One has to agree with the reported remark of Malcolm Jones: ""The rules
are the rules and if we got a lot of support I'm certainly not going to
be an apologist for it."
The perennial problem is that political parties make the rules for the
advantage of themselves and their ruling cliques, not for the interests
of democracy or responsible government. The only way available to
counter their chicanery within the rules is to vote only for independents
and parties like The Greens which demonstrate participatory democracy (in
fact as well as in rhetoric).
I see no problem with a reduction in Upper House numbers, provided the
voting system is rendered more truly proportional (eg, abolishing one-box
voting for party lists, and introducing Robson rotation of lists on
ballot papers.)
If registration of parties is sought 12 months before an election, the
same excellent principle of stability should apply to registration of
candidates, and to party membership of those candidates. This would,
incidentally, militate against snap elections. Perhaps the deposits could
also be collected 12 months in advance - a great new revenue-producer!
For the 2000 party-membership qualifier to work properly, it would be
necessary for the membership to somehow be registered with the Electoral
Office. This good be a good thing. It has been known for parties to
jealously conceal and overstate their membership, and even to have
hundreds of bogus members on their books. The Democrats were doing that
when I quit in 1993 (and were using the bogus membership to swing postal
ballots under the control of people with managerial power).
Brian Jenkins
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website http://www.nettrek.com.au/~brian/
-----Original Message-----
From: alister air <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, 27 April 1999 11:51
Subject: Push to 'reform' NSW Upper House widens
|Sydney Morning Herald
|Tuesday, April 27, 1999
|
|Push is on for Upper House changes
|
|By MARK ROBINSON
|
|Reform of the NSW Upper House appears inevitable after all the major
|parties agreed yesterday on the need to cut the number of minor parties
|gaining seats with only a tiny portion of the votes.
|
|The National Party went further, proposing changes to the Legislative
|Council's powers, including ending its ability to block indefinitely
|Government legislation.
|
|A day after the Treasurer, Mr Egan, pushed for the abolition of the
|Upper House, the Nationals' leader, Mr Souris, said it should have 30
|MPs instead of 42.
|
|That would mean an increase of more than 50 per cent in the number of
|votes required by candidates to get elected.
|
|The push for reform follows final election results, which gave seats to
|seven minor party MPs - three with 1 per cent or less of the primary
|vote - from a record field of 264 candidates whose names filled a ballot
|paper the size of a tablecloth.
|
|Labor and the Coalition indicated they would support an increase in the
|number of members a party needed to be registered, and agreed parties
|should be registered for 12 months before the election.
|
|The State Government said it would introduce legislation proposing the
|longer registration period and raising the minimum party membership from
|200 to 1,000. Mr Souris said the required number of party members should
|be 2,000.
|
|The confidence of voters had been severely shaken by the election, he
|said, and there was widespread public support for change.
|
|"It should be done now while we are of the view that reform is
necessary."
|
|Mr Souris stopped short of backing Mr Egan's call for the Upper House to
|be abolished, saying he was "50-50" on the idea.
|
|However, reducing its numbers by 12 would increase the required number
|of votes to be elected from 160,000 to about 245,000, or from 4.5 per
|cent to more than 6 per cent of the vote.
|
|Ending its powers to delay any Government bill for more than 12 months
|would bring it into line with other houses of review in the Westminster
|system, including the House of Lords, Mr Souris said.
|
|The Opposition Leader, Mrs Chikarovski, backed the call for reform and
|confirmed her support for increasing the number of party members and the
|time that parties had to be registered.
|
|A group of Liberal MPs had been assigned to review all aspects of the
|Upper House, including its composition, functions and powers. Once that
|process was complete, reform options would be put forward for public
|debate, Mrs Chikarovski said.
|
|"I think we do need to ensure that the Upper House is really one of
review."
|
|Upper House results made public on Saturday boosted the campaign for
|reform, particularly after it was revealed that the Outdoor Recreation
|Party's leader, Mr Malcolm Jones, had been elected despite getting just
|7,264 primary votes.
|
|Mr Jones defended his election yesterday, saying he had been given the
|preferences of more than 40 parties which supported his party's central
|commitment that everybody should have access to public land.
|
|"The rules are the rules and if we got a lot of support I'm certainly
|not going to be an apologist for it," he said.
|
|The election of the seven minor-party MPs brings to 13 the number of
|cross-benchers in the Upper House. Labor will have 16 MPs in the new
|Parliament and the Coalition 13.
|
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion.
To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
For archives
http://www.mail-archive.com/public-list@neither.org
