NationStates Jolt Archive

any other aussies think, with the new IR and anti-terrorism laws, John Howard has turned australia into a virtual dictatorship? i mean, who is going to be safe enough to contest him now?

No.

Not a dictatorship no, because even though he can pass any legislation he wants with teh majority in both houses, he can still be Whitlamed by the GG if he screws us up entirely. Not a dictatorship, with a quick signiature hes gone. That doesnt happen to dictators.

Hmm, I think the closest we've ever gotten to dictatorship was Whitlam refusing to resign when his government was denied supply, and as you say, out system dealt with it.

any other aussies think, with the new IR and anti-terrorism laws, John Howard has turned australia into a virtual dictatorship? i mean, who is going to be safe enough to contest him now?
To quote someone... I can't quite remember who, "Bush isn't a dictator, nor a penis shaped potato. He is just a bad president" and I think this applies to the situation and Howard is a wanker, hes in Labour right? Cental LEFT government

I'm not up-to-date at all on Aussie politics, anyone care to summarize? *intrigued*

i believe whitlam didnt have the majority though... but i mean, who is to say that he wont crack down on protesters that are against him, saying they are terrorists? or union strikes? while it is easy to say ' a signature on a piece of paper' can oust him, its getting that signature on the paper that is probably going to be the problem

To quote someone... I can't quite remember who, "Bush isn't a dictator, nor a penis shaped potato. He is just a bad president" and I think this applies to the situation and Howard is a wanker, hes in Labour right? Cental LEFT government Er, no. He's a member of the Liberal Party, the Authoritarian RIGHT Party, not that Labor are any better.

Er, no. He's a member of the Liberal Party, the Authoritarian RIGHT Party, not that Labor are any better.
Oh okay, being a young New Zealander, I don't really care to keep up with most Australian politics

No I don't think Howard has turned Australia into a virtual dictatorship. I do think that some of the new counter-terrorism laws are very disturbing & could potentially lead to to serious civil rights abuses.

Any law carries the potential for abuse, especially when that law increases the power of the government, and Howard is about as authoritarian right as he is a hamster with gold thread for fur. He's moderate right at the best of times. Howard's record would stand well if he were in a party of social democrats.

I believe whitlam didnt have the majority though

He had a majority in the House of Representatives (though it was with independents), but the LP/NCP Coalition had a Senate Majority over Labor. In Australia, the Senate has the power, under the Constitution to deny the Government Supply (permission to spend other peoples' money through getting access to the Treasury). A Government must have supply to govern. If it fails to get it, the Government must resign. (Seriously guys, can we please wait two days to thrash all this out, seeing as how it will be the 30th anniversary ;) )

(for non-Australians, LP= Liberal Party of Australia, a party favouring free enterprise, and social conservatism, though it is a very "broad church" with a high diversity of opinion, they have a lot of solicitors among their members, including the Prime Minister; NCP= National Country Party, now simply National Party, they favour rural Australian interests and social conservatism, they are more protectionist in trade, and count many farmers among their members; Labor= Australian Labor Party, the spelling, though not correct Australian spelling is correct for the Labor Party, they are social democrats, though less so now than then, in general they are more socially liberal, among their members are trade union officials, teachers and public servants, and increasingly now, professional politicians, by that I mean people like Kate Ellis (Adelaide), she was a student politician, after uni, she went to work in a politician's staff, and then got preselection in an easy seat, no real world, private sector experience)

Oh okay, being a young New Zealander, I don't really care to keep up with most Australian politics

You know New Zealand is mentioned in our Constitution? It means you can enter the Commonwealth as a state, I don't think you even need to get the permission of the 6 states.

i knew he had majority in lower house (why else would he be PM at the time...) but thats what i meant by not having the majority: howard has both houses

Yes, but what Im saying is that while the Governor General is technically supposed to listen to the PM, if they introduce radical changes that are obviously detrimental to the Australian people he does have the power to write him off. He probably won't, but Howard has his political career first and foremost and so he won't do anything too bad, he has fear of being sacked.

Wow, I just managed to talk myself in circles.:p

To further clarify the previous post, it is accepted that the Governor-General may act without advice in the following circumstances:


if an election results in a Parliament in which no party has a majority, the Governor-General may select the Prime Minister.
if a Prime Minister loses the support of the House of Representatives, the Governor-General may appoint a new Prime Minister
if a Prime Minister advises a dissolution of the House of Representatives, the Governor-General may refuse that request, or request further reasons why it should be granted. It is worth noting that convention does not give the Governor-General the ability to dissolve either the House of Representatives or the Senate without advice
if a Prime Minister advises a dissolution of Parliament on the occasion of a deadlock between the Houses, the Governor-General may refuse that request.
if the Governor-General is not satisfied with a legislative Bill presented to him, he or she may refuse assent.
if a Prime Minister resigns after losing a vote of confidence, the Governor-General may select a new replacement contrary to the advice of the outgoing Prime Minister.
if a Prime Minister is unable to obtain supply and refuses to resign or advise a dissolution, the Governor-General may dismiss him or her and appoint a new Prime Minister.


I will also add that the Governor-General exercises his powers in his own right. He is not the delegate of Her Majesty, he acts in her name, and on her belalf. The Queen may exercise the powers the Governor-General has if she is present in Australia, but she doesn't have to, and the Governor-General can while She is here. This was outlined in the Royal Powers Act 1953, which was passed in preparation for the Royal Visit of 1954, because the Menzies Government wanted the Queen to participate in the administration of Government in addition to the usual events of a Royal Visit. Its not strictly Constitutional, because the only power the Queen is specifically given is appointing and dismissing the Governor-General, but it is in line with the spirit of it.

But it should be pointed out that while the Governor-General has impressive powers under the law, by tradition those powers are rarely, if ever, used. Australia hasn't had to deal with a hung parliament, and given the way our elections work it is unlikely to happen. Small parties simply cannot get enough support to control the balance of power in the House of Representatives.

Regarding the Dismissal, that was the only time when Supply was blocked, in the histroy of Australia. Again by tradition more than law, Supply is passed with no questions asked.

Not a dictatorship...but right now Howard has two things on his hand (and that comes after Iraq - and the "Pacific Solution") where he is basically doing something that the majority of the population doesn't agree with.

It'll be an interesting experience to see whether the public's wishes actually matter in our system when the IR laws are pushed through.

As for this terrorism shit - it's a disgrace. A complete and utter disgrace.

But it should be pointed out that while the Governor-General has impressive powers under the law, by tradition those powers are rarely, if ever, used. Australia hasn't had to deal with a hung parliament, and given the way our elections work it is unlikely to happen. Small parties simply cannot get enough support to control the balance of power in the House of Representatives.

Regarding the Dismissal, that was the only time when Supply was blocked, in the histroy of Australia. Again by tradition more than law, Supply is passed with no questions asked.
Supply was blocked during the very first Parliament (three time); the Senate wanted to flex its muscles.

any other aussies think, with the new IR and anti-terrorism laws, John Howard has turned australia into a virtual dictatorship? i mean, who is going to be safe enough to contest him now?

not really

hehe Barnaby Joyce (not that he's what's stopping it, but he's funny)

not really

hehe Barnaby Joyce (not that he's what's stopping it, but he's funny)

That man is my hero

Barnaby Joyce, not Lashie (sorry)

Well his IR legislation suffers from an overconfidence on the law of supply of demand in the market economy, and will take into account no social costs which is where the government intervention in the marketplace is supposed to take place, (where not called a mixed market economy for nothing). The Anti-Terrorism legislation is very concerning, I know it's alarmist but it's like our own version of the 'Council for the investigation of un-Australian activities', I mean my opinion is that if there is going to be a terrorist attack in Australia, so be it, we can't really hope to stop it. The best we can do is change our backward foreign policies, and the following of the US's even more backward foreign relations. In the light of these 'MCarthey-esque' laws, I'm quite ashamed of my government and their current policies. I thank god for the counter-balance that the states bring to Commonwealth power (as fading as it maybe), and that our High Court is still judicially independant under the Separation of Powers, especially in light of Howard admitting his centralist views and intention for limitation of state power. I mean even the British demanded that their citizens be released from that concentration camp in Cuba, and that inquisition execution trial that the US have the vanity to call fair. Even our government are so far in thrall to the US that we couldn't even get Hicks out of there. This maybe a bit harsh but I'm tempted to put Howard up with all the other terrible US puppets like Ngo Dinh Diem etc.

Australia = The Lucky Country?

Sure, we're the lucky country. We just happen to be unwise in our choosing of rulers

Sure, we're the lucky country. We just happen to be unwise in our choosing of rulers
Rulers? Why don't we just pretend for the sake of arguement that we actually live under representative democracy:)

That man is my hero

Barnaby Joyce, not Lashie (sorry)
I was really interested in what he was going to do...and the people at my Student Union were enthusiastic about writing his name on their anti-VSU posters.

But to be honest, he's doing it just for the show. He bailed out on Telstra - he's got about 0% credibility left.
I've got no hope that the parliamentary system could stop any of this stuff...the question is whether public opinion and an non-parliamentary opposition can.

Rulers? Why don't we just pretend for the sake of arguement that we actually live under representative democracy:)

Hehe. Let me know when you want to come out of that dream world, mate. :D

if a Prime Minister loses the support of the House of Representatives, the Governor-General may appoint a new Prime Minister
In fact he must, under the doctrine of responcible government. Executive accountable to legislature.

if the Governor-General is not satisfied with a legislative Bill presented to him, he or she may refuse assent.
That would be absolute suicide, as bad as the Queen refusing royal assent in the UK. Parliament is supreme. But you are right though.

if a Prime Minister resigns after losing a vote of confidence, the Governor-General may select a new replacement contrary to the advice of the outgoing Prime Minister.
But he must have the confidence of the legislature and thus the ruling party.

if a Prime Minister is unable to obtain supply and refuses to resign or advise a dissolution, the Governor-General may dismiss him or her and appoint a new Prime Minister.
[/LIST]
It is still higly debated whether he had this reserve power, but he probably does.


As for Australia being a dictatorship... I say Victoria should succeed from the Federation! ;)

I'm a New Zealander, but no. He isnt a dictator.

In fact he must, under the doctrine of responcible government. Executive accountable to legislature.

I don't think its so much a case of that as a need to account for party leadership changes, the outgoing leader would obviously not have the confidence of the House.

That would be absolute suicide, as bad as the Queen refusing royal assent in the UK. Parliament is supreme. But you are right though.

Depends on the bill, and other circumstances. If Her Majesty is in Australia, the Governor-General can withhold assent to a bill so She can give Her assent, this was provided for by the Royal Powers Act 1953.

Parliament is supreme, but expressly limited. If it exceeds those limits, then the Governor-General must step in.

By the way, you shouldn't speak of the Governor-General as though he is separate from Parliament, the Constitution says that Parliament consists of the Governor-General, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.

But he must have the confidence of the legislature and thus the ruling party.

And he will be forced to advise the Governor-General to call an election. See above.

It is still higly debated whether he had this reserve power, but he probably does.

That part of the Constitution hasn't changed. He still has the power to dismiss the PM.

The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General.

Pretty clear, the Governor-General can sack Ministers, and the Prime Minister.

Under the principles of responsible government, a Prime Minister who can't get the money has to go, you can't govern without money, you can't even fill up the PM's Holden Statesman (damned bloody traitor, riding in a Holden, who does he think he is?).

Under the principles of responsible government, a Prime Minister who can't get the money has to go, you can't govern without money, you can't even fill up the PM's Holden Statesman (damned bloody traitor, riding in a Holden, who does he think he is?).

An Australian?

No wait, he's an American... but Americans don't drive Holdens.... Im confused:(

On a more serious note, you're absolutely right. No money, no power. And the GG must step in if the government is unable to rule. He does have all those powers, he won't use them but he has them.

Im doing my Politics Exam tomorrow, so this is good, keep it going. I can say Im studying:p

<snip>
As for Australia being a dictatorship... I say Victoria should succeed from the Federation! ;)
as i recall, there is no legal way of doing that, the constitution doesn't allow for it

as i recall, there is no legal way of doing that, the constitution doesn't allow for it

Dang... well there goes THAT idea...

as i recall, there is no legal way of doing that, the constitution doesn't allow for it

Well, there is a theory that the doctrine of federalism implicitly allows it. In fact some argue that you simply can't have a federated system without the right to suceed.

By the way, you shouldn't speak of the Governor-General as though he is separate from Parliament, the Constitution says that Parliament consists of the Governor-General, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.
Of course, you're right. But there is definitely a difference between the "advisors of the crown" and the crown itself, and the advisors are definitely at the top, at least politically.

Pretty clear, the Governor-General can sack Ministers, and the Prime Minister.
His explicit power is to appoint the PM and dissolve parliament, yes.

However it is the reserve powers where it is a lot more unclear. There is definite convention that the GG only exercises his or her legal powers on the advice of the Government of the day. This is a core of responcible government.

When he doesn’t listen to the advice of the Government we get into reserve powers territory, and the constitution is not completely clear on them. That is afterall why they called it the 'Constitutional Crisis'.

Howard's anti-terrorism laws are dangerous, it's as simple as that.

His explicit power is to appoint the PM and dissolve parliament, yes.

However it is the reserve powers where it is a lot more unclear. There is definite convention that the GG only exercises his or her legal powers on the advice of the Government of the day. This is a core of responcible government.

When he doesn’t listen to the advice of the Government we get into reserve powers territory, and the constitution is not completely clear on them. That is afterall why they called it the 'Constitutional Crisis'.

It was a political crisis, in reality, I say this because what forced the Governor-General to dismiss the Prime Minister was the political impasse of Whitlam and Fraser not making a compromise or negotiated settlement.'

One could only say a Constitutional Crisis existed if the Governor-General were to exercise reserve powers without advice in a situation where nothing else justified their use.

As to responsible government, the Government is responsible to both Houses of Parliament.

As to responsible government, the Government is responsible to both Houses of Parliament.
Maybe, that's why double dissolutions exist.

Really though the Senate is distinct, as the PM may not be from the Senate. Its function as a house of review and state's house make it unique.

Remember, part of being accountable means you should be drawn from it, which is the case with the legislative assembly and not the council.

Acting outside the Government's advice though goes well beyond reasonable government, in my opinion.

One could only say a Constitutional Crisis existed if the Governor-General were to exercise reserve powers without advice in a situation where nothing else justified their use.
True, but the whole point is, I believe, that no one really knows when and how the Governor-General may exercise these "reserve powers". It isn't clearly stated in the Constitution. Some have even nicknamed it the "darkside" of the Constitution.

It was a political crisis, in reality, I say this because what forced the Governor-General to dismiss the Prime Minister was the political impasse of Whitlam and Fraser not making a compromise or negotiated settlement.'
I agree it was a political crisis, but moreso a legal one. Unforsene by the Founding Fathers of Australia as well. But imagine if Whitlam had sacked Kerr first.

Howard's anti-terrorism laws are dangerous, it's as simple as that.

I certainly agree with this, they are a travisty to the legal system.

Maybe, that's why double dissolutions exist.

Really though the Senate is distinct, as the PM may not be from the Senate. Its function as a house of review and state's house make it unique.

True

Remember, part of being accountable means you should be drawn from it, which is the case with the legislative assembly and not the council.

False. The Government is accountable to the Senate under our Constitution, if it wasn't, the Senate wouldn't have the power to withhold supply.

Acting outside the Government's advice though goes well beyond reasonable government, in my opinion.

No, it doesn't when the Government goes outside the Constitution. Anyway, attempting to govern without Parliament goes further beyond the conventions of reasonable government, and that is the point.

But imagine if Whitlam had sacked Kerr first.

Kerr's role was not the vital one. The most Kerr was allowed to do was what he did do. He could not provide a final solution to the crisis. He could not sack Whitlam in terms of permanently removing him (in this, I acknowledge the chance, however slim of Whitlam winning the election)

Whitlam advising Her Majesty to recall Kerr wouldn't have resolved the deadlock, all that could resolve it was the dismissal of Whitlam, and the commissioning of a caretaker government that could obtain supply, and would advise Kerr to hold an election.

As for Australia being a dictatorship... I say Victoria should succeed from the Federation! ;)

I think you mean secede, or perhaps you have imperial ambitions? ;) Well in my opinion Western Australia has already been succeeded since 1933, so come join the west-coast party!

False. The Government is accountable to the Senate under our Constitution, if it wasn't, the Senate wouldn't have the power to withhold supply.
But herein lies the problem. In my opinion it is in this way and only this way that the Government is accountable to the Senate. This doesn't neccessarily mean the GG has the power to refuse to follow the advice of the PM. I think we can say that the Founding Fathers never intended for the Constitution to be used the way it was.

No, it doesn't when the Government goes outside the Constitution.
I disagree but that is at the least debatable.

Anyway, attempting to govern without Parliament goes further beyond the conventions of reasonable government, and that is the point.
We have two competing conventions here, calling a double disolution when the Senate refuses to pass bills or following the advice of the PM. Hence the Constitutional Crisis.

Kerr's role was not the vital one. The most Kerr was allowed to do was what he did do.
I think that's unclear. Kerr's role was absolutely vital in the Constitutional ramifications though.

He could not sack Whitlam in terms of permanently removing him (in this, I acknowledge the chance, however slim of Whitlam winning the election)
You forget the appointment of the Fraser caretaker government.

Whitlam advising Her Majesty to recall Kerr wouldn't have resolved the deadlock.
It wouldn't have resolved the issue of supply, no, but it shows just how murky this side of the Constitution is.

I think you mean secede, or perhaps you have imperial ambitions? Well in my opinion Western Australia has already been succeeded since 1933, so come join the west-coast party!
Hehe.. don't I feel silly? But yeah, why shouldn't Victoria succeed? The fact that she is dead is merely incidental.. :)

any other aussies think, with the new IR and anti-terrorism laws, John Howard has turned australia into a virtual dictatorship? i mean, who is going to be safe enough to contest him now?

hmmm you have no idea really

The business council of Australia support the IR laws
The house of representitives has refused to increase the time which a person can be detained under the anti-terror laws

Therefore, Australia isnt becoming a dictatorship

But herein lies the problem. In my opinion it is in this way and only this way that the Government is accountable to the Senate. This doesn't neccessarily mean the GG has the power to refuse to follow the advice of the PM. I think we can say that the Founding Fathers never intended for the Constitution to be used the way it was.

A government can't govern without funds, surely that must be obvious. There is nothing that requires a Governor-General to act with advice, and there are conventionally accepted circumstances in which he can:


if an election results in a Parliament in which no party has a majority, the Governor-General may select the Prime Minister.
if a Prime Minister loses the support of the House of Representatives, the Governor-General may appoint a new Prime Minister.
if a Prime Minister advises a dissolution of the House of Representatives, the Governor-General may refuse that request, or request further reasons why it should be granted. It is worth noting that convention does not give the Governor-General the ability to dissolve either the House of Representatives or the Senate without advice.
if a Prime Minister advises a dissolution of Parliament on the occasion of a deadlock between the Houses, the Governor-General may refuse that request.
if the Governor-General is not satisfied with a legislative Bill presented to him, he or she may refuse assent.
if a Prime Minister resigns after losing a vote of confidence, the Governor-General may select a new replacement contrary to the advice of the outgoing Prime Minister
if a Prime Minister is unable to obtain supply and refuses to resign or advise a dissolution, the Governor-General may dismiss him or her and appoint a new Prime Minister.


These powers exist as a result of Sections 5, 57, 58, and 64.

(Linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Australia )

I disagree but that is at the least debatable.

A constitution in black and white must beat an unwritten convention.

We have two competing conventions here, calling a double disolution when the Senate refuses to pass bills or following the advice of the PM. Hence the Constitutional Crisis.

Not really, they conflict, but there is no real competition between them because the business of government is impossible without money. As I said, you couldn't even fill up the PM's Holden Statesman.

You forget the appointment of the Fraser caretaker government.

You forgot the word "caretaker", he was commissioned to carry on the business of government (in terms of routine administration) until 13DEC75, the election date, the results of which could have been the return of Labor. Why Fraser? Because he, and no one else could fulfill the requirements of Kerr's plan to break the deadlock (to get supply going again, and have an election called ASAP), this is because he could guarantee which way the Senate would go, and he would not have the confidence of the Reps, hence, supply passes, but an election must be called. If he commissioned anyone else as caretaker PM, there was a chance he might either not be able to guarantee supply, or that he might just have the confidence of the Reps.

The dismissal of Gough Whitlam appointment of Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister did not constitute a permanent removal from office, because an election had to be called, and there was nothing in the Governor-General's decision that prevented Whitlam standing as Labor's candidate for PM. The only people with the power to permanently remove Gough Whitlam, were the Labor caucus (by removing hom from the Labor leadership), and the Australian people (by doing what they did), and you could even argue that the Labor caucus doesn't even have that ability for the reason that the public may not want to vote for Labor with, or without a particular leader, forcing Labor to remove, or elect that leader in order to win government.

It wouldn't have resolved the issue of supply, no, but it shows just how murky this side of the Constitution is.

The real question you pose is not constitutional, it is personal, i.e. how does a man view his duty, and how far will he let himself be pushed.

Hehe.. don't I feel silly? But yeah, why shouldn't Victoria succeed? The fact that she is dead is merely incidental..

If Victoria seceeded, the whole London Underground network would collapse.

as i recall, there is no legal way of doing that, the constitution doesn't allow for it

There is but it requires either/or all six states assenting by referendum to the withdrawal of the state that wishes to leave. Thats why Western Australia's bid failed in the 1930's there was no assent or even attempt to gain it from the other states.

It will never happen though, not unless theres an international crisis as bad as or worse than the great depression again.

Hmm, I think the closest we've ever gotten to dictatorship was Whitlam refusing to resign when his government was denied supply, and as you say, out system dealt with it.

Um no that was the case of three conventions being broken. 1 that the upper house always passes the budget, 2 that the govenor general doesnt interfere and 3 that if a senator dies or leaves office that senators from the same party replace them.

To quote someone... I can't quite remember who, "Bush isn't a dictator, nor a penis shaped potato. He is just a bad president" and I think this applies to the situation and Howard is a wanker, hes in Labour right? Cental LEFT government

WTF!! Don't vote or talk about politics without knowing something

If he sucks so bad, and everyone claims he's so unpopular, and it's so easy to remove him, why is he still in office?

I dont believe Howard is creating a dictatoship but these new laws are turning Australian into a police state.

The IR laws are also as Labor put it "extreme". Employers already have enough power, (Wollies slave beast here), and there was no demand for these changes. No one I know supports them. No one. He is Americanising the industrial sector which is stupid and pointless. We have a more stable and productive (per capita) ecconomy than the US. IR change is not needed at all. If it passes along with the terror laws I will feel ashamed.

Save Australia... kill Johny

I dont believe Howard is creating a dictatoship but these new laws are turning Australian into a police state.


Traditionally, the first step in creating a police state is disarming the populace....

hmmm you have no idea really

The business council of Australia support the IR laws
The house of representitives has refused to increase the time which a person can be detained under the anti-terror laws

Therefore, Australia isnt becoming a dictatorship


Of course the buisness council supports him. But that isnt really a good thing for the workers of Australia, they represent buisness interests alone.

Most welfare and community groups, not to mention most workers, are against the changes.

Traditionally, the first step in creating a police state is disarming the populace....

We haven't had guns since 1996 I think. Personally I'm glad. What I worry about is the police able to arrest me and hold me with no reason

We haven't had guns since 1996 I think. Personally I'm glad. What I worry about is the police able to arrest me and hold me with no reason

They have the uniforms, the badges, the guns, and the authority. What could you possibly do to resist?

They have the uniforms, the badges, the guns, and the authority. What could you possibly do to resist?

Immigrant to Scandanvia. Start an insurgency with cricket bats and VL commodores.

If he sucks so bad, and everyone claims he's so unpopular, and it's so easy to remove him, why is he still in office?

Because he's popular among the coporate sector and middle-class, middle-aged, white conservatives. And with most of the baby boomers now in that demographic, that's a pretty massive support base.

They support the radical IR changes because they're either employers now, and want to be able to screw their employees out of the basic standards they currently are entitled to and reduce the minimum wage to increase their profits, or they're are at or near retirement age, so they just don't give a shit what happens to working Australians anymore (especially those disrespectful, young hoodlums who are going to be screwed the most) and are willing to support whatever the Coalition wants. These changes are like a nest of termites. You won't necessarily notice anything at first, but as time goes by, they'll eat away the house.

As for the new anti-terror laws... I'm very, very disappointed that Labor is going along with this crap. The current laws are more than enough, and this continual erosion of civil liberties with little to no opposition scares me. One more step in the direction of an Australian police state.

Still, there's not exactly any sort of dictatorship at the moment. Yes, most of the Libs and Nationals go along with what Howard tells them, and yes, the Senate is now what amounts to a rubber stamp for government policy. Howard is not quite governing by decree, but it's close. Still, there's an election is less than two years, so hopefully the people will be pissed enough to tell the Coalition where to stick their radical shite when it rolls around.

They have the uniforms, the badges, the guns, and the authority. What could you possibly do to resist?

The government has Leopard tanks and F-18's, too. I doubt being able to own a firearm is going to help me much against those if they really wanted to ruin my shit.

If he sucks so bad, and everyone claims he's so unpopular, and it's so easy to remove him, why is he still in office?The opposition in the last election was led by a literal raving psychopath.

The government has Leopard tanks and F-18's, too. I doubt being able to own a firearm is going to help me much against those if they really wanted to ruin my shit. Not for long! Soon we'll have M-1 Abrahms Tanks and about five of those fancy Joint Strike Fighters....

*weeps at Australia's pathetic military*

The opposition in the last election was led by a literal raving psychopath.

Does Australia have the mechanism of "no confidence", and is there a chance of using something like that?

Does Australia have the mechanism of "no confidence", and is there a chance of using something like that? I'm unaware of any such ability and if it exists the public doesn't know about it.

We also have those damned compulsory elections which certainly don't help.

I'm unaware of any such ability and if it exists the public certainly doesn't know about it. We also have those damned compulsory elections which doesn't help in the "anti-moron" vote factor.

Compulsory voting? So that's where that NS issue came from...

Another question: What are the major corporations in Australia (including multinationals), and how much influence do they have in government?

I'm unaware of any such ability and if it exists the public certainly doesn't know about it.

We also have those damned compulsory elections which certainly doesn't help.

I support compulsory elections. Traditionally those who most need change in the government are those least willing to vote. Look at the USA.

I support compulsory elections. Traditionally those who most need change in the government are those least willing to vote. Look at the USA.

Traditionally, those who are most likely to be deceived or corrupted are those who would not ordinarily vote.

Another question: What are the major corporations in Australia (including multinationals), and how much influence do they have in government?

NewsCorp is one.

NewsCorp is one.
Ooooh! That fits into my pet theory, which I have already started in the Riots in France thread...

Traditionally, those who are most likely to be deceived or corrupted are those who would not ordinarily vote.

Oh well, we're fucked either way.

Another question: What are the major corporations in Australia (including multinationals), and how much influence do they have in government? Most likely companies like Rio Tinto, Newscorp (Murdoch started here), Fairfax and a whole bunch of others I'm too lazy to look up.

The government consistently denies any corporate influence and bias :rolleyes:, but of course that's nonsense. I think it really depends who you ask.

In my experience and field, Media, the corporations have a HUGE amount of control, essentially strangling potential competition and ensuring Australia remains an analogue backwater so they can maintain their profits.

Most likely companies like Rio Tinto, Newscorp (Murdoch started here), Fairfax and a whole bunch of others I'm too lazy to look up.

The government consistently denies any corporate influence and bias :rolleyes:, but of course that's nonsense. I think it really depends who you ask.

In my experience and field, Media, the corporations have a HUGE amount of control, essentially strangling potential competition and ensuring Australia remains an analogue backwater so they can maintain their profits.

Don't worry too much.

The US, UK, France, and Russia are run by corporations.

We in the US are frequently under the illusion that our Congressmen and Senators represent us, or that it really, really matters who the President is.

I support compulsory elections. Traditionally those who most need change in the government are those least willing to vote. Look at the USA. I actually agree with WL on this one, if people don't care who they're voting for, you're gonna get a lot more idiots who win based purely on how flashy their campaign looked. (Not saying other countries with non-compulsory voting don't have this problem also, but the problem is enhanced when everyone HAS to vote).

Don't worry too much.

The US, UK, France, and Russia are run by corporations.

We in the US are frequently under the illusion that our Congressmen and Senators represent us, or that it really, really matters who the President is. I'm aware of this, but resigned to the fact there's not really much we can do about it. The world can't work without an economy/stable government, and neither of those things can exist without corporations these days :( .

I actually agree with WL on this one, if people don't care who they're voting for, you're gonna get a lot more idiots who win based purely on how flashy their campaign looked. (Not saying other countries with non-compulsory voting don't have this problem also, but the problem is enhanced when everyone HAS to vote).

You might be right, but I strongly suspect that most of the people who would continue to vote if we abolish compulsory voting would be ideologue supporters of the Liberal party, thus sending us further up shit creek without a paddle. Mind you, not that I believe Labor is a much better alternative, but the minor parties would probably be eliminated.

You might be right, but I strongly suspect that most of the people who would continue to vote if we abolish compulsory voting would be ideologue supporters of the Liberal party, thus sending us further up shit creek without a paddle. Mind you, not that I believe Labor is a much better alternative, but the minor parties would probably be eliminated. On the contrary, I think the minor parties might be strengthened, as all the idiots who just tick the first box on the piece of paper would no longer be there. Thus, votes would carry much more weight and the parties that people actually cared about would come to the fore. I'm willing to bet most people who vote Green currently don't do it due to their effective and expensive advertising campaign.

On the contrary, I think the minor parties might be strengthened, as all the idiots who just tick the first box on the piece of paper would no longer be there. Thus, votes would carry much more weight and the parties that people actually cared about would come to the fore. I'm willing to bet most people who vote Green currently don't do it due to their effective and expensive advertising campaign.

Okay, you might have a point there. I'll concede that, even if i'm still a little unconfident about it...

On the contrary, I think the minor parties might be strengthened, as all the idiots who just tick the first box on the piece of paper would no longer be there. Thus, votes would carry much more weight and the parties that people actually cared about would come to the fore. I'm willing to bet most people who vote Green currently don't do it due to their effective and expensive advertising campaign.

You might have a point there. I vote Green because (for Australian politics), they're pretty hard left on a lot of issues I'm interested in and are (obviously) big on environmental conservation. That really just fits me pretty well, and you're right, they don't spend billions on massive ad campaigns and they only get media coverage when they're suddenly lumped with a big slice of Powah for some reason.

But I'm under no illusions that my vote really counts for anything when I vote Green, but I can't bring myself to cast my vote for one of the two major parties, since they're essentially just centre-right clones of each other. Still, it's nice to see Beazley growing some spine with the IR issue, though I'm disappointed he's still a government bitch with regards to the terror laws.

Okay, you might have a point there. I'll concede that, even if i'm still a little unconfident about it...

One would have to conduct an experiment.

Immigrant to Scandanvia. Start an insurgency with cricket bats and VL commodores.

You forgot VB, Tooheys, XXXX and whatever else is considered cat piss by everyone else but Americans

any other aussies think, with the new IR and anti-terrorism laws, John Howard has turned australia into a virtual dictatorship? i mean, who is going to be safe enough to contest him now?

I don't know about that. I'm pretty sure it's a real country. It's got land and everything.

Now if you want to talk about virtual countries, here you go. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/413420.stm)

We all run virtual dictatorships!

Not a dictatorship no, because even though he can pass any legislation he wants with teh majority in both houses, he can still be Whitlamed by the GG if he screws us up entirely. Not a dictatorship, with a quick signiature hes gone. That doesnt happen to dictators.
Which is exactly why we are like a dictatorship. A democractically elected leader can be dismissed by a foreign power? Unacceptable.

To further clarify the previous post, it is accepted that the Governor-General may act without advice in the following circumstances:


if an election results in a Parliament in which no party has a majority, the Governor-General may select the Prime Minister.
if a Prime Minister loses the support of the House of Representatives, the Governor-General may appoint a new Prime Minister
if a Prime Minister advises a dissolution of the House of Representatives, the Governor-General may refuse that request, or request further reasons why it should be granted. It is worth noting that convention does not give the Governor-General the ability to dissolve either the House of Representatives or the Senate without advice
if a Prime Minister advises a dissolution of Parliament on the occasion of a deadlock between the Houses, the Governor-General may refuse that request.
if the Governor-General is not satisfied with a legislative Bill presented to him, he or she may refuse assent.
if a Prime Minister resigns after losing a vote of confidence, the Governor-General may select a new replacement contrary to the advice of the outgoing Prime Minister.
if a Prime Minister is unable to obtain supply and refuses to resign or advise a dissolution, the Governor-General may dismiss him or her and appoint a new Prime Minister.


I will also add that the Governor-General exercises his powers in his own right. He is not the delegate of Her Majesty, he acts in her name, and on her belalf. The Queen may exercise the powers the Governor-General has if she is present in Australia, but she doesn't have to, and the Governor-General can while She is here. wait...is this 200 years ago?

wait...is this 200 years ago?
Nope. That's our constitution.

Nope. That's our constitution.WOW...I had no Idea.

I learn a lot in these forums.

WOW...I had no Idea.

I learn a lot in these forums.
I know, it's appauling.

Nope. That's our constitution.

It isn't actually.

This all came up in 1953. We had a new head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, and she planned a Royal Tour, which included her greatest realm, Australia.

The Menzies Government wanted to include her in the business of government during her visit, on top of the usual public appearances.

They had their lawyers look at the Constitution, and they told the Government that the Queen has only one power: the power to appoint and dismiss Governors-General. All other Royal Powers are reserved for the Governor-General, so they passed the Royal Powers Act 1953, which said the Queen may exercise any of the Governor-General's powers while in Australia.

Apart from the 1954 Visit, I don't think the Queen has ever done things like preside over Federal Executive Council meetings, or signed a bill, or commissioned someone. Generally, the Governor-General continued to do the work, while she did the hand-shaking.

Which is exactly why we are like a dictatorship. A democractically elected leader can be dismissed by a foreign power? Unacceptable.

No, not correct. You should look up the Westminster Statutes 1931. They created separate Crowns for the self-governing Dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa). It meant there was a legally separate King of Australia, and that the Governor-General was his representative, and no longer represented the British Government (the role of representing Britain went to the High-Commissions, acting as pseudo-Embassies, rather than the masters)

The British Crown had nothing to do with dismissing anyone, from a Prime Minister, to a Commonwealth Car driver caught by an RBT. The Australian Crown dismissed Whitlam.

The only time a foreign power acted with the intention of removing an Australian Government, it was Japan, by invasion. During the war.

A democracy is not simply an elected dictatorship, it is limited by the Constitution. A government that goes outside the Constitution must be removed, even if it is elected, it is still not legitimate.

Which is exactly why we are like a dictatorship. A democractically elected leader can be dismissed by a foreign power? Unacceptable.
S/he's not a foreign power, s/he's the representative of our head of state.