Mulga Bill, Naracoorte Community News
On March 19 South Australians elected our next State Government and around May we will vote for the next Federal Government.
We call our system ‘representative government’ which obviously means we elect Members to go forth and promote the wishes of the electorate, in the Parliament.
It is a fair call that an Independent MP will accurately represent his electorate but on many occasions this fine principle is subverted for the party politician.
An elected MP from a party will need to firstly raise the concern of his electorate within the Party Room. One of two things follow; if he can convince the party to support him, it will become an agenda item in the House or if other party Members are not supportive, the plan is lost which means your representative may never be able to raise in the House, a concern from the electors. Unlike Hansard reporting of Parliamentary debate, the Party Room is exempt from public reporting so nobody is aware of participant’s views. If the proposal is not endorsed, the MP has to explain to his constituents that although he tried hard, unfortunately the party room did not agree. But surely this was not how things should be!
Party room discipline is usually strong enough to deter the Member promoting the issue again and woe-betide him if he speaks critically of the party decision.
Naturally within the party there are differing interests. There is a metropolitan view and a country view to be considered; there is the financial cost associated with proposals but a major factor influencing party room decisions is the influence from industrial and business leaders from which major party funding is sourced. All of this might mean the proposal from a Member attempting to carry the wishes of his voters to Parliament will not be considered by the House because it did not suit the party room.
Do you question whether we have genuine representative government?
The majority party forms the Government and it dictates the rules for the forum which hardly bears scrutiny when it comes to fairness.
I said above that Independent MPs were the most likely to promote their voters’ wishes in the House. However, they first have to get the item on the agenda for debate. Again the ruling party seems to be able to control the agenda to the extent that some items may take months or never have a chance. Is that fair for the electors and their chosen MP?
Now let us assume that an item is on the agenda from an Opposition MP or an Independent MP and the Member begins speaking to the House, the Government which has the majority number of votes can simply have one of their MP’s, Move “That the Member be no longer heard”. Known as the “Guillotine”, this would be seconded and carried with Government numbers and the MP attempting to raise a matter concerning his constituents would be silenced.
Can anyone believe that the local Hall Committee, Shire Council or Progress Association would operate like our Parliaments do?
Is bigger better?
You would reckon the Progress Association, Shire or Town Hall Committee would encourage every attendee to have a chance to speak at their meetings. The numbers attending permit it. However, forty seven Members in our House of Assembly would not be able to speak on every matter. Think then of our Federal House of Representatives with much larger numbers – how would they all have a chance to speak? Have you noticed the number of attendees at a United Nations meeting or the Chinese Assembly of about 300? What hope would exist for anyone wishing to speak?
Yet we call it a democracy. The only vestige relative to that term is our right to vote. After that there is little hope of participation. Although to be fair there have been the odd occasions when the party system stumbled and true representation won through.
This article appeared in the Naracoorte Community News.
