6 ms·

From what I hear from afar about Australian politics is that the Australian government can essentially do whatever it wants, unrestricted by minor details like

From what I hear from afar about Australian politics is that the Australian government can essentially do whatever it wants, unrestricted by minor details like a constitution, citizens or international law. Surveillance, website blocking ... And not to forget the new definition of "asylum", where refugees are kept against their will in camps, "unfit for human habitation". One former government psychiatrist called it "torture". Including, of course, children. But the system works reasonably well. I mean, why flee to Australia from political persecution, when Australian refugee camps are worse than most cases of political persecution?

NeutronBoy 11y ago
> From what I hear from afar about Australian politics is that the Australian government can essentially do whatever it wants, unrestricted by minor details like a constitution, citizens or international law. No, all that applies, it's just the current government thinks it can ignore it.
- PebblesHD 11y ago
  Indeed, the 'liberal' party (which by the way is actually the more conservative one for some reason) has been rather overstepping its mark in terms of legislation lately. I have to say though the Labor guys aren't all that much better.
  - toyg 11y ago
    They follow European conventions, where "liberal" follows from the original "liberalism", i.e. the XIX century movement asking for trade liberalization (in a context of widespread protectionism by absolutist nation-states), a pro-business but socially conservative aggregation. Most "liberal" parties in Europe are right-wing in a similar way. It's only in the US that "liberal" came to mean "socially progressive" for some reason, and only relatively recently (i.e. at least post-LBJ, I would say, if not later).
    - eru 11y ago
      Doesn't liberal in Europe mean socially and economically liberal. (And the Americans had to invent libertarian to mean essentially the same thing?)
  - PebblesHD 11y ago
    @toyg - Thats actually fascinating, I've never read about anything on the topic but you've sparked my interest
dil8 11y ago
Yeah the situation is pretty bad. Recently the human rights commission released the report about the affects of detention on children. The government not only ignored it but went after the head of the commission and tried to force her to resign. https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/projects/national-inquiry-children-immigration-detention-index https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-r...
- tomgg 11y ago
  I thought they went after her (Gillian Triggs) because she delayed releasing the report until 1) after a government-changing election result, and 2) the majority of children had been removed from detention as a result of new policy from the new government. The (alleged) intent behind her delay was to paint the new government as child detainers when they are (allegedly) the child liberators. P.S. Australian politics is dumb.
nness 11y ago
Since this is presently the top comment, as an Australian, I felt the need to comment. First thing to understand is that the Australian constitution is more about the formation and rights of the Government and less about personal rights as many Americans come to expect from their own. Australia is very strict about its obligations to its constitution, and issues like the roll-out of a single Goods and Service Tax (the GST) and the Tasmanian Dam Case which both had issues regarding the separation of powers and were heavily debated. Nothing in the Australian constitution or any foreign treaty Australian is a signature of prevents Australia from passing this law. The Constitution of Australia grants the Federal government power to legislate in this matter. The law was passed with votes in the house from both of the major parties. To be fair, your mention of Australia's refugee obligations and how it has handles it now and in the past is of no concern to this matter. There is very little reason to discuss that issue (even though it is worthy of being discussed) other than to paint the Australian Government as more villainous than an Australian might fairly say.
- bayesianhorse 11y ago
  Well, the right to asylum, as well as human rights in general has been ratified by Australia and it's even part of the constitution. I brought the asylum issue up because I find this a much more extreme and urgent example of a human rights issue than to restrict free speech to a very low degree.
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    Wait until you're not allowed to talk about an important issue, then you'll realise just how important freedom of speech is. Here in Australia, we're already restricted from discussing certain aspects of voluntary euthanasia because it upsets the fundies.
    - bayesianhorse 11y ago
      Still, being allowed full access to porn does not seem as urgent to me as preventing thousands of children being physically and mentally harmed willfully by a supposedly democratic and elected government. So is torturing adult refugees to deter others from coming, but maybe the well documented harm to the children wakes people up more, than "just" mistreating some adult Muslims... I fully agree, that free speech in general is very important, though.
vacri 11y ago
Apart from being grossly mistaken about the constitution not restricting government actions, there is nothing magical about the word 'constitution'. It's just law that is a bit harder than normal to change. The US constantly talks about it's constitution, in pretty much every media channel available. It doesn't mean that the US doesn't engage in surveillance or torturing detainees. The US has done some horrific treatment of detainees - and if you include regular prisoners in the term 'detainees' (since they are), then Australia pales in comparison to the US treatment. It's puzzling as to why people think that constitutional law is somehow magic.
- bayesianhorse 11y ago
  Who says it's magic? It is, however special, because it restricts the ability of a democratic system to rid itself of democratic features. That's why it should be harder to change and be treated like a very delicate and serious issue. For me, there is a world of difference between mistreating a relatively low number of terror suspects - and regretting it after a few years - and detaining innocent civilians, including children, without trial. No behavior of the United States should dictate what Australia should allow itself to do. A state that treats people in that way will not be called a true democracy by me, though.
  - deciplex 11y ago
    > For me, there is a world of difference between mistreating a relatively low number of terror suspects - and regretting it after a few years - and detaining innocent civilians, including children, without trial. The US government has all these things, except perhaps the 'regretting' part.
    - bayesianhorse 11y ago
      Most of what we know about the torture at Guantanamo and other places comes from the government itself. I'm not a US citizen. I really don't believe anything the US is doing should allow Australia to put people in camps that have been labeled "concentration camps" by some unkind people, because of the pretty obvious similarities (extraterritorial, abysmal conditions, putting cost saving above basic human decency, lots of avoidable deaths, all ages, deterrence, "out of sight" nature ...). The US prison system is stupid, no doubt. But even the worst prisons in the US are much better than what Australia is forcing refugees to endure. With the small difference that the US prison system doesn't have a 100% rate of non-convicted detainees, unless Australia's refugee detention.
duncan_bayne 11y ago
Yeah, pretty much that. Our PM was recently waffling about not wanting to take particular cases (stripping Australian citizenship from dual citizenship holders who fight for IS) to court, because of the risk that the court might not agree with the request to strip citizenship. Said PM displays a shocking lack of regard for the rule of law, and that approach is pretty much mirrored all the way down to the local Government level.

NeutronBoy 11y ago

> From what I hear from afar about Australian politics is that the Australian government can essentially do whatever it wants, unrestricted by minor details like a constitution, citizens or international law. No, all that applies, it's just the current government thinks it can ignore it.

PebblesHD 11y ago
Indeed, the 'liberal' party (which by the way is actually the more conservative one for some reason) has been rather overstepping its mark in terms of legislation lately. I have to say though the Labor guys aren't all that much better.
- toyg 11y ago
  They follow European conventions, where "liberal" follows from the original "liberalism", i.e. the XIX century movement asking for trade liberalization (in a context of widespread protectionism by absolutist nation-states), a pro-business but socially conservative aggregation. Most "liberal" parties in Europe are right-wing in a similar way. It's only in the US that "liberal" came to mean "socially progressive" for some reason, and only relatively recently (i.e. at least post-LBJ, I would say, if not later).
  - eru 11y ago
    Doesn't liberal in Europe mean socially and economically liberal. (And the Americans had to invent libertarian to mean essentially the same thing?)
- PebblesHD 11y ago
  @toyg - Thats actually fascinating, I've never read about anything on the topic but you've sparked my interest

dil8 11y ago

Yeah the situation is pretty bad. Recently the human rights commission released the report about the affects of detention on children. The government not only ignored it but went after the head of the commission and tried to force her to resign. https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/projects/national-inquiry-children-immigration-detention-index https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-r...

tomgg 11y ago
I thought they went after her (Gillian Triggs) because she delayed releasing the report until 1) after a government-changing election result, and 2) the majority of children had been removed from detention as a result of new policy from the new government. The (alleged) intent behind her delay was to paint the new government as child detainers when they are (allegedly) the child liberators. P.S. Australian politics is dumb.

nness 11y ago

Since this is presently the top comment, as an Australian, I felt the need to comment. First thing to understand is that the Australian constitution is more about the formation and rights of the Government and less about personal rights as many Americans come to expect from their own. Australia is very strict about its obligations to its constitution, and issues like the roll-out of a single Goods and Service Tax (the GST) and the Tasmanian Dam Case which both had issues regarding the separation of powers and were heavily debated. Nothing in the Australian constitution or any foreign treaty Australian is a signature of prevents Australia from passing this law. The Constitution of Australia grants the Federal government power to legislate in this matter. The law was passed with votes in the house from both of the major parties. To be fair, your mention of Australia's refugee obligations and how it has handles it now and in the past is of no concern to this matter. There is very little reason to discuss that issue (even though it is worthy of being discussed) other than to paint the Australian Government as more villainous than an Australian might fairly say.

bayesianhorse 11y ago
Well, the right to asylum, as well as human rights in general has been ratified by Australia and it's even part of the constitution. I brought the asylum issue up because I find this a much more extreme and urgent example of a human rights issue than to restrict free speech to a very low degree.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  Wait until you're not allowed to talk about an important issue, then you'll realise just how important freedom of speech is. Here in Australia, we're already restricted from discussing certain aspects of voluntary euthanasia because it upsets the fundies.
  - bayesianhorse 11y ago
    Still, being allowed full access to porn does not seem as urgent to me as preventing thousands of children being physically and mentally harmed willfully by a supposedly democratic and elected government. So is torturing adult refugees to deter others from coming, but maybe the well documented harm to the children wakes people up more, than "just" mistreating some adult Muslims... I fully agree, that free speech in general is very important, though.

vacri 11y ago

Apart from being grossly mistaken about the constitution not restricting government actions, there is nothing magical about the word 'constitution'. It's just law that is a bit harder than normal to change. The US constantly talks about it's constitution, in pretty much every media channel available. It doesn't mean that the US doesn't engage in surveillance or torturing detainees. The US has done some horrific treatment of detainees - and if you include regular prisoners in the term 'detainees' (since they are), then Australia pales in comparison to the US treatment. It's puzzling as to why people think that constitutional law is somehow magic.

bayesianhorse 11y ago
Who says it's magic? It is, however special, because it restricts the ability of a democratic system to rid itself of democratic features. That's why it should be harder to change and be treated like a very delicate and serious issue. For me, there is a world of difference between mistreating a relatively low number of terror suspects - and regretting it after a few years - and detaining innocent civilians, including children, without trial. No behavior of the United States should dictate what Australia should allow itself to do. A state that treats people in that way will not be called a true democracy by me, though.
- deciplex 11y ago
  > For me, there is a world of difference between mistreating a relatively low number of terror suspects - and regretting it after a few years - and detaining innocent civilians, including children, without trial. The US government has all these things, except perhaps the 'regretting' part.
  - bayesianhorse 11y ago
    Most of what we know about the torture at Guantanamo and other places comes from the government itself. I'm not a US citizen. I really don't believe anything the US is doing should allow Australia to put people in camps that have been labeled "concentration camps" by some unkind people, because of the pretty obvious similarities (extraterritorial, abysmal conditions, putting cost saving above basic human decency, lots of avoidable deaths, all ages, deterrence, "out of sight" nature ...). The US prison system is stupid, no doubt. But even the worst prisons in the US are much better than what Australia is forcing refugees to endure. With the small difference that the US prison system doesn't have a 100% rate of non-convicted detainees, unless Australia's refugee detention.

duncan_bayne 11y ago

Yeah, pretty much that. Our PM was recently waffling about not wanting to take particular cases (stripping Australian citizenship from dual citizenship holders who fight for IS) to court, because of the risk that the court might not agree with the request to strip citizenship. Said PM displays a shocking lack of regard for the rule of law, and that approach is pretty much mirrored all the way down to the local Government level.