Bam wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 8:05am:



he's a greenie, lying comes with the tree hugging and brainlessness that's a pre-requisite to joining the party

Will Labor Reverse The Senate Reform?

Politically motivated change is not reform ?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 10:40am:


I was thinking of doing the same .... leave the majors and greens off the ballot altogether. See how much they enjoy their reforms

Labor might not need to reverse anything ... (not that they would anyway)

Family First senator Bob Day will be taking the Government's new Senate voting laws to the High Court as early as next week.

The legislation, which will make it harder for micro parties to get elected, passed both houses yesterday.

The Coalition bill passed with the support of the Greens and independent Senator Nick Xenophon after a marathon sitting session of more than 28 hours.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull described its passage as good for democracy, but Senator Day has said he will lodge a legal challenge against the legislation within days.

Under the new laws, voters who issue a limited number of preferences at the polling booth will have their ballot discarded if their preferred candidates are excluded from the race.

Senator Day told the ABC that he would argue on the potential disenfranchisement of voters, following the High Court's response to missing ballot papers from Western Australia in the last federal election.

"Just 1,200 votes went missing and the High Court was sufficiently concerned about that to order a rerun because of the way it would impact the outcome of the election," he said.

"What their attitude might be to 3 million votes exhausting or dying deliberately as a result of these laws is the question that needs opt be asked."

On Twitter, Senator David Leyonhjelm said the Liberal Democrats would help to fund the High Court challenge.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-19/bob-day-to-challenge-senate-voting-laws/72...

John Smith wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 10:56am:

I don't think this challenge will succeed. We've had ticket voting for years.

Bam wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 8:05am:


why do you believe that labor spin? The below the line argument is at best a failed amendment to a policy they actually support. Instead, they voted against the whole thing and you want to think it is because they couldnt get a single small amendment? 

It was politics pure and simple - and they screwed it up big time.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 11:44am:

Of course it was politics. Where did I say it wasn't?

What you need to grasp though is that the voting was political self-interest for everyone, not just Labor. Every Senate vote can be predicted simply by asking this question: would the person or party voting be likely to be better or worse off with the changes?

Coalition - Never worked well with the current Senate. Laying the ground work for a double dissolution and a more compliant Senate.
Greens - Have ambitions to be the party with the balance of power in the Senate. Looking to remove competition.
Xenophon - Got screwed over at the last election with ticket voting. Expects to gain seats with the changes.
Labor - Voting as they are because they will receive preferences from a very annoyed crossbench. Also any change that benefits the Greens may harm Labor.
Other crossbenchers - They expect to lose several seats so are voting against the changes.

That about sums it up. Not one Senate vote was cast for any other reason than political self-interest.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 7:51am:


surely you are not opposed to people being elected genuinely


Of course not.

But I am against the timing and the motivation.

A government that has spent the entire term complaining about the senate composition taking steps to alter this in the voting process in the run up to an election I see as inappropriate.

This should be looked at dispassionately following an election with decisions being made with a cool head and for the right reasons. Clearly not the case we see here.

The changes not going to under the line voting effectively means that independents would be significantly disadvantaged even if people want to vote for them.

By trying to rush this through in a knee jerk reaction to what they see as a solution to fix an obstructionist senate they have produced an incomplete not well thought out partial solution that has not been well considered or appropriately debated. They are potentially swapping one problem for a more serious one.

So the conclusion is that I do believe reform in this area is needed but that this isn't it, this is about engineering a more compliant senate, nothing more.