More remarkable

I am glad that the stuff about Xenophon and Hepworth is sort of petering out (see my original blog).
Alexander Downer would no doubt be bemused to find that I agree with him about anything, but writing in the Murdoch Press today he has a fairly measured analysis of the process and principles of the use of Parliamentary privilege to name individuals.
Perhaps one highlight of his article is detailing his drive in southern Cyprus and coming across the church of St Xenophon! It's easy for all of us to make barbed comments.
Reflecting on Sunday last on the need for Christians to reflect the generosity of God I said (perhaps tongue in cheek) to one of my parishioner-friends that I had been unusually generous during this week of confusing controversy about John Hepworth. I noted that in the first conversation I had with anyone about the sad state of affairs I had to say to a bunch of fairly aggro-people that we needed to remember that the first principle of abuse is that we presume the alleged victim is not making this up.
Now, I recognised that this required of me an openness to Hepworth that I may not always have had. He is a very difficult person to like if you are not on the same side. But that is probably not the point.
His appearances in the media have not been pleasant to watch and listen to, Julia Baird did a very skilful interview on on ABC radio's Sunday Profile last night....this can be heard here.

X marks the spot

I don't think we should get too thingy about Xenophon deserting the SA Legislative Assembly. For heavens sake the other parties do it all the time. Wait until the Liberals are trounced and see what Howard does!
Xenophon is such a quality performer that the Senate seems an ideal place for him to weave his spell. His ability to catch the popular imagination is so effective that he must stand a good chance of getting in.
Those of us who feel that it is important for the Senate to hold the two major parties in check and to deny either one the exercise of autocratic power will see that he is probably just the one to do that.
Well done. I bet everyone, just everyone; is spitting chips!

Remarkable stuff

This has been a remarkable week of the confluence of religion and politics. A controversialist senator, Nick Xenophon, named a Catholic priest under 'parliamentary privilege' in regard to an alleged rape more than four decades ago.
The priest accuser, so-called 'Archbishop' John Hepworth ( a number of my blogs about Mr Hepworth are here) Perhaps the most instructive blog is here!
My real issue about Hepworth's Traditional Anglican Communion is that it is neither traditional nor Anglican nor in Communion with the see of Canterbury. A fairly basic criterion for what being an Anglican actually means!!
My advice to genuine Anglicans is that they should advise family and friends that despite Hepworth's sad tale, the Traditional Anglican Communion has nothing to do with the genuine Anglican Church.
Buit the Xenophon saga goes on ( see here)
Despite the Senator's protestations that he has had an awful lot of support, I have not spoken to anyone who thinks that his naming of a person who has strenuously  denied an allegation that has not been reported to police or furthered in other ways is appropriate use of 'parliamentary privilege'

Now I actually voted for Senator X at the last election but will not be doing so again.
I think a lot of people will be doing the same.

This is not straightforward. And that fact alone should have worried X. He admitted on radio today that he threatened the Catholic Church on Monday with the 'naming'. When did he actually speak to Hepworth...the same day apparently!
Clearly not a great period of reflection before he acted. ( Rather exposed by D Bevan on SA radio 891)
I just found that X's  seizing of the high ground was looking rather shaky.
He should have done better. And ti will have cost him votes.

I felt sorry for Mr Hepworth, his claim needs to be taken seriously. But it is a long way from being proven

X Marks the spot!

We are told that other members of the SA Parliament are not happy with controversialist Nick Xenophon's headline grabbing stunts (here). Everyone Liberal, Labor and an unnamed "minor party" seem to be cross with Mr X.
Though they piously suggest that the reason is something like "He is able to get away with the sort of self-promotion that other MPs would be publicly caned for". Is perhaps the real reason that he is successful and they are not.
In the world of politics there is no doubt an 8th deadly sin, coveting media attention (It wcould equally be said that in the world of media there is the obverse dealy sin which is manipulating public opinion).
We have to live with this and Xenophon is good at grabbing the media by the proverbials. For this I am glad...not just because it is amusing...but because we also need to pay attention to some of the minor issues as well as the major ones. At this X is good. There is room for both...indeed need for both.

Swings and roundabouts

There will be a diminution in the Liberal membership of the State Parliament, Opposition Leader Kerin is conceding as I write.
No mention has been made in the coverage of the success of Nick Xenophon in getting what looks like 2 quotas in the Legislative Council. Education Minister Jane Lomax-Smith observed that obviously the electorate find a person with passion very attractive (she rather exploits this herself). An imaginative third voice in the Upper House is critical. Whether the Family First party will succeed in getting a quota remains to be seen. They look as though they may get up on the basis of one of the Liberal's lost quotas....though it will be hard...so be it. That is (whether they admit it or not) where they draw their natural constituency. The Democrats are dead.
What a difference a day makes!

Abolish the Upper House

Inevitably at State Election time the red herring is dropped across the issues....abolish the Legisaltive Council... I am generally in favour of this move. Even though in other articles I have argued that the House of Review is important (see here). My point in that discussion is really that there should be an independent voice, which has often been the Greens, the Democrats, the No Pokies MP, or the Independent.
This voice holding government to account has been principally heard in the Upper Houses of our Parliaments but does not necessarily need to be so. If an independent voice can be heard in a single chamber Parliament then that would suffice. I want the two major parties to do more than just Whip the numbers into shape, I want them to justify their case and to work with those who represent minorities and who may hold the balance. If they don't do that then whole sectors of our population are, in reality, disenfranchised.

I actually think that an Upper House in the South Australian State Parliament is complete overkill, and expensive. If we compare it, say, with English regional or County Council government whcih are often much larger than any of the Australian State Governments they survive on only one elected tier.
But I value the voice of the independent. I like the way that the Democrats held the Federal and State governments to account. I think South Australias No Pokies MLC, Nick Xenophon, has been extraordinarily good value.
While I would happily abolish the Upper House, I would only do so on the proviso that independents can compete on a level playing field with the bully boy Liberal and Labor parties. For example proportional representation like perhaps the Hare Clark system (see what happens in the ACT) Thus if Labor get 45% of the votes and Liberal 45% we still have 10% of the seats going to some group other than them.
More often than note this is what the community wants.
Though one party may get more than 50% party preferred they seldomly get an absolute majority. This means that for most governments on the raw vote more than half the electorate don't want them to be the government!!!
There is something about requiring such minority governments to struggle with independents to get their legislation through as a fairer way of dealing with the whole electorate.
Labor and Liberal hate this.....but we the voting public should demand proper and accurate representation.

So who do the Senators represent?

The defection of Julian McGauran from the National Party to the Liberal Party exposes one of many fundamental flaws in the Senate Just who do these so and so's think they actually represent.
There are at least three dimension to this

• The States Since the whole State elects Senators on a quota basis and we get something approximating proportional representation (ie. the more votes you get the more senators your block gets). Par excellence Senator Barnaby Joyce has demonstrated this in recent months. The constitution and popular thought give credence to this. Senators are there to get what they can for their States. I have a certain affinity to this viewpoint, and think it provides an important balance to our increasingly "executive style" of operation.
• The Parties Remember we were conned into an "above the line" or "below the line" system some years ago. You only have to write one number on a senate voting paper and then the system does the rest. You don't have to vote above the line but you may. This is the lazy way of voting in my opinion. Though it is perfectly understandable that many people don't want to write 1-75 numbers on their paper. But it is a con. It suits the larger parties. If you only write one number then the party you have voted for decides where all your preferences will go...even if you don't like it. It advantages the Big Boys, and disadvantages the little fellas.

  I have never voted above the line! The so-called major parties hate those of us who think the senate should be the place for a voice of independence. Very pragmatic, but very dictatorial. They want a Senate fully compliant to executive will and have no interest in the States' rights or sectional interests.

  The Constitution says nothing of party-government. Senators are supposed to be the State's representatives not the hacks of national parties

• Sectional interests. It is hard to get voted into the Senate if you are a loner though some have done it. Once there, particularly if you hold the balance of power, you can suddenly find yourself being courted from everywhere. A recent example is Brian Harradine (see an interesting reflection on Harradine by Margo Kingston ) he managed to get all sorts of concessions out of governments both for Tasmania and for his own particular interests. This can get a little scary when you don't like the sort of sectional interests an independent balance holder might have. This is the case with local SA Upper House member Nick Xenophon who has had a remarkable influence on public policy not just in his area of "No Pokies" but also in other areas where the two major parties need to be vigorously challenged.

  I have written before about the sadness of the fact that we do not have democratic debate in our Parliament but rather limp-wristed party compliance. We seem almost frightened of diversity of opinion. Yet it would seem that by definition democracy should embrace vigorous debate.

So, what is McGauran doing when he leaves the party that saw him elected and joins another party? It seems he claims that he will claim to be a Senator for Victoria, even though he was elected by the above-the-line National Party voters. If he resigned then by convention the State Government would appoint another National Party member (though this has not always happened...remember the fall of the Whitlam Government was precipitated because the Qld govt did not follow that convention). It is unlikely that this will be resolved with integrity, since these things aren't these days...but no doubt Senator McGauran will sleep easily for the rest of his six year term. Shame on him!