Recurrence of poor judgment
If, as this Government would have us believe, the passing of Section 34 and now this run-off provision in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill was not ill-intended or guided by personal gain, but was only in the best interest of the country, then in the very least these acts show a level of political amateurism and naivety that is unbecoming of a modern-day government.
In Section 34, the Attorney General, as the one piloting the bill, showed great incompetence in bringing forward such a flawed piece of legislation; and the Prime Minister, poor oversight. Now, how could the run-off provision, which changes the very electoral mechanism that underpins our democracy, be treated so lightly? Indeed this so-called provision threatens our stability more than the recall amendment that it is supposed to protect. And we are being forced to accept this with no public consultation.
Was this sheer naivety or plain poor judgment and incompetence to believe that in this polarised state they could just slip this in without major protest? And even if the consequences of their hasty act were an oversight, surely they must realise the gravity of this now. Yet, given an opportunity for reexamination of this bill, and to save face, they have persisted full speed ahead. Is this yet again another illustration of the type of backward and unsophisticated thinking that appears to characterise our governments, a mentality that does not recognise the wisdom in the adage justice must not only be done, but must be seen to have been done.
What do these recurring cases of apparently poor judgment, vaps planning and deceptive acts signal?—political amateurism or something more sinister? Either way, mired in hubris and widespread suspicion, this Government has lost the trust of its people.