New South Wales

Jun 6, 2011

NSW filibuster for the tragics, but there’s bigger stuff at stake

This weekend the norms of NSW parliamentary procedure were put to the test with a total of more than 29 hours of debate and the first use of the “guillotine” rule to cut off debate since 1906, writes David Mallard, lecturer, political analyst and blogger.

A funny thing happened to NSW politics last Thursday. The day didn’t end until Saturday. The NSW Legislative Council was scheduled to conclude its two-week sitting period on Thursday, until the government moved to set aside private members’ business and continue debate on its industrial relations bill.

26 comments

Leave a comment

26 thoughts on “NSW filibuster for the tragics, but there’s bigger stuff at stake

  1. Stiofan

    “a profound statement about democracy” ????

    The filibuster was used, as the members was entitled to do. The guillotine was used, as the members were entitled to do.

    Big deal.

    Build a bridge.

  2. Stiofan

    sorry – were entitled to do

  3. Meski

    Twentynine hours is a long enough debate, after that, ‘the profound statement about democracy’ is that it went to a vote. That’s democracy. How long do you think they should have allowed? Specifically.

  4. Peter Ormonde

    This is the NSW upper house … land of the living dead. Time stands still here so having Thursday finish on Saturday is probably a bit of a productivity breakthrough. And in 100 years, some dusty historian will be able to scan the pages of Hansard and discover there was some sort of really long debate back when there was a NSW public sector.
    It’s a storm in a teacup… but a lovely monogrammed Royal Doulton one, true. Ineffectual, useless and irrelevant. As always. Still I guess it beats actually getting out in the press and arguing the case where it counts. But who is going to listen to NSW Labor on issues of principle? Who is going to listen to a defence of the NSW public sector? Only the Hansard recorders, apparently.

  5. John64

    Might I suggest that if Members aren’t able to articulate their message into something that takes less than six hours to deliver, then perhaps what they have to say, isn’t worth saying at all?

  6. andrew36

    shoebridge spoke for 5 and 1/2 hours, and according to you none of it was trivial and off topic. I guess everyone will have to take your word for that as I imagine 99.9% of people will never listen to the speech.

  7. Peter Ormonde

    Andrew: You can imagine 0.1% listening???? And most of him or her won’t agree either.

  8. Ben Abraham

    I hope everyone here arguing to “build a bridge” and/or or that all parties in this acted within their technical rights remembers that they are arguing for an inherently conservative position.

    I assume these same commenters are utterly satisfied with the status quo then?

  9. Meski

    No Ben, if the Coalition ran a filibuster I’d argue against that, too.

  10. david

    15 mins of a politician burbling is plenty, God spare me 5 and a half hours. It is no wonder so many of them enjoy a drink drink drink!!!!

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...