October 9, 2003

Howard vs the Senate

The Senate cops a lot of flack, mostly from the government but I also recall a friend voicing a strange argument for why the Senate was a joke: it gave a ridiculous amount of power to independents and the members of minor parties. His argument was simple: why should a couple of people be able to control what the whole parliament did? The bit he neatly forgot is that they couldn't do that if the opposition didn't agree with them. The way he described it, one person could obstruct the 75 others. The truth of the situation is that the vote would more realistically be something like 38 to 37 and that one person is no more obstructionist than the 37 other people they're aligned with. (I think the Senate chooses a speaker from its own ranks so the 76 sitting members would work out to 75 voting members - is that right?).

Now Howard's decided he wants more power (he already appoints the Governor General and his government dominates the House of Reps and appoints those in our High Court). My preferred analysis of his proposal is by the Clerk of the Senate who has popped up regularly offering his well-argued thoughts (also voiced here). Not surprisingly, Margo Kingston's offered similar thoughts at her Webdiary site (I like her perspective but her tone is a little too melodramatic at times).

I sense that Howard is kicking into election mode now. The reshuffle of the cabinet freshens things up in the public mind and there have been some soothing words from them recently (Abbott - of all people - trying to be nice to doctors and Howard saying he won't send the Senate reforms to a referendum if the people don't seem interested). With some of the mud starting to stick, there's obviously a need for them to add some positive spin.

Of course, Howard is still shameless. Today he invoked the Bali victims to justify the ill-defined "war on terror":

"The events in Bali remind us that the war against terrorism must go on, how ever long that period may be," Mr Howard told parliament.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how exactly you win a war on terror. Do all the terrorists stand up and say "okay, okay, we give up, we surrender, it's all over"? And why can't he leave the anniversary to the families instead of tying it to political causes? Howard also remains a master politician by presenting his Senate proposal, describing them as "moderate, careful, sensible proposals" instead of stepping back and allowing others to make that judgement. The trouble with Howard is that he's so dull that he can say black is white and almost sound believable. Oh for some politicians to just say "John, you're talking complete rubbish"... Posted by david at October 9, 2003 7:38 PM