Senator Andrew Bartlett
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
 
What is wrong with politics?
On the very first sitting day of the Government controlled Senate, it was reported that the Prime Minister told Coalition MPs and Senators that "whatever your previous affiliations, your first loyalty is to this party room".

Now I don't want to sound too precious – I feel a lot of obligation and loyalty to my party membership, as they are the ones first and foremost who gave me the opportunity and privilege of serving in the Senate, along with the voters of Queensland who in effect endorsed the members' choice of candidate. Particularly in a party like the Democrats, there is a strong obligation to stick with the party through difficult times and difficult issues – it is a pity a few past Democrat Senators did not show that kind of loyalty.

But surely in taking a position on crunch issues of key importance, the first loyalty of a Member of Parliament should always be to their electorate? Voting a different way on a specific issue of major importance to your constituents is not 'betraying your party'. In the end, political parties have to be servants of democracy, not the other way around.

The last time the Liberals had control of the Senate in the 1970s there were occasional instances of people crossing the floor on some key issues. As the Prime Minister's comments indicate, the Coalition is a little different these days.

The Labor Party's century old tradition of binding all MPs to always vote together – on pain of expulsion – is something I have always had trouble accepting. I understand you don't want people voting every which way on every second issue, but time and again I have seen people vote for something which I know they are fundamentally opposed to and which they believe to be damaging to the community. I can't see how this is healthy.

This is strongly reinforced by the press gallery, who instantly leap on any difference of views as a major party split and a potential crisis. This was evidenced yesterday in the very first Senate vote – for the position of Senate President (equivalent to the Speaker or Chair), which is by secret ballot. As far as the Democrats are concerned by definition a secret ballot is a free vote, although people can discuss it with others if they wish of course. There were two nominations for President, the Liberal incumbent Paul Calvert and the Greens' Kerry Nettle. Kerry Nettle got 7 votes, which people assumed was 4 Greens and 3 of the 4 Democrats. This immediately got some in the press gallery talking about a 'Democrat split'. It's really all getting a bit ridiculous when you have stories about party splits even on a procedural issue like a secret vote for the (theoretically) independent position of Senate President.

Stories exaggerating the significance of different views within a party just increase the hand of the Prime Minister when he pressures his MPs to toe the line on every single issue, regardless of the impact on their constituency.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, August 10, 2005 Permalink
|


<< Home