3 ms·
It is analogous to a “government shutdown” in the US - the Senate refuses to pass appropriation bills, which will cause the government to run out of money to op
by skissane 4y ago
It is analogous to a “government shutdown” in the US - the Senate refuses to pass appropriation bills, which will cause the government to run out of money to operate.
While in the US either the House or Senate can do that, in Australia effectively only the Senate can - each “Administration” (we say “government”) gets its power from a majority vote of the House, so if the House votes against the budget, the government must resign. If the Senate does the same, it isn’t forced to.
Another difference relates to the consequences - the monarch’s representative (the Governor-General) can use that as grounds to sack the Prime Minister, appoint a new one, and force a new election, as controversially happened in this case. In the US system there is no constitutional way to have an early election, plus sacking the President is a lot harder (needs an impeachment trial)
- vermilingua 4y agoI'd argue that sacking our executive head-of-state is a lot harder, as the only known process for doing so rhymes with begicide. /s
- skissane 4y agoThat, or use the Australia Act 1986
- caf 4y agoIt's not really the case that only the Senate can - it's just that the consequences for the House doing so are unambiguous and well-known, whereas in the case of the Senate convention was that it would not do so, so the consequences were unknown. The traditional way for a lower house to register a lack of confidence in the government is in fact to amend the appropriation bills to appropriate one additional dollar from the treasury. A government that no longer controls the treasury must resign or call an election.