test whether governments are doing things for the right reasons and whether they have thought things through properly (or not, as the case may be).

    • Colin says:

      12:38pm | 17/03/10

      Senator Cormann,

      I hope the Senate will be taking a MUCH closer look at the Rudd Government’s 2010-11 Budget in May, than it has done in the past.  A close forensic analysis is vital to ensure that we are not being lied to about the true state of the nation’s finances.

      To wit, it seems the Government has faked up the GDP numbers in the previous budget, and, retrospectively “adjusted” previously-reported GDP figures up too. Naturally it is justified as being to ensure “more accurate reporting”.  But the fact is that ALL their ‘methodology’ changes serve to make their borrowing and spending “as a percentage of GDP” look far lower than they really are -

      http://barnabyisright.com/resources-articles/labor-fakes-gdp-by-4-5/

      Please look into this.

    • Beno says:

      02:33pm | 17/03/10

      Anyone who puts up a web link with the name ‘barnaby is right’ has sure lost their credibility at the beginning.  If you believe that he actually understands economics I can bet you believe that global warming is a myth and you’re still not convinced the earth is round.  Maybe Senator Cormann could better spend his time how he justifies all the Senate rubber stamping of Howard Government policy that has now even been publicly repudiated by the Libs (publicly anyway, but in their hearts they still believe Work Choices was good).  was that the sort of good government that he says the senate provides us?

    • Mathias says:

      02:58pm | 17/03/10

      Hi Colin - we will all give it our best to ensure the Rudd government’s 2010-11 budget is properly scrutinised. And I’m sure that Barnaby will be out there leading the charge to ensure the true state of our public finances is clearly understood.

    • Andrew Goff says:

      02:34am | 18/03/10

      Mathias, you had mounted a very strong case (and I really appreciate your follow-up engagement) right up to the point where you said Barnaby Joyce was all about spreading understanding. Barnaby may have a great knowledge of finance, but his public utterances are prima facie populist and, on any reasonable analysis, completely, unquestionable, bonkers.

      Intelligent conservatives such as yourself are essential to the check and balance process (as are intelligent progressive when the coalition is in power). But don’t stand up for nut jobs like Joyce or you do get tarred with the same brush.

      I guess it comes down to the fact that, while I disagree with you on some points and agree with you on others, I can respect your arguments. Joyce, on the other hand, is simply wrong - and respecting his argument is like respecting flat-earthers.

    • Colin says:

      09:38am | 18/03/10

      Andrew,

      That link I cited above is to a site dedicated entirely to showing that Barnaby is right, viz. the financial state of the nation and the dire risks both from abroad and from gross internal mismanagement.

      Before lowering yourself to ad hominem vilification, I’d urge you to thoroughly and thoughtfully peruse that site.  Follow the countless links to highly credible sources from around the globe.  Consider the damning evidence from the Govt’ & RBA’s own official stats in the “Resources & Articles” section.  And then thoughtfully reconsider whether BJ is indeed what you say, or, whether he may in fact be dead right (on the economics) after all.

    • Andrew Goff says:

      12:16pm | 18/03/10

      Oh for goodness sake.

      First, who is this? An uncredited blog is hardly an auspicious start.

      Second, the changes made to the GDP calculations show a 4.5% change OVER HISTORY… the ABS applies them over all historical figures they now report. That includes everything back to WW2.

      Third, the accounting change is also applicable to debt. GDP may have increased 4.5%, but by the same accounting method our balance of trade ALSO increased by 4.5%... so the ratio of GDP:Debt remained unchanged.

      Fourth, even if you doubled our debt, we would still be one of the best 1st world economies in the world by any measure of public debt. At the moment, Luxembourg is the only western nation with a better ratio. Doubling our level of debt would add only New Zealand, Slovakia, and the Czech republics to that list. So unless the entire western world is about to collapse, Joyce is wrong by a HUGE factor… not 4.5%, more like 405%.

      Finally, all of this is of course Public Debt, which Costello did a superb job of eliminating entirely. Private Debt (I.e. credit cards, home loans, etc) is another story… one which both Liberal and Labor governments don’t want to tell.

    • Colin says:

      11:43am | 19/03/10

      Andrew,

      “the changes made to the GDP calculations show a 4.5% change OVER HISTORY”

      Wrong. Did you bother to check the actual calculations? Clearly not. It’s there in B&W - the spreadsheet is provided. The GDP for 2006-07 ALONE was bumped up - retrospectively - by 4.5%. Check the calculations for yourself.

      “the accounting change is also applicable to debt.”

      Wrong again. The GDP was increased (by 3.5% for 2005-06, 4.5% for 2006-07, and who knows how much for 2008-09 onwards). Not the “payments” ie, spending ie. borrowing ie. debt.  In fact, the contrary is true.  If you’d bothered to read the prior article -

      http://barnabyisright.com/resources-articles/labor-hide-the-increase/

      - you would see that the government also changed methodology (in Nov 2009-10) for adjusting their “Payments” (ie spending) for inflation. Result? A 30.1% LOWER spending growth-as-percentage-of-GDP figure for 2009-10. 

      They’ve fudged GDP up. And spending growth (as % of that faked GDP) down. Using two separate “methodology” changes, each one clearly designed to make the official numbers look better for the Rudd Govt.

      FWIW, I agree completely with you on your final paragraph. That is the big story. No doubt that’s why neither side will talk about it.

    • antman says:

      05:06pm | 19/03/10

      Andrew Goff, can you please explain how selling off the family silverware to pay off debt is a “superb job”? Especially given that the money raised from the sales of income-producing assets significantly outwieghed the debt retired. Where did the extra billions upon billions (upon billions) of dollars go? Oh, that’s right: election year porkbarrelling and a massively bloated middleclass welfare system (with no income-producing assets to help support it, other than the Reserve Bank, meaning that the present Government only has the tax take and borrowings). Costello and Howard were nothing more than economic thieves and charlatans who managed to con a majority for far too long.

    • Peter says:

      12:53pm | 17/03/10

      The political structure of our house of reps and Senate are fine, but now they are just being abused by self serving governments and oppositions. I live in Victoria and always love to read a politcal story, but can anyone name me a Victorian Senetor? I can’t name you one and im not sure what they actually do….

    • Mathias says:

      02:59pm | 17/03/10

      Well there is the great Mitch Fifield a very hard working Senator from Victoria, and of course the very experienced Michael Ronaldson, Julian McGauran and Judith Troeth. In July 2008 Scott Ryan a very talented new addition to the Senate joined the team from Victoria.

      There are other Victorian Senators I believe, but I just can’t remember their names either…. smile

    • Peter says:

      03:32pm | 17/03/10

      Good work Mathias, im glad someone knows, but i do find it extraordinary. I read the news everyday and I never hear anything about these people. Maybe I need to lift my game. Actually I think we might not be on the same page, where you quoting me Victorian Senetors in Canberra? Because I was actually asking about senetors in the Victorian parliement? I never hear a peep out of that house! Also despite some of my rantings on these blogs, i know there are a lot of good people (on both side), who want to do well for their country. I believe the system lets them down, as well as the rest of us. There is too much barracking going on…

    • Betsey Bandicoot says:

      01:23pm | 17/03/10

      Mathias Cormann is dead right. Look what happened when the Coalition last got control of the Senate - they set about enacting what had hitherto been dreams into the greatest re-regulation of the workplace ever. Teams of lawyers put together Work Choices, more than 1700 pages of complex and inaccessible law and regulations about which they might later be involved in litigation.  It was promoted by an extravagant advertising campaign. The main effect of this was to alert people to the fact that there was something spivvy going on. It ranks with John Hewson’s Fightback! as the longest political suicide note in history.

      It would be good to say that the previous lack of control of the Senate had allowed Howard to control the crazies in his party and wedge the opposition but, when he had the chance, he led the crusade.

      Work Choices will secure another electoral dividend for Labor this year.

      Control of the Senate is a poison chalice for all concerned, not least the Australian people. It leads to bad policy, no matter whether it is controlled by the government or the opposition. Both sides create deplorable precedents which are used by their opponents when the time comes. It leads to even worse policy when a politician like Steve Fielding is part of the mix.

    • Jonno M says:

      02:14pm | 17/03/10

      I think we should remove the Senate when the ALP voted in as they are clearly more reliable than the Coalition. Have a look at the back ward steps we have taken because of the Senate. Shame on them.  It understandable when Howard was trying to push stuff through to have a check. But to stop Mr Rudd in his progression of the nation is criminal. I works very well in Qld.

    • Kevin07 says:

      02:48pm | 17/03/10

      Thanks Johnno, I will give you back your wallet at tomorrow’s union meeting. We might even talk about a preselection for you or even a meeting with a remedial English tutor. Regards, K

    • Mathias says:

      03:05pm | 17/03/10

      Hi Jonno M - what back ward steps?

      As a citizen it is in your interest to have proper checks and balances on governments of all persuasions. Even if you support the direction they want to go in, the government should still be able to properly justify that they have thought things through properly.

      Look no further than Labor’s home insulation fiasco.

      If only the Senate had gone along with the Coalition recommendation not to go along with Labor’s reckless spending-spree!

    • Astrosodi says:

      03:38pm | 17/03/10

      Hi Matthias
      But the Senate didn’t go along with that recommendation. Like all arguments about checks and balances, you can’t then simply blame the lower house if the Senate had the option to block it but didn’t.
      I realise you’re a Liberal senator, and that’s the party’s view on that issue. The upper house is part of political structure, so there is plenty of politics there too, I’m sure.

      Swings and roundabouts; I recall hearing similar statements in the media (about an obstructionist Senate) during the first Howard government pweriod before the coalition had control of both houses.

    • Mathias says:

      06:44am | 18/03/10

      Hi Astrosodi,

      You’re right. The Senate didn’t go along with our judgement on the Rudd government’s spending spree. Because on that occasion the government was able to convince all seven crossbench Senators to go along with their argument about the need for stimulus.

      The point I was making is that we now know that much of the things we said woud happen now have happened. There has been huge waste and mismanagement in the stimulus package and there is no doubt that it has pushed up interest rates.

      Re similar statements from the previous (Howard) government - as I said in the first line of this article, governments of all persuasions don’t like it when they dont get their own way in the Senate. That’s because governments invariably think they’ve got things right.

      But this government, not only said in Opposition that things would be different in government - they have actually become the biggest sulkers on so called Senate obstruction ever. For a Prime Minister to send 5 senior Ministers out there to attack the Senate is unprecedented.

      When I then hear that the PM hasn’t actually spoken to the Greens or Nick Xenophon for six months and 12 months respectively then it’s really hard to take him seriously about that.

      Kevin Rudd wants to keep the option of an early double dissolution election open, and he knows that people are very cynical about early elections. This is all about trying to build a public justification 1) for his failure to deliver on many of his pre-election commitments and 2) for his possible attempt to go to a double dissolution election.

    • Astrosodi says:

      02:42pm | 18/03/10

      Hi Senator (and my sincere apologies for misspelling your name in my previous post)
      I genuinely appreciate what you’re saying. I very much appreciate the Senate system, and agree that it is a very valuable thing and there are many dangers in a system without it. I don;t wish to turn this into a discussion board about something else, so I will just say that under the last gevernment, when the same political party had control of the Senate, some laws were passed that affected me that were drawn and passed without any apparent consultation or discussion in the press or public, and certainly not having been raised in the election campaign. Not to say that they wouldn’t have passed anyway, even if there had been consultation, but the manner in which they were was rather disheartening and highlighted to me value of the Senate and the scrutiny it provides. It is a tough job, and we, the public, have to trust that it’s being done with the right motives.

    • acker says:

      02:22pm | 17/03/10

      Congratulations Mathias, this is about as interactive as I have ever seen a thread on “The Punch”

    • Colin says:

      02:33pm | 17/03/10

      I second that applause, acker.

      How refreshing to see a writer - especially a politician - actually follow up on the comments to their article.

      Bravo Senator Cormann!

    • Mathias says:

      03:07pm | 17/03/10

      Thank you Acker and Colin… smile

    • Robert Smissen of Rural SA says:

      02:37pm | 17/03/10

      Little Kevvy’s Whinging about the senate sounds like he’d like to be voted “despotic dictator for life”. Just because the senate is elected by ALL Australian citizens & they do what they are elected to do, review the hastily cobbled together laws that this bunch of maladroit stumble foots try to foist on us. Isn’t it funny how the loony left get upset when they can’t bully their way to the top, obviously the don’t or don’t want to know how the senate works.

    • Mathias says:

      04:42pm | 17/03/10

      Hi Robert, yes Nick Xenophon made the astute observation that Kevin Rudd had to decide whether he wanted to be a dictator or a legislator…

    • Jason Bennett says:

      02:42pm | 17/03/10

      I am thankful that we have the Senate to protect our country, the amount of disgraceful legislation that Labor has rammed through the lower house only to be (luckily) halted in the Senate makes me worried for our future. God knows where we’d be if we don’t have that roadblock stopping bad decisions. Surprised Labor hasn’t tried to ram through the internet censorship bill or the ruin Telstra because your NBN sucks idea.

    • Mathias says:

      03:19pm | 17/03/10

      Hi Jason

      Well Labor did try to force the break-up of Telstra through the Senate the other day - and yes it’s a distraction for yet another broken election promise.

      It is one of the Bills the Senate has not passed (at least so far). The Coalition will definitely oppose that Bill, but for the Senate to block it at least two cross bench Senators have to share our judgement of it.

      Incidentally, Labor’s $43 billion National Broadband Network ‘plan’ is a disgrace truly. No business plan. Put together on the back of an envelope by the PM and Conroy while on a VIP flight somewhere. An implementation study being kept secret by the government.

      The least the government should do is publicly release its NBN implementation study so that everyone can make a judgement about the merits of what’s proposed.

    • Lloyd says:

      03:36pm | 17/03/10

      The major problem with the Senate is the fact that the 3 major political parties have destroyed its role as a house of review to one of blindly supporting the party line. It is meant to provide an apolitical review system.

      In the recent past we have seen abuses of the Senate and the Australian electorate by political parties with total control and also by purely party political obstruction. Unfortunately this has lead to the States using their parochial strength to manipulate issues towards their own selfich interests. Self interest rather than Australian goals is too prevelant in politics at present and we all suffer because of it.

      Australia is a lesser place because of some actions of our poliical parties and politicians.

    • Mathias says:

      06:50am | 18/03/10

      Lloyd - don’t underestimate the robustness of internal Party Room processes to determine the ‘party line’. Yes politics is a team game. If you want to make a difference it’s very hard (actually its impossible) to do that on your own.

      And if you look at the way the Senate debate on the ETS has evolved for example - it is very clear that through its Committee system the Senate exposed many of the flaws in that scheme, and when it came to a vote on it quite a number of us went against ‘the party line’ so to speak because we took the view that it wasn’t in the public interest for Australia to be burdened with this great big new tax on everything which was gonna do nothing to help reduce global emissions.

    • monkeytypist says:

      03:47pm | 17/03/10

      Yes, it is good to see such interaction, although I’m still not convinced that the Senate doesn’t need reform.

    • Mathias says:

      06:53am | 18/03/10

      Monkeytypist - over the past 109 years (since Federation) the Senate has continuously evolved to become a very effective scrutiniser of government performance and government legislation.

      Yes there is always scope for further improvement and I’m sure the Senate will continue to evolve and improve moving forward.

      But I don’t think we need ‘root and branch reform’ of the Senate to borrow somebody elses phraseology.

    • WA Voter says:

      03:58pm | 17/03/10

      Hi Mathias,

      You say “Governments not having a majority in the Senate makes for better policy outcomes and for better government.”

      Do you think the Democrat ammendments to the GST were an improvement?

    • Mathias says:

      06:58am | 18/03/10

      It always depends on your perspective.

      The Democrat amendments meant the GST was able to pass the Senate and abolishing wholesale sales tax and various other taxes and introduce the GST was a significant improvement to our tax system.

      The GST is a great example how over time support for sensible reform broadens.

      Having opposed it every step of the way (even though we took the GST to an election before trying to get it through the Parliament) Labor now is a strong supporter of the GST. So much so that they want to pinch 30% of it from the States and Territories.

    • WA Voter says:

      12:07pm | 18/03/10

      Sure.  But do you think the Democrat amendments to the GST were an improvement?

      It does depend on pespectve, I’m asking for yours.

    • Mathias says:

      12:33pm | 18/03/10

      WA voter - my perspective is that our successful negotiations with the Democrats way back in 1998/99 enabled us to pass important tax reform through Parliament. And now the GST as it was passed then is broadly supported, to the point where Kevin Rudd wants to pinch 30% of it from the States.

      The other question is - does he want to increase the rate of GST? Given he is keeping the Henry Review into taxation secret we have to wonder what he’s hiding!

    • WA Voter says:

      12:42pm | 19/03/10

      So, you’re not going to answer my question?  I hope I never hear you criticising Rudd over his question time shenanigans.

    • thomas vesely says:

      04:59pm | 17/03/10

      sir,where do you/senate stand on the internet filter debate?

    • Mathias says:

      07:08am | 18/03/10

      Hi Thomas - I support sensible and workable measures to protect children from inappropriate online content (by giving parents options).

      Personally I don’t support mandatory filtering. It won’t work.

    • Adam Diver says:

      07:47am | 18/03/10

      Any Senator who supports mandatory filtoring is in essence going against the checks and balances that you support as a senator. Worst piece of legislation I have ever seen in this country.

    • Davido says:

      07:02pm | 17/03/10

      Totally agree.

    • Skybeau says:

      10:08pm | 17/03/10

      Sorry Lloyd you’re wrong - you obviously didn’t notice the Liberal senators crossing the floor the first time Labor tried to shove through the ETS. As for the “gang of 5” that was obviously an attempt to save face on two fronts - if any of it was election promises, they can complain Liberal senators stopped it gettting through. If it was anything like the changes to the PHIR, which they claim will blow a hole in the budget, they can use it to cover up holes they have made themselves through the inefficiency of the insulation and education revolution building schemes. I actually admire someone like Nick Xenophon who voted against a bill as it wasn’t giving the best deal for SA - the constituency he represents - for once a member sticking up for their own constituents

    • Straight talk says:

      07:30am | 18/03/10

      Meh. The Senator for WA knows perfectly well he doesn’t represent the community. He represents the interests of the Liberal Party.

      As for Senators Joyce and Fielding, these two fellows, with their repeated foolish utterances, their wilfully misleading statements, and their unending stream of basic errors of fact,  are the very best examples of the Senate as a cold-blooded abuse of democratic process.

      Straight-talk from a non Labor voter with zero public profile.

    • acker says:

      08:17am | 18/03/10

      [“Straight-talk from a non Labor voter with zero public profile”]
      That always fires up my suspicions on a public blogsite where almost every one uses an AKA exept the article author…..P.S who else in this thread is saying who the have or haven’t voted for >?

    • Mathias says:

      11:10am | 18/03/10

      Hi Straight talk

      In the Senate I represent the great State of Western Australia. And yes, in putting myself forward for election I make it very clear that I’m committed to the Liberal cause and part of the Liberal Party team. No secrets there. It means people have a fair idea of my overall views and political values.

      On specific issues and policy matters I seek to be as clear as I can be about what I think should or should not happen and why.

      Ultimately its for people to judge whether they support Liberal, Labor, Greens, Family First or Independent Senators at the next election.

      What a great country we live in. We have freedom of speech and we’re free to vote for whatever party or whatever individual we like.

      PS. keep up the non-Labor voting… smile

    • antman says:

      04:53pm | 19/03/10

      You certainly don’t represent me.

      The Senate ceased to be a House of the States (and a House of review) decades ago when it simply became a second venue for party politics.

    • Straight talk says:

      08:43am | 18/03/10

      Suspect away Acker. Couldn’t care less.  The boringly predictable Libs put-down here is “Labor Stooge”.  I cut to the chase.

      Senators Joyce and Fielding, who pretend to be “straight talkers”, are two serial dills.  And that’s straight talk.

    • acker says:

      10:21am | 18/03/10

      You cared enough to reply ..LOL ..RFLMAO smile

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      11:36am | 18/03/10

      Simply put : The Senate is a House of Review. Senators are elected by the majority to represent the wishes of constituents of the States and Territories
      What may be found to be unacceptable legislation arising from the House of Representatives is usually amended in the Senate . This can still occur
      even if one party dominates the Senate. The arrogance now being flaunted by the Rudd Govt. can , thankfully , be controlled considerably in the Senate

      As MATHIAS has stated : The Senate is doing the job it was set up to do.

      Rudd says he will take one third of G.S.T.revenue from the states and fund 60% of Australia’s Health needs.Does this mean the states will cover 40% of health needs from two thirds of G.S.T. revenue.  ? 
      Is that enough to fund the state’s 40% share.  ?
      If not , the states will have to raise taxes to cover their responsibilities.
      This is where the Senate wields it’s power , if Legislation pertaining to to Rudd’s plan is seen to be unworkable , the necessary Amendments will be made. Certainly , the Rudd govt. has a lot of explaining to do when it comes to it’s Hospital plans.

    • antman says:

      05:05pm | 19/03/10

      What a shame that it did not control the supreme arrogance flaunted by the previous Government.

    • Straight talk says:

      01:50pm | 18/03/10

      Ah, the eye roll from the Senator from WA. 

      Thanks for the put down, Senator. Very mature. Very even-handed.  Patronise me on your $200,000 a year, would you?  That’ll be your best effort at representing my interests, will it?  Thanks, Senator. Made my case for me.

      I’ll vote how I like and speak my mind how I like and no patronising put down from you will stop me. Or win you any votes, either. When The Greens take the balance of power in the Senate, eye rolling will be about all you will be doing, Senator.

    • thomas vesely says:

      04:52pm | 23/03/10

      where was the scrutiny/oversight when we bought the dodgy submarines,helicopters&frigates;.when the insulation/BER fiasco was proposed.when 450k job went to a mate.and these are tips of the squandering governments we seem to be having?

    • thomas vesely says:

      12:49pm | 10/04/10

      Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has snubbed a Senate order, requiring him to hand over an implementation study into the national broadband network.

      Australian Greens’ senator Scott Ludlam successfully moved a motion in the upper house last week, calling on Senator Conroy to release the report by Wednesday.

      Almost three hours after the deadline lapsed, the minister announced the government had received the report - on March 5 - but would not be handing it over.

 

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Julia’s triumphant return: The story in photographs

Julia’s triumphant return: The story in photographs

Instead of a conventional piece of writing about today’s triumphant ALP Caucus meeting, we thought…

Gillard’s big cabinet headaches

Gillard’s big cabinet headaches

Despite it being the dawn of the Sunshine Parliament, Julia Gillard is going to have to make some decisions…

Little rubber band gives my journalism extra balance

Little rubber band gives my journalism extra balance

Great news! This article is 73 per cent more coherent than anything ever written on this website, and…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: The deliverance of cash to those who squeal loudest

Michael says:

Abbott nailed it in his election launch when he said that for labor, this election was not about Australia, but about labor & their lust for power. They would do - and did give - anything for power. labor have sold out the people of Australia for the interests of a few simpleton ego maniac independents.… [read more]

From: Little rubber band gives my journalism extra balance

Adam Diver says:

I have tested it and it worked for me. How it works is beyond me, but then again I have no idea how physical products such as silicon process information, does not mean this computer doesn't work. The thing is I am a skeptical person and I noticed a massive difference when I tested it, and my skepticism… [read more]

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

RT @MrTimms: Thats a keeper. @Matt_Gagger: @QuadeCooper Might have to call @kurtley_beale'Gilbert', considering it's probably still on his forehead

Paul Colgan

Awesome mashup of Wallaby win v SA http://bit.ly/cGD1aH More of the same please from @QuadeCooper@kurtleybeale& the crew on Sat #rugby

Paul Colgan

Funny piece on those Power Balance bands http://bit.ly/dcZlkZ by irrepressible sports funk writer @antsharwood (go on, follow him)

David Penberthy

Julia's triumphant return: the story in photographs. Our new piece on the punch #auspollhttp://tinyurl.com/34tn496

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Gillard and Abbott get a digital makeover

Gillard and Abbott get a digital makeover

Warning: this has nothing to do with politics. We thought we’d see how the Prime Minister and Opposition… Read more

28 comments

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter