I know it’s counterproductive but that’s how disillusioned I am with the current state of politics. Since the coup against Rudd it’s progressively become worse. Social ethics and transparent governance have taken a back seat. Do we just continue living our busy little lives and ride the train into dystopia?

Upper house president Terry Stephens says of ‘highest concern’ is suggestion Howe attempted to ‘improperly influence the free performance’ of MLCs’ duties

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/31/anti-abortion-advocate-joanna-howe-banned-from-south-australias-upper-house-for-alleged-threatening-tactics-ntwnfb?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

President of the Legislative Council of South Australian Parliament, Terry Stephens MLC, has today read a statement in the chamber regarding the behaviour of "Dr Joanna Howe" during the 2nd reading debate of the 'Termination of Pregnancy (Terminations and Live Births) Amendment Bill' earlier this month.

After receiving numerous complaints of bullying, intimidation, threats and harassment from Members, the President outlined today that Dr Joanna Howe - a Professor of Law at the University of Adelaide - will no longer be permitted to access Legislative Council private and public galleries nor areas adjacent to the chamber.

It is alleged that Howe intimidated Members, accessed area not open to the public, and become vocally aggressive during the division for the 2nd reading (which was lost 10-9).

Might be my extreme cynicism, but feels like most politicians are in it for either the ego or the financial trappings, or both.

So let's get positive. From anywhere on the spectrum, who do you think is in parliament to be a good representative of their electorate/state and help move the country forward in a positive way?

Article: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/liberal-mlc-jing-lee-says-she-was-left-blindsided-by-fear-in-leadup-to-vote-on-controversial-abortion-reform-legislation/news-story/b1b0d10488bf4e73c61ddbcf95ff8f2e

Liberal Party Legislative Council Member the Hon. Jing Lee MLC has discussed bullying, harassment and intimidation by an "external visitor" on the night of the 2nd reading vote on the 'Forced Birth' Bill in South Australian Parliament on 16 October. I wonder what external visitor that could have been....

Meg lees, or NSD?

I know it’s supposed to be some sort of sledge, but I don’t understand why.

So in the Queensland election, the LNP has won an outright majority (Edit: Non-ABC article here for those who don't trust the ABC). I'm not a Queenslander BTW.

But on Reddit and Twitter, I saw many people scoffing at David Crisafuli copy-pasting USA Republican Party talking points such as railing against abortion. These were widely seen as something that would fail to win votes in Australia. Well, unfortunately it did.

Now my question is will we see this phenomenon spread? Perhaps to other states, or to the Federal coalition?

Basically the title. If there was a referendum on abolishing the monarchy tomorrow, which way would you vote?

View Poll

So I guess we all know of Lidia Thorpe's outburst against the king by now. I am by no means a supporter of the monarchy. But the monarchists I know are like "Actually your side is wrong, the monarchy didn't oppress the Aborigines, the Australian Government did".

I get that our governments rule in the king's name. But correct me if I'm wrong, the British monarchy never commanded the Australian Government or the preceding colonial governments to oppress Indigenous Australians - the Australian Government and the preceding colonial governments did that on their own volition. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, British monarchs never demanded the Australian Government to improve its treatment of Indigenous people, but does that necessarily make the monarchy culpable? Is the popular notion that the monarchy oppressed Indigenous Australians some sort of ploy by the Australian Government to distract from its own role in the atrocities?

Is Lidia Thorpe blaming the king because being a parliamentarian is her vehicle for creating change, so she is strategically undermining a different institution (the king) so she doesn't excessively undermine her vehicle for creating change? Or is Lidia Thorpe strategically putting the blame on the king because she knows that if she says what she wants to say against the Australian Government instead, it might actually result in far harsher consequences for her?

Lydia Thorpe’s little stunt during the king’s visit has irritated so many news and. Conmentators. Some people see her as a fierce advocate for Indigenous rights, while others think she’s just in it for the spotlight.

Her bold statements often stir up controversy—are they pushing for real change, or just causing drama?

What do you think? Is she genuinely fighting for her people, or is it all about her political game? Or more importantly is she going through a personal crisis?

There is a Western society-wide assumption that we are pulled from left to right across the political spectrum as we age. The words often falsely attributed to Winston Churchill, “If you’re not a progressive when you’re 25, you have no heart, and if you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain”, sum it up nicely.

Read in full here.

We watch the oldies retire with enough super to live comfortably and plan the odd holiday, while we rent other people’s parents’ investment properties at extortionate rates, all the while being told by successive conservative governments that we should raid our superannuation in order to put a small deposit down on some black-mould-ridden shithole.

While paying other people’s mortgages in rent, we inherited a planet choking on the spoils of conservative environmental policy. Conservative politicians and lawmakers in both America and Australia continue to chip away at women’s’ reproductive rights, while conservative pundits retreat into religious zealotry and theocratic yearning.

Of just as much consequence as all of these conservative-policy-led challenges to the survival of the planet and the sanity of her inhabitants is a kind of political confusion that, if we aren’t careful, will only help bolster conservative ideologies both domestically and internationally.

The first half of that fake Churchill quote contains a set of very different political counterpoints to conservatism. These counterpoints seem to have coalesced, in popular parlance, into more of a general reaction to the status quo than any list of separate political or philosophical outlooks.

Liberalism, socialism, ‘left-wing-ism’, and progressivism are all of course very different things. What they lack in any unifying telos, they do however make up for in ethos—a unifying dissatisfaction with the status-quo. Four completely different responses to ‘business as usual’ conservatism being presented as interchangeable counterpoints.

Whether one’s responses to conservatism are liberal or leftist, socialist or progressive, conservatives too often respond to any ethos shared by their conceptual interlocutors with a dismissive wave of the hand.

To the young, conservatism is giving: ‘I know you’re all angry, but that’s because you’re too young to understand what I understand about the world. Your opportunism is a manifestation of your immaturity, and it will likely produce only more suffering should you and your ilk wield any real power. There are tried and tested ways of running a society and maintaining order. Stop screwing with them.’

These sentiments are well evidenced in conservative responses to successive civil rights movements, which for over a century have not only been inadequate but have stood deliberately in the way of social progress or attempts to foster equality and cohesion.

The chances of young Australians ‘maturing’ into conservatism at the rate assumed by whoever first penned this fake quote seem unlikely given the circumstances. I for one am going to need considerably better access to affordable housing, considerably more evidence that anyone in power is actually doing anything about closing the gap, and considerably more hope that our elected representatives are mandating a transition into sustainable energy sources before I might feel safe enough to start focusing more on what we’ve got than what we could be.

Crikey has a piece on the SA abortion bill which talks about it in the context of Senator Alex Antic’s attempted right wing factional takeover of the SA Liberal party.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/10/18/south-australia-handmaids-tale-trumpian-abortion-bill/

Background (Only an Example)

In South Australia, there has been considerable amount of coverage about the proposed amendments to the state's abortion laws.

In the news articles I have read, it appears that Ben Hood who is a member of the legislative council (upper house) introduced the amendments:

Liberal MP Ben Hood introduced amendments to the current abortion laws so people would be induced after 27 weeks and six days instead of receiving a termination.
Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-17/abortion-legislation-vote-south-australia/104477762

Question

I've been under the impression that bills were introduced in the lower house and then "reviewed" by the upper house and if rejected, they returned to the lower house. How has the above situation occurred? Can bills go through the upper house and then the lower house?