7 ms·

Liberal Party of Australia shortened the parliament sitting days to avoid scrutiny: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-accuses-government-of-cutting-sitting-days

by Joakal 7y ago

Liberal Party of Australia shortened the parliament sitting days to avoid scrutiny: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-accuses-government-of-cutting-sitting-days-in-2019-to-avoid-scrutiny https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-accuses-government-of-cutt... That's just the tip of the iceberg. There's much more anti-democratic changes in Australia.

mieseratte 7y ago
I'm not a Commonwealth type, are the UK and Australian governments somehow linked?
- pjc50 7y ago
  Only through the Govenor-General, who is the Queen's standin in the Australian copy of the British system: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/16/queen-appoints-australias-next-governor-general-with-calls-for-it-to-be-her-last https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/16/queen...
  - tomatocracy 7y ago
    Courts often look to judgments in other common law or Westminster systems, even though they aren’t precedents as such.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  Yes they have the same head of state: Queen Elizabeth II
  - viraptor 7y ago
    Almost entirely for ceremonial purposes though. She gets presented things and signs other things, but basically if she doesn't follow, that would most likely be an immediate end to that position.
    - raverbashing 7y ago
      Yes, you are correct. Which kind of begs the question, what would happen if the position was terminated and possibly replaced with a President (which would have a bigger role)
      - roganartu 7y ago
        We already had a referendum in 1999 which was voted down. A president in Australia would be a significant departure from the current system, and I'm not sure I know anyone who would support it. We don't vote for a person to be Prime Minister, we vote for a person in our specific federal electoral seat and the leader of the party that wins the most seats is the Prime Minister. This person also doesn't have any powers that their party doesn't give them for the most part. No veto powers etc afaik, and party leadership (and hence the Prime Minister) can be changed at any time by a party vote.
        vidarh 7y ago
        > A president in Australia would be a significant departure from the current system There are parliamentary systems with presidents as head of state with no significant power. E.g. Iceland. So it doesn't need to be much of a departure. Iceland simply replaced their king (also the Danish king) by a president, made the president elected, and changed little else. US style presidential government would certainly be a big departure.
        senectus1 7y ago
        I suspect, provided we keep mandatory voting we should be ok either way.
        elyobo 7y ago
        Really? It seems like one of the most insane parts of the Australian voting system. Forcing people that don't know enough to vote under their own motivation doesn't suddenly impart them knowledge or wisdom, it just introduces a huge number of low information voters into the system. NZ's approach seems safer; compulsory enrolment, so that come voting day everyone should be able to vote if they so choose. Voter turnout is still very high.
- mabbo 7y ago
  I believe they are like Canada. The Queen is our Monarch, but has no real power here. The UK government is completely unrelated. We have a Governor general that is the Queen's viceregal representative, but we choose who that is.
- nicoburns 7y ago
  They're linked in that they have a similar system.

by Joakal 7y ago

mieseratte 7y ago

I'm not a Commonwealth type, are the UK and Australian governments somehow linked?

pjc50 7y ago
Only through the Govenor-General, who is the Queen's standin in the Australian copy of the British system: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/16/queen-appoints-australias-next-governor-general-with-calls-for-it-to-be-her-last https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/16/queen...
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  Courts often look to judgments in other common law or Westminster systems, even though they aren’t precedents as such.
raverbashing 7y ago
Yes they have the same head of state: Queen Elizabeth II
- viraptor 7y ago
  Almost entirely for ceremonial purposes though. She gets presented things and signs other things, but basically if she doesn't follow, that would most likely be an immediate end to that position.
  - raverbashing 7y ago
    Yes, you are correct. Which kind of begs the question, what would happen if the position was terminated and possibly replaced with a President (which would have a bigger role)
    - roganartu 7y ago
      We already had a referendum in 1999 which was voted down. A president in Australia would be a significant departure from the current system, and I'm not sure I know anyone who would support it. We don't vote for a person to be Prime Minister, we vote for a person in our specific federal electoral seat and the leader of the party that wins the most seats is the Prime Minister. This person also doesn't have any powers that their party doesn't give them for the most part. No veto powers etc afaik, and party leadership (and hence the Prime Minister) can be changed at any time by a party vote.
      - vidarh 7y ago
        > A president in Australia would be a significant departure from the current system There are parliamentary systems with presidents as head of state with no significant power. E.g. Iceland. So it doesn't need to be much of a departure. Iceland simply replaced their king (also the Danish king) by a president, made the president elected, and changed little else. US style presidential government would certainly be a big departure.
        senectus1 7y ago
        I suspect, provided we keep mandatory voting we should be ok either way.
        elyobo 7y ago
        Really? It seems like one of the most insane parts of the Australian voting system. Forcing people that don't know enough to vote under their own motivation doesn't suddenly impart them knowledge or wisdom, it just introduces a huge number of low information voters into the system. NZ's approach seems safer; compulsory enrolment, so that come voting day everyone should be able to vote if they so choose. Voter turnout is still very high.
mabbo 7y ago
I believe they are like Canada. The Queen is our Monarch, but has no real power here. The UK government is completely unrelated. We have a Governor general that is the Queen's viceregal representative, but we choose who that is.
nicoburns 7y ago
They're linked in that they have a similar system.