It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 11:41am:


Yes Jas, the bottom line is that they asked us to vote and we did. They have their decision now. Work with it and live with it.

I have no faith that either major party really have the countries best interests at heart and no concept of planning for a future.

Quote:


Not at all.
I was just pulling you up on your apparent very poor understanding of what a "swing" is.

Quote:


That's okay. I failed HSC economics. 15/100.

# wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 3:00pm:



Very true David......most politicians and political parties these days seem more concerned with 'getting what they can, while the getting is good' instead of helping the poor bastards who voted them in.....

Sad, but true

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/23/2990782.htm

As Australia stares down the barrel of a hung Parliament, here's a look at what it all means.

What is a hung Parliament?

A hung Parliament results when no party has more than half the MPs in the House of Representatives, which means no party can pass laws without gaining support from other parties or independent members of the House.

That support could come in the form of a formal coalition, or the governing party may have to negotiate with the other parties to get laws passed.

How did we get here?

There are 150 members of the House of Representatives, so to have an outright majority one of the parties needs to hold 76 seats. Neither Labor nor the Coalition looks likely to reach that point.

Instead, they'll have to negotiate with the three sitting independents who have been re-elected - Tony Windsor, Bob Katter and Rob Oakeshott - as well as the Greens' Adam Bandt, who has won the seat of Melbourne.

A fourth independent, Andrew Wilkie, may come into the mix, as he is locked in a tight battle with Labor for the seat of Denison in Tasmania.

It's not clear just yet exactly how many seats Labor and the Coalition will hold (because it's not certain who has won a few very close races) but they both look set to fall three or four seats short of a majority.

How long will it take before the seats are finalised?

ABC election analyst Antony Green says it could take up until Tuesday August 31 before the closest seats, in particular Hasluck, are decided. This is due to the timeframes required for counting postal and absentee votes.

What happens now?

Essentially, a whole lot of horse-trading.

Both Labor and the Coalition will attempt to convince the independents and Mr Bandt to provide them with the support needed to get the required 76 votes on the floor of Parliament.

This could involve winning the support of individuals separately, or as a bloc. Mr Windsor, Mr Katter and Mr Oakeshott plan to meet before deciding what to do next.

Who is running the country while this happens?

Julia Gillard remains the caretaker prime minister and her Government remains in the caretaker role it has played since the election was called.

This will remain the case until one side of politics can convince Governor-General Quentin Bryce it has the numbers to form a government.

What is the Governor-General's role?

Constitutional experts say there's nothing explicit about hung Parliaments in Australia's Constitution. Instead, these situations are resolved via a set of unwritten rules originating in the United Kingdom. Despite being unwritten, these conventions are considered clear and well-established.

Under these conventions, the governor-general acts on the advice of the caretaker prime minister.

If Ms Gillard is able to win enough support from the independents and Mr Bandt, she would advise Ms Bryce that she intended to form a government. Ms Bryce would then swear in Ms Gillard and her ministers, and Labor would test its support on the floor of Parliament via a no-confidence motion brought by the Opposition.

The fresh government would need the support of 76 members to survive the vote.

If, on the other hand, it becomes clear that the Coalition has won enough support to form a government, the usual course of events would be for Ms Gillard to resign and advise Ms Bryce to send for Liberal leader Tony Abbott.

Is this situation unprecedented?

This is the first hung Parliament at a Commonwealth level in Australia since 1940.

On that occasion, Robert Menzies was able to form and lead a coalition government, but subsequently lost support and was succeeded by Arthur Fadden in mid-1941. Later that year, two independents switched their support to Labor and John Curtin became prime minister.

However, Australia has had quite a bit of experience with hung parliaments and minority governments at the state level:

    * Most recently, the 2010 Tasmanian election resulted in a hung Parliament, with Labor forming a minority government with two Greens as members of Cabinet;
    * The 2008 Western Australian election also resulted in a minority government; on that occasion, the Liberal Party under Colin Barnett formed government with the support of the National Party and three independents;
    * South Australian Premier Mike Rann led a minority government after the 2002 election in that state, having recruited an independent MP and a National MP into his Cabinet room;
    * In the 1990s, Nick Greiner led a minority government in New South Wales, notably relying on the support of Tony Windsor, one of the federal independents now in a position to help decide the fate of national politics;
    * Victoria and Queensland have also had minority governments in recent decades.

Why should a handful of independents get to decide who forms our government?

Under Australia's system of democracy, governments are formed based on the make-up of Parliament. Simply put, the likely make-up of our next Parliament means a government can only be formed with the support of the independents and one Green MP.

What do they base their decisions on?

Each member of Parliament can choose to support either side of politics for whatever reasons they want to.

Though there may be pressure to take into account which party wins the most seats or has the highest primary or two-party preferred vote, they're under no obligation to do so.

# wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 3:00pm:



Hi David, welcome to OzPolitic.

That is a great first post to start off with as well, I think you have voiced an opinion that many millions of Aussies share.

I am more excited about the result of this election than any since 1972.

Back then I hoped that a government that had been in power my whole life, had been the problem, and a change of government would fix everything.
I was young, naive, and very, very wrong.

Now I see a parliament without either party holding a clear majority, and some previously obscure independents, talking about parliament getting behind the principle of true LOCAL representation, where each member voices the needs, and concerns of their own electorates, but  also choose to work together, to decide on national issues that would reflect the wishes of the majority of the public.

Very, very few aussies get involved with political parties, and the machinations of all the lobbying and back room dealings that decide who gets to even put their hand up to go to the electorate to seek a mandate is something we do not follow, or really understand.
We do however get the sense that we are being taken for granted, and taken for a ride, by both the major parties, with their factions, and numbers men, and head kickers, and I think this is a great chance for us to send them the message that we are all heartily sick of it.

Winning power, needs to be about something more than just winning power, and then struggling to keep it.

I may no longer be young, but I hope I am not being too naive in hoping that some of the pollies will reflect on the message the people are trying to send, we do want a change, but not just a change between either a traditional Liberal or Labor government, but a change to a more representative government for us all.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 7:40pm:

Thanks mozzaok.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 7:40pm:

The result has certainly made things interesting. Then again, after the most boring, predictable, formulaic campaign I've ever seen, watching paint dry would be comparatively exciting.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 7:40pm:

If memory serves, our constitution doesn't mention political parties. The Prime Minister is anyone who can show they have the support of at least half of the elected members. A party just provides a prearranged support base. Unfortunately, the parties have taken on lives of their own.

I fear the politicians are not yet listening. Not those in the major parties, at least.

Where did we go wrong? How can we fix it?

mozzaok wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 7:40pm:



I would like to see a system brought in where the consituents select who stands for what party. Something like the primaries in the USA.

It could work something like this, when you fill out your application form to registry to vote, have an optional question on what political party do you follow, you could change it anytime you want, but only once in a 3 year period.

Then say 9 months before the election any member from any political party can nominate to the Electoral Office that they want stand in the seat.

Then 3 months later the Electoral Office has an voluntary postal election on who you want stand for the party you nominated. Make it so if the Wham Bham party holds the seat any one from that party can still nominate to stand at the next election. That way you wouldn't have someone think because they are in a safe seat thay are there for life.