Posted on 05/21/2004 8:26:59 AM PDT by Squawk 8888
I'm still trying to get over how the Aussies allowed the British representative to the Queen dissolve their duly elected government...and did nothing about it.
Ping. I was trying to explain the dynamics of Australian politics to our Canadians friends on FR in relation to their upcoming elections. Could you check to see if my information is correct? Thanks.
Aren't Ray Romanow and Gary Doer still the NDP premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, respectively? I've been out of the country for nearly a year now, so I I haven't been keeping up as much as I should.
Australia has a so-called "Washminster" system: it has some aspects of American Founding system built onto a quintessentially British Westminster system. The Governor-General dismissed Gough Whitlam's ALP government after his government's bill was blocked by the Senate (which, unlike Canada's, actually has real muscles to veto the lower house or the House of Representative's bills) and this produced a constitutional crisis back in 1975.
In fact, Gough Whitlam is not worth to sympathize with for us conservatives. He is perhaps the most left-wing of all Australian Prime Ministers so far (I would rank him alongside the US's Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale, and certainly Canada's Pierre Trudeau) and left nothing but disasters for Australia. The Australian public was unhappy with how the whole thing was played out but they trounced the ALP in the snap election that followed (as required by the then Governor-General). Although I should stress that the new PM that came out of that election, Malcolm Fraser, was as anti-American as Whitlam (he is a Red Tory in the Canadian sense: it should note that his party is the current PM John Howard's party).
The whole fisaco of 1975 actually made Australia's Left uniformly republican rather than monarchist. (In Canada, a lot of the political leftists are monarchists because it makes Canada "less American"!) I would be rather neutral on whether Australia shouls become a republic. I agree with that goal in principle, but I don't like the mainstream ideas of how the President is to be elected. (election by the legislative branch looks bad, and direct election is bad either. I would probably like a US-style electoral college election but most Australians would suffer heart attacks if you dare to suggest this to them)
Now I have to admit, it was perhaps the most annimated group of politicians I've ever listened to. They pretty much called each other every name in the book but never came to blows...some of the insults were beauties. It was a lot more exciting then cricket.
Sorry if I confused you. :) I assume you understand how the Westminster system works to begin with and how the American checks and balances system differs from it. In Australia, daily government is run by a cabinet formed by members of parliament at the lower house (House of Representatives, elected using the First Past the Post system as the same as US House of Representatives) who can form an outright majority after an election. In practice this means whoever gets a majority of seats in parliament it can govern. The Westminster system has a degree of party discipline that a party whip directs its members of parliament (MP) to vote according to the party line except conscience issues (like moral issues, abortions, etc). That cabinet is headed by the Prime Minister who is also the leader in his party's MPs at the House of Rep.
Now because of party whips, this means probably any act of parliament put forth by the Prime Minister and his party in power can pass through the House of Rep's. This is then sent to the upper house, the Senate to ratify, just like the case in America and Canada. Unlike the Canadian Senate, where everyone merely rubberstamps the act passed, the Australian Senate has real muscles to veto them unless modifications are made. The Senators are elected using modern US fashion with equal state representation (each state has 12 senators, and the territories of North Territory and Australian Capital Territory ACT each has 2) and so the smaller states' interests (like South Australia, Tasmania) are protected.
In general the head of state, the Governor-General representing the Queen, has no real power: he rubberstamps everything that has passed through both the House of Reps and Senate. If, like 1975, the Senate refuses to pass anything that the House of Reps has passed and the Prime Minister and his party's members at the lower house refuse to back down, the Governor-General has power to intervene and this means dismiss the party and call a fresh election. (In Canada this never happens because its Senate rubberstamps anything passed at the lower house anyway, and even if he faces a real opposition, he could formally ask the Governor-General to appoint new senators friendly to his government. That means he picks whoever is friendly to him in practice to the senate)
Hope this clarifies aspects of Westminster system to you. :) I'm also pretty mushy on American checks and balances systems myself :p (Like many NZers, I would assume most things in US politics are identical to the Westinster syetem unless I learned otherwise)
I wish someone would explain the dynamics of Australian politics to me. But seriously I think you have described things pretty much correctly.
The Greens are way out on the lunatic left. They are lead by a guy called Bob Brown who is a complete fruit loop.
The Australian Democrats started off as a centralist party but have now moved so far to the left that, from my point of view, they are little different to the Greens. They now call themselves "the lie detectors" which is hilarious because if you asked any of them if they support their leader they would all lie and say "yes". Their leader is Senator Andrew Bartlett who recently physically assaulted a female senator on the floor of the senate and told her to F#%k-off. He was drunk at the time and has since admitted that he has a drinking problem. He is their leader because no-one else wants the job.
Next we have the Australian Labor Party which contains about 16,000 different factions ranging from far left to far right. On some issues, such as welfare, their current leader Mark Latham sounds further to the right than the Government. The last two ALP governments of Hawke & Keating could hardly be described as left wing and were certainly pro US. I suspect that if the ALP do win the next election that they will be similar to the Hawke/Keating governments. They will of course, as all ALP governments do, totally screw up the economy.
Finally we have the unfortunately named Liberal Party (and their almost indistinguishable coalition partner - The National Party). They are the current conservative Government and are far from "liberal" in the sense that it is used on Free Republic. They are the good guys.
As far as I can make out, the major parties (ALP & Liberals) have moved further to the right in recent years and the minor parties have moved further to the left.
Clear as mud?
Thanks for the info. I'm not Australian but it appears my take on the whole situation is right. Isn't it a shame that Canada can diverge so much from Australian and US politics? When both their main centre-left and centre-right party lie quite a lot to the left than the Australian counterpart.
I really can't imagine the Australian Democrats or Greens form outright majorities in state parliaments and govern on its own - not even in Tasmania. But this has precisely happened at some point or another in many Canadian provinces - Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Manitoba, and (horrors!) Ontario. Sometimes I just shake my head when I look at Canadian politics. (though our own on this side of the Tasman isn't much better) Thank God that we have Australia when the other two members of Old Commonwealth countries (NZ and Canada) have largely gone mad.
Correct, there is absolutely no chance of this happening in the foreseeable future. The vast majority of Australians, despite the cr@p we see in the media, are really deeply conservative people.
Spaking of the name Australian Liberal Party, not only Americans, but I imagine Canadians will also have some beef with that name as well. I read an account of a Communist Broadcasting Corp reporter on staff exchange with the Australian Broadcasting Corp blasted that the Australian Liberal Party, unlike its namesake in Canada, is "liberal in name only".
bttt!
Romanow is long gone from Saskatchewan but last year wrote a "study" on health care commissioned by the Liberals that can be summarized with the phrase "throw more money at it". IIRC Doer is still premier of Manitoba.
I am one of those in eastern Ontario. I must admit I am happy of the way the liberal government at the federal level has managed to balance the books and actually reduce corporate and individual income taxes. Plus, for years there was one too many conservative parties at the federal level.
But after the massive scandal where friend of federal liberals made lots of money, a recent provincial budget from a new liberal government that promised not to raise taxes but did anyway (reminds me of Bush 41) and now with a "united" conservative party that has a chance, I'm getting ready to toss the liberal out of our riding and replace him with a conservative dude.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.