But it's a non-core promise!

John Howard and his government do it again. That is, they force a major piece of legislation through Parliament with virtually no debate. See Crikey for more info. I'm sure I remember John Howard promising to be humble when it came to using his Senate majority after the 2004 election. Guess that was a non-core promise after all...


I'm not surprised anymore. After all, they've done this many times now. WorkChoices, for example. There's no way on earth that they'd have been able to pass that legislation if they hadn't had a Senate majority in their own right. The same goes for the anti-terrorism laws, although I guess that's debatable. The Labor party doesn't seem too concerned about those ones, so those laws might have passed anyway.

But even if they had, I'm sure there would have been a much more detailed debate. At the moment, the government is just not allowing debate, let alone amendments. They don't have to, so they don't. That is not being humble, it's not respecting parliament, or democracy. In my opinion, this government has abused it's power and isn't sorry for doing so.

Between WorkChoices, anti-terror laws and now this, we've been given a perfect example of a government that's out of control and obsessed with it's own power. This should become the classic case-study of why we, as voters, should never, never, give the government of the day control of the Senate. All of these pieces of legislation should be seriously looked at again, and amended, when John Howard and the Liberals finally loses government.

Other things to look at would be: closisng the electoral rolls the day the election is called, the raised disclosure limits on political donations, and probably a review of every other piece of legislation passed since the 2004 election.

On that note, in the Senate I'll be voting for the Democrats, then Greens/Independent before either of the major parties.

Links : Andrew Bartlett, Crikey, The Age.