Pixelated Semantics

A schizotypical inventory

Mandates for idealogues

According to the results of a 'global poll by the BBC' published in the SMH, 'nearly two-thirds of the world's citizens believe they are not being governed by the will of the people, and fewer than half believe elections are free and fair'.

These results are underlined by the recent conduct of Australian governments, which seem to feel that self-proclaimed 'mandates' to pursue unsupported ideology take precedence over actual electoral results and ethics. As reported in the Courier-Mail, the Liberal senator 'who presided over a gag on Telstra in Parliament' bought nearly $100,000 worth of the company's shares at the peak of the indecently stifled privatisation debate. The legislation for the sale of the remaining shares in Telstra was passed this week after Senator Calvert presided over a gag on further discussion. At least 7 other senators have also declared shareholdings: yet Senator Calvert said yesterday he 'did not see any conflict of interest'. The sale of the company is not supported by most Australians, and yet again a 'mandate' is derived by a government which voted to proceed with personal gain for the senators as a result. Not only the 'mandate' is highly questionable: the Senator's response appears to be very loose with key definitions:

'There's no way I could influence the decision - I sit in the chair and preside over the Senate and there was a gag motion and in fact I actually checked with the Prime Minister's office to make sure when I found out about this, I rang straight away - I said "does this contravene" and I was told, "no course not because you're not even a member of the Government" he said.'

A Senate President is not a member of the government and is unable to influence debate? Senate Brief No 6 - August 2002 presents the constitutional role of The President of the Senate - in fact the 'separation' from the government is conventional and not as such legally specified.

Item posted by AutoEditor at 12:28 pm ::