The " Mandate " Question ?

Clearly the main issue in last Saturday's New South Wales state election was the government's proposal to lease forty-nine percent of the state's "poles and wires " delivering electricity to consumers to gain over twenty billion dollars to upgrade the state's transport, schools and hospitals.

This was opposed by the Labor party who tried to mislead the public by claiming that Mike Baird was "selling "a public asset.  In fact, poles and wires will remain in public ownership.  The deal is for a ninety-nine year lease with the rent up front and that money available for immediate use - and the poles and wires revert to public ownership when the lease expires.

Mike Bairds's Liberal/National coalition won the election easily.  Luke Foley's Labor party clawed back some seats lost at last election's landslide, but Baird can claim his win as a "mandate  "for his poles and wires proposal.  This raises the question of exactly what is involved in a "mandate "and how does it apply ?

Baird went to the people with poles and wires as the main - indeed some would say "sole " item - on the government's agenda.   Foley claimed that the vast majority of New South Wales people were against the proposal.  The election was billed as a referendum on this issue - and clearly it was not rejected in the vote.

A plethora of past Labor prime ministers and state premiers  branded acceptance of the poles and wires issue as essential to the state - and publicly endorsed it.  Labor luminaries fulminated at the union featherbedding and rorting they had imposed on this state instrumentality.  It was an issue past Labor regimes had tried to implement - and failed because of union pressure within the party movement.

The issue of gaining a mandate is certainly mired in controversy.  Certainly not every voter who voted for the coalition on Saturday favoured poles and wires - and most definitely not all those who voted Labor rejected it, but when an issue is the prime plank of a political party - and they win an election handsomely - they have a right to to put that plan into effect.

Despite this election win, the issue will still face a stumbling block in the upper house.  The voters were presented with a form as big as a tablecloth containing the names of 394 candidates vying for election in just 42 seats.  Before the election, the Liberal/Nationals held seventeen seats, Labor fourteen, the Greens five,  and two each were held by the Shooters and Fishers, Christian Democrats and the Independents.  The balance of power was in the hands of the minor parties.

Mike Baird has a point when he claims that Luke Foley lost the referendum on poles and wires - and should join the government in pushing the legislation into law.   Foley may claim that he would be going against the wishes of those who voted Labor and must remain committed to it's rejection.  Once again, the issue of a mandate seems lost in the fog of politics.  Finality will rest on horse trading in the upper house to gain the plurality needed for success.

Such seems to be the way of the parliamentary system that contains a "house of review " in one form or another.   In Federal parliament it is termed the "Senate " and rarely does one side of politics have a majority in both the lower and upper houses.

Originally it was hoped that these upper chambers would  be the domain of gifted people far removed from the hardball of party politics and they would discuss issues before them in a fair and consistent manner.  In recent times the composition of such upper houses has become the focus of single issue groups who gain a seat far in excess of the volume of support.  Their voting intentions then become contradictory - and often tinged with malice.   They are capable of bringing the business of government to a halt.

Some may contend that a mandate is only possible if these upper houses are removed and that when the voters go to the polls they are bestowing a mandate on whichever party gains a majority.  That party is then free to implement the issues they took to the election.  The sole purpose of an election is for the majority to decide on the issues put before them.

In it's purest form, all legislation would need prior approval by way of a mandate decided by what a political party proposes when seeking office !