I think they should serve their constituents over their party. Their party didn't put them in power, but many seem to have forgotten they serve us and serve parties and lobbies instead

As someone who has worked in call centres, this kind of law strikes me as the acme of the "middle management" approach to anything. No real attempt to investigate, let alone address underlying problems. A solution that has no flexibility, and requires no real thought in implementation. It is also a deeply punitive approach where such things are completely unnecessary.

From my limited 1st year politics at uni, the representative government system in Australia is pretty clearly a Burke-ian one; one that encourages them to represent their community to the fullest, but to exercise their "enlightened conscience". If the parties wish to retain members, the parties should work harder instead of enforcing their platform from on high. If the founders wanted political parties to be central they would have written them in; they didn't, and so we either rewrite the constitution to produce such changes, or we're stuck with the model.

Thinking back to your reference to the Franklin Referendum, I think a fascinating discussion might be to cover the history of State-led referendums, given how little focus they are given in contrast to their Commonwealth comparisons, and why they were sought (be they constitutional reason or other instigating factors)

I mean, isn't the whole parilmentry system based on a responsible government? if it is legally wrong for an MP to switch parties, then why not for them to vote against a popular prime minister? on the other hand, as a voter, I'd be pissed[Mad] and the idea of a party switch leading to a vote makes a certain amount of sense.its a hard problem.

Thank you for another fascinating video!

It would be interesting to know if the law allows replacing the member if they quit, or if they are removed from the party. The anti defection measure might be useful if it only comes into force where the member chooses to leave the party. Quits. But NOT if they are expelled from the party. That would be useful to prevent the party enforcing the actions of a member. Better still would be to have the law require a by-election rather than simply allow the party to appoint a replacement.

Surely, if defection is banned, could a politician not just cross the floor and then be expelled from the party, and thus have the same effect in the long term?

Your case for the independence of Members of Parliament is excellent, once again a really interesting video :) However could it be prudent to discourage defections by enacting a law that causes a by-election to be held if a politician defects from their party. Given that members of the electorate may Not agree with the reason that an mp is defecting? Couldn’t such a system address many of these issues such that rather then accommodating the needs of a political party that may be desperate to hold on to its majority. A system like this is focused on accountability to Australian Voters, is this not always the most important thing?

ty once again so informative and leaves one thinking.

As you point out on your channel, since the 1977 referendum, if a Senator leaves their original party and then later resigns -- they can't pick arrange their own successor -- it is nominated by their original party. That's how Janine Hanes replaced Steele Hall instead of his seat going to the Liberal Party.

Singapore and Malaysia have law that when a Member of Parliament resign or removed from the party they were elected, they lose their seat in Parliament.

YES.

Fatima Payman has entered the chat

Wish I was around for the Franklin dam affair

What happens when a party expels a sitting member, and force them to the cross-benches as an Independent, or into the arms of another party?

Timestamp

The only individuals who are elected into parliament are independents. Party seats should belong to the Party.

is their oath to the monarch, or to the party leader ?

What a load of BS