What if Senators can only do one 8 year term?

Would give Senators a lot of freedom to consider legislation purely on its merits.

Bad enough States get 4 years but federally it would be a total disaster.

Nope 3 is enough.
They want more they can win the next election.

As for the Senate they can have 3 years too, none of this 6 crap.

Democracy, will of the people and all that.

All members please note that I've have proposed such reforms on this forum before.

Seems I'm not that crazy after all.

And Aussie, no senators won't be elected for 8 years; they'll all be elected at the same time.

Grendel wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 2:56pm:


You can't do anything in 3 years G. You can stuff up a country in one year but you can't fix it 3.

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 3:55pm:


Does that not defeat the purpose and benefit. The split election for the senate makes it less likely that the whole of government will be made from the politics of that single snapshot of time. Reduces the likelihood of both houses being dominated by one party which is very desirable and better balanced.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:40pm:


Well, the people vote for them, so blame the electors. No one is forcing them to vote that way.

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:55pm:


Compulsory voting in a two horse race ?

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:11pm:


So, are you suggesting that an mp who was elected 6 years earlier would vote differently from the party of which is he or she is a member at the present time?


That has never been an argument made by anyone. The point is that an election at a different time in different political circumstances will produce a different mix of senators.

i.e. if you hold an election today your result is a snapshot of the political climate of today. No matter if you elect 3 or 10 candidates they are all the product of todays political situation. There is a very high probability that this will not be a good representation of the political view across the term. Representing two different snapshots is better. This has proven to be the case via the test of time.

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:55pm:



Well they didn't in France - they voted for an outsider in Macron.

I hope someone will do the same here &
get rid of Liberal & Labor forever.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:53pm:


Yeah but you know that in France they're voting system is also a two horse race voting system. The key difference is that they elect their president and then the people usually vote for the party of the president.

What they do in France which is sth we can adopt here is that they give equal funding to each presidential candidate.

No I'm not - I am saying that an election in a different period will be likely to have produced a different mix in its result, it's not rocket surgery.

i.e there will be a different mix of Labor senators a different mix of Libs and a different mix or independents and greens.

This helps to prevent a single election landslide from being enough to result in full control of both houses. It has proven to be very beneficial by producing a good balance over many decades.

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:18pm:


Quote:


irrespective of how many times you have heard the argument you have just shown that you didn't understand it.

Quote:


Scrutiny does not mean finding arguments that support your view.

It is a fact that the mix in Australian senates have not represented the result of a single election result on the whole.

Well we probably can forget the almost collapsed Greenies at the next election.

But then who will Bull S. form the worst "govt" in Australia's history with if the Greenies are extinct ?

Bull S.'s Socialist Greeny and CFMEU controlled Labor imbecilic vandals had six sick years and all they succeeded in doing was to almost bring Australia to its knees by almost destroying the Australian economy with their

imbecilic borrowing and waste and disgrace and

by RESTARTING the BOATS and trying to flood Australia with violent Stone Age Devil Worshiping ISLAMIC Heathen Barbarians and

with the idiotic Greenies' Carbon Tax and

by trying to ban free speech and

by trying to implement the AGENDA 2030 idea of moving power from the State Govt to the sick Greeny councils and

by trying to close down ALL Australian industry and

by trying to sabotage the Australian power system and

by moving huge numbers of bludgers onto Centrelink WELFARE and

even more endless destruction etc

Just imagine if the  Socialist Labor imbeciles had had TWO FOUR YEAR TERMS what permanent damage they would have inflicted on the Australian economy ?

And Bull S.'s NUMBER ONE PRIORITY if he ever got back in is to RESTART the BOATS followed by bring back the CARBON TAX and make ELECTRICITY PRICES so high that pensioners would die during winter because they could not afford to turn their heater on.

SAVE our PENSIONERS - Don't EVER VOTE FOR LABOR!!!!!!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-c48KB9GbyJ8/UgkGULEPO-I/AAAAAAAAHu4/ZZn3PpsNjY0/s1600/...

And Bull S. would be even WORSE!!!!!

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 1:33pm:


That's one idea.

Refer to the conversation between myself and Dnaverer about this issue. Perhaps you could weigh in?

Auggie wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 1:40pm:




Why bother?

Again why bother, whats it going to change?

Fancy giving these turds 4 years of unfettered rule. How many o/seas fact-finding-missions can be flown in 4 years? These turds shouldn't be allowed to govern us.

salad in wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 5:13pm:


You know in Britain that the House of Commons goes for 5 years. They seem to be all right with it there.

The Australian
12:00AM July 25, 2017
Paul Kelly
Editor-At-Large

Malcolm Turnbull must be ­kidding. The idea of fixed four-year parliamentary terms at the national level is a con job.

Like most bad ideas it resur­faces every 15 or 20 years and the Prime Minister is wrong to say it should be considered — it needs to be thrown into the dustbin and forgotten.


Even worse is the likely linked notion of an eight-year Senate term. That would be an anti-democratic travesty. The idea of fusing the immense constitutional powers of the Senate with virtual semi-permanent election of senators is a potent threat to governance. There should be zero tolerance of this notion, advanced under the fraudulent cover it would lead to better government.

The Opposition Leader wants to look more bipartisan to improve his image. That’s fine. But if the Liberal Party falls into this trap it will prove what many suspect: it is weak, soft and an easy touch for Labor’s ­manipulations.

Labor’s four-year Senate terms policy has potential but only if it comes with a changed Senate voting system to remove the huge bias in favour of minor parties. But there are two certainties: a four-year Senate term proposal would split conservatives, violate the constitutional conception of the Senate, cause untold chaos inside the Coalition and provoke ­upheaval for a totally doomed cause. Have no doubt, the four-year term proposal is dead before breakfast. The public will never buy it. That Turnbull told Shorten on Sunday morning he was open to further discussion on four-year terms is abject folly.



The arguments sound like satire. It invites ridicule when Shorten says it means “more daring” government or when Liberals who back it say it will promote business confidence. The idea of four-year terms has been kicked around for decades — its appeal, superficial at first consideration, inevitably dies at second consideration.



The four-year-term issue is an insight into the nature of our parliamentary system. The founding fathers built a structure that defies easy change. In our Constitution, part two concerns the Senate and part three concerns the House of Representatives. You cannot consider changes to the house without considering changes to the Senate. In creating the Senate as a house of review, the founding fathers provided for a long, six-year Senate term and also provided for the ­rotation of senators — with half the Senate facing an election each three years. The integrity of this design points to an eight-year Senate term to match any four-year house term.

Yet an eight-year Senate term makes largely unaccountable senators even more unaccountable. It looms, therefore, as a killer ­element for any linked four-year term for the house. But this proposal can serve a purpose. It might make you angry about the sham that poses for democracy in this country. Consider that at last year’s election, 4.7 million voters in NSW and 334,000 voters in Tasmania got the same deal: 12 senators elected.

Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie got a shade over 28,000 party votes or about 0.19 per cent of the total nationwide vote — and became a balance-of-power senator. That’s right — on one-fifth of 1 per cent of the vote. In Western Australia, One Nation got a balance-of-power senator on 54,000 party votes, about two-fifths of 1 per cent of the national vote.

The Senate is an anti-­democratic rort. Short of a double-dissolution election all senators enjoy six-year terms — they only need to be elected three times for a 20-year career. Where else can you get a deal like this? And some people now tell us they deserve an even better deal — let’s give them eight-year terms. That would make an arrogant and irresponsible Senate even more arrogant and irresponsible.

@ Grendel.
Exactly what he said. No to any increase term.

Does anyone think turnbull and shorten would agree if it was bad for them but good for the country??

Does anyone think turnbull and shorten would agree if it was good for them but bad for the country??

Or have we reached some kind of nirvana of good for the crooks and good for the country?
Haven't seen any pigs fly lately.

But you said "character and competence" as a reason for a "good" government to have a longer term.
Does not your definition of character and competence include putting aside their own interests and doing what is best for the country??
Because if it doesn't, and your response seems to indicate that, the case for an extended term is self-delusional.

Yes, it would be possible, if we were as a country committed to it, we availed ourselves of advice from experts, and suggestions from the Australian community, and steadfastly rejected any kind of secret "political" solution or compromise.
We need competence and evidence-based decisions, delivered publicly, and for the good of the country, not in accord with any secret agenda, not in deference to party donors or inveiglement from lobbyists.

But you said "character and competence" as a reason for a "good" government to have a longer term.
Does not your definition of character and competence include putting aside their own interests and doing what is best for the country??
Because if it doesn't, and your response seems to indicate that, the case for an extended term is self-delusional.

"character and competence" as a reason for a "good" government to have a longer term.

Pay me, and I'll gladly be solely responsible.
You want me to do their job?? For nothing? Precisely what is a politician paid for then??

Politicians need us.
We do not need politicians.

People around the world are realizing this, and they are demanding more accountability, and less corruption/abuse of power.

And how do our politicians respond??

Make my term in office longer!
Do they not get it?