4 ms·

Australia has an unstable federal political system, with elections every three years or less (this is baked into the constitution, so it will be hard to amend).

by gtbc 8y ago

Australia has an unstable federal political system, with elections every three years or less (this is baked into the constitution, so it will be hard to amend). Imagine the US House of Representatives with the equivalent of Speaker of the US House of Representatives as the Prime Minister of Australia as you won't be far off. Unlike the UK, there isn't a strong civil service, and unlike the US, the Senate, states and courts are weaker, and there isn't a separate executive branch. This leads to a revolving door of occasionally unsavoury characters getting into positions of great, and virtually unchecked power. Giving these figures enormous power without judicial oversight is deeply problematic. Checks and balances are not a big thing in Australia.

ggm 8y ago
Do you live here? I do, and while tiny nuggets of truth are in individual sentence clauses, this is a very paranoid and over stated argument. We have a high court. They reverse bad federal and state laws. Lots of bad immigration decisions by ministers are being overturned. Mabo happened.
- cknight 8y ago
  I do and while I am happy with 3 year terms, I don't disagree with much else. We Aussies are pretty proud of the various improvements we have over the UK and US systems. Our independent electoral commissions minimise gerrymandering. Our preferential voting system ensures more accurate representation. Mandatory voter turnout has a moderating influence on political campaigning and avoids voter disenfranchisement issues. But you can't look at the last decade of federal politics in the country and say it has been much other than a joke. We've just per chance had Brexit and Trump happening lately which has made it seem less ridiculous in comparison. Leadership issues aside, we need a federal anti-corruption body and a well-worded bill of rights. As it stands, the government has far more room to move than they should, and on many issues the opposition has been either useless or complicit.
  - gtbc 8y ago
    I do live in Australia (forgot to mention that in reply to GP). The primary problem with the terms is not their length, but the fact that they give the Prime Minister inordinate power to control the timing of elections.
- gtbc 8y ago
  The jurisdiction of the court is largely granted by statute is it not? In fact, in the case of the bad immigration decisions you mention, the minister has tried to pass legislation to restrict judicial oversight. EDIT: And he is also alleged to have used his already considerable discretionary powers to allow au pairs for politically connected individuals into Australia in violation of their visa conditions, with no consequences. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the rule of law.
  - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
    The au pairs issue had such a short time in the media, it's frustrating. The fact that a minister can overrule existing policy for individual cases means that any ministerial position is ripe for corruption. Both au pair cases were referred to the minister because of personal relationships with the minister as opposed to the cases themselves being worthy of reporting to the most senior level. If there's a problem with policy, change the policy. Don't do favours for your mates if it contravenes policy. It's not fucking hard. The fact the minister hasn't been fired is quite damning about the status of Australian politics, and highlights the need for a federal anti-corruption body. What's worse is that this particular minister is the one forever pushing for lower immigration, greater protection for Australia's borders and showing no remorse for sick children in offshore detention - but fuck, my mate needs a French woman, who's previously worked in Australia despite only having a tourist visa, to look after his kids because he and his wife are rich enough not to have to parent their own little cunts. shakes fist at cloud /rant
  - cyphar 8y ago
    The High Court's powers are defined in Section III of the Australian Constitution. In fact, s73 explicitly disallows parliament from stopping the High Court from hearing an appeal from a Supreme State Court.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - gtbc 8y ago
      Does that have much to do with the matter at hand?

by gtbc 8y ago

ggm 8y ago

Do you live here? I do, and while tiny nuggets of truth are in individual sentence clauses, this is a very paranoid and over stated argument. We have a high court. They reverse bad federal and state laws. Lots of bad immigration decisions by ministers are being overturned. Mabo happened.

cknight 8y ago
I do and while I am happy with 3 year terms, I don't disagree with much else. We Aussies are pretty proud of the various improvements we have over the UK and US systems. Our independent electoral commissions minimise gerrymandering. Our preferential voting system ensures more accurate representation. Mandatory voter turnout has a moderating influence on political campaigning and avoids voter disenfranchisement issues. But you can't look at the last decade of federal politics in the country and say it has been much other than a joke. We've just per chance had Brexit and Trump happening lately which has made it seem less ridiculous in comparison. Leadership issues aside, we need a federal anti-corruption body and a well-worded bill of rights. As it stands, the government has far more room to move than they should, and on many issues the opposition has been either useless or complicit.
- gtbc 8y ago
  I do live in Australia (forgot to mention that in reply to GP). The primary problem with the terms is not their length, but the fact that they give the Prime Minister inordinate power to control the timing of elections.
gtbc 8y ago
The jurisdiction of the court is largely granted by statute is it not? In fact, in the case of the bad immigration decisions you mention, the minister has tried to pass legislation to restrict judicial oversight. EDIT: And he is also alleged to have used his already considerable discretionary powers to allow au pairs for politically connected individuals into Australia in violation of their visa conditions, with no consequences. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the rule of law.
- BLKNSLVR 8y ago
  The au pairs issue had such a short time in the media, it's frustrating. The fact that a minister can overrule existing policy for individual cases means that any ministerial position is ripe for corruption. Both au pair cases were referred to the minister because of personal relationships with the minister as opposed to the cases themselves being worthy of reporting to the most senior level. If there's a problem with policy, change the policy. Don't do favours for your mates if it contravenes policy. It's not fucking hard. The fact the minister hasn't been fired is quite damning about the status of Australian politics, and highlights the need for a federal anti-corruption body. What's worse is that this particular minister is the one forever pushing for lower immigration, greater protection for Australia's borders and showing no remorse for sick children in offshore detention - but fuck, my mate needs a French woman, who's previously worked in Australia despite only having a tourist visa, to look after his kids because he and his wife are rich enough not to have to parent their own little cunts. shakes fist at cloud /rant
- cyphar 8y ago
  The High Court's powers are defined in Section III of the Australian Constitution. In fact, s73 explicitly disallows parliament from stopping the High Court from hearing an appeal from a Supreme State Court.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - gtbc 8y ago
    Does that have much to do with the matter at hand?