Are the main parties in Australia Labor and Liberal? Labor is center left and Liberal is center right? Does that mean that "Liberal" in this context is more derived from "Libertarian" rather than how liberal is used in the U.S.?
The Liberal/National coalition are the conservatives in Australia. Other differences are how the executive(s) operate. In 1986 our federal government introduced the Australia Act which "brought constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the states into conformity with the Commonwealth of Australia being an independent, sovereign and federal nation". As Australia has a constitution for a constitutional monarchy the people have yet to approve this change of sovereignty status via a yes vote at a referendum. One of the articles contained in the Australia Act 1986 also gave the state Premiers the power to direct the state Governors in the exercise of their duties and also removed their powers to withhold or disallow (veto) legislation passed to them (from the state parliament) for approval to mirror the unwritten power the Federal Prime Minister has over the Governor General (who exercises the powers of the sovereign when they are not present in Australia). The only thing I'm not that sure about is who directed the Governor General to appoint the PM etc when there have been no official results announced.
Its 1st leader Robert Menzies portrayed the early Liberal Party (formed circa 1945) as "progressive" and reform-oriented, but via a different route than the left. (i.e., "...though not through the dull and deadening process of socialism.") He also wanted it to be independent of special interests like big business (instead receiving money from individuals in small amounts). The first woman to serve in an Australian Cabinet happened during his period, along with an act in 1962 that "provided that all Indigenous Australians should have the right to enroll and vote at federal elections". The Labor Party even played off of Menzies' Forgotten People mantra in 2007. (Perhaps analogous in a vice-versa way to a GOP member retrospectively quoting or referencing JFK.) Left movements (of Australia) had used "conservative" in a pejorative way against rivals in the early 20th century. It wasn't until the late 1990s [supposedly] that the C-word started being identified with the LPA via John Howard, who also offered his own interpretation (or spin?) that Menzies would have approved. End result (if not already the case): "...the Liberal Party became the trustee of both the classical liberal and conservative traditions. [...] it combines liberal (market-based, pro-business, anti-union) economic policies with conservative social policies." So IF the classical or Adam Smith descended meaning of "liberal" (in political context) had not been mildly to stoutly applicable before John Howard's influence, it apparently was after.
Thanks. That's what I suspected and meant by "Libertarian" which is usually defined here as a "classical liberal".
There has been no change of sovereignty. The Queen (of England) is Australia's official Head of State. The Governor General has some reserve powers, derived as the Queen's representative. Those powers have only been exercised once, so far, in 1975. The Australia Acts of 1986 were passed separately in both the UK and Australia, removing the UK Parliament's power to legislate for Australia. This does not affect the Queen's status as Head of State. Nobody directs the Governor General. The Governor General's authority derives directly from the Queen. The Queen, however, does not have the power to make laws for Australia. The Constitution makes no mention of this "Prime Minister" person you mention, by the way. The main take-away point from all of this is that it is not the black-letter wording of the Australian Constitution that determines the exericse of Commonwealth powers, either by the GG or (entirely) by the Parliament. There is a whole raft of constitutional convention and legal precedent that, in practice, determines how Australia is governed.
The GG is not directed by anyone and his or her role is solely to swear in the individuals who can form government. In this election, that has been the ALP. This is how it has always been. The AEC had declared the ALP would form government and since then, have advised that the ALP would be able to form a majority government. That's all that's needed. This was advised and known since election night. The official results can be found here: https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDefault-27966.htm So I don't really know how or why this is confusing for you.
I wrote the following in 2000. Code Red for the Australian Constitution Most people know as much about the Australian Constitution and our system of laws as they do about the operation of computer viruses. It's not surprising really as both are complex sections of written (or unwritten) code that bind and control procedural systems operating on an If/Then basis. The Code Red Worm targets the Internet Servers that distribute the users files etc. This type of viral attack has a two pronged impact as the legal owners of the system are denied the right to use their system in the way they see fit while the recipients of the dummy messages sent by the worm suffer from a Denial Of Service attack. The latest version of Code Red inserts a 'back door' into the Server which allows the perpetrators to regain control. Fortunately the 'back door' can be easily detected although the infected hard disk must be formatted before system integrity can be restored. You might ask, what has a computer virus got to do with the Australian Constitution? Viruses like to inhabit the grey areas of any type of system whether they be biological, computer, political or even outside the scope of their own creators. Just for a start they both operate under If/Then type rule based procedures and if anything the Australian Constitution is at the pinnacle of a large procedural system in which all citizens have a stake. Just like the hard disk format required to remove the Code Red 'back door', the will of the Australian people is enshrined in the Australian Constitution through its preamble where all 'have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth' under the constitution. In a fundamental way this agreement of the people provides a basic safety catch that prevents other programs from being run that could subvert the control of the system. Unfortunately some politicians and their advisors think that preambles are non legally binding and therefore unlock this safety catch. As preambles just express the intent of the legislation in a summary format their legal status has nothing to do with the legal bindingness of the legislation contained in any proclaimed act itself. The main difficulty with preambles not being legally binding is that there would be nothing to legally hold the people to the constitution and the Australian legal system. A closer look at our history can shed some light on this matter. In the first instance, we can compare the process taken over a century ago with the unheralded one back in 1986 to gain a perspective on the situation. In the late 1800's the people of the states voted in referendums for a Federation, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act was created and established as an act of the Parliament of the UK in 1900, while the act itself was finally proclaimed in 1901. After 1901 the consent of the Australian people was required to modify this act. In 1926 Australia and Britain were acknowledged to be of equal status. In 1985 the Australia Act was established, introduced into the Federal Parliament and in 1986 it was proclaimed without any possibility that it could be be withheld or disallowed, let alone be constitutionally approved or celebrated by the people. The Australia Act, through its preamble, brings constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and Federal nation. This wording is unique in Australian legislation. The act itself requires that it can only be repealed by politicians while modifications to our constitution require a referendum yes vote in a majority of the states. Why should any constitutional powers originally held by the Parliament of the UK (equal since 1926) and the Federal Council of Australasia (then less equal) at the establishment of the Australian Constitution in 1900 and claimed through the preamble to the Australia Act, be expected to actually exist in 1986? In the second instance we can see that the referendum of 1999, through questions intending to give clear constitutional title to the Federal parliament, was rejected by the people on both accounts even though one was just a proposed preamble change. As Paul Keating stated, while the people may have the right to change the constitution by voting at referendums, the politicians have the right to determine what questions are to be asked. In this respect, responsibility for the present state of the Australian Constitution lies squarely at the feet of the recalcitrant minority who phrase referendum questions, not to the liking of the people. The perceived right to determine our own 'head of state' on a national and state basis pales into a hollow gesture through the major structural changes contained in the Australia Act. While all State Governors lost the power to withhold or disallow legislation (like removing the US State Governors and Presidents powers of veto), the state Premiers gained the power to 'direct' the State representatives of the monarch (the Governors) in the 'exercise of their powers' to complement the Prime Ministers 'unwritten' power over the Governor General. Are our politicians so perfect that they require no supervision? Why would you bother to vote for anybody, in any position, who, if elected, could not be expected to exercise their own free will? Could this cynical/democratic exercise be considered democratic/cynical? In the third instance we can wonder about the entire Australian military forces being stood down for a day before being restored under the Minister for Defense instead of the Governor General, as the Prime Minister commands our nations military forces like it was just another arm of cabinet. It seems one question that will never be asked of the Australian people will be 'Would you like to change Australia from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Constitutional Republic with a popularly elected President and popularly elected State Governors who have all the original powers of the monarch between them, through the Australian Constitution, as approved by the people'. Would you treat your computer like our politicians treat the Australian Constitution, could you afford to? Just like Code Red, the Australia Act 1986 should be considered hostile code that snatches the right of the people to determine the sovereignty and independence status of the type of system currently running in this country. Surely, just like control of a computer system by its lawful owners, national sovereignty status should be in the constitutional domain of the people and should not be locked up in a legislative tower under the executive custodianship of our politicians? It just goes to show that if you feel like you have lost control, things don't seem to function as they did previously and there appears to be no obvious way to restore the original settings, your system probably is suffering from a virus.
LaurieAG: In other words, the Australia Act formalised what was the status quo in terms of Australia's status as a nation independent of the United Kingdom. The Australian Constitution (Commonwealth) is, in actual fact, clause 4 of an Act of the UK Parliament. It has never been repealed and (in fact) cannot, since the Australia Acts, be repealed by the UK Parliament and have any effect on Australia's consitutional arrangements. Powers in the Australian constitution are recognised by the Australian people and its institutions, including the legislature, the executive government and the courts. Why would they not exist in 1986 (or now)? It's a shared responsibility. The people elect the politicians who represent them. Those politicians get to frame proposed changes to the constitution, on behalf of the people they represent. You seem to want to ignore that Australia is a representative democracy. Why? I note that, clearly, the Australian people are able to exercise the right to determine their head of state. The UK has no power to interfere in that, by agreement via the Australia Acts. Who do you want to supervise them? Don't the people supervise them? Every three years, the people have the option to kick out the ones they don't want, if nothing else. There are also various legal standards and restraints in place - including the Constitution itself. We are supposed to vote for people to represent the will of the people, are we not? We don't give politicians open slather on exercising their "free will". The devil is in the detail. What particular split of the monarch's powers are you proposing? Which ones do you want to give to State Governors and which to the President, for example? I can't really tell what you want. It sounds like you want another referendum on Australia becoming a republic, which is all well and good. But then, there's this extra stuff about you assuming that your (unspecified) preferred model for a republic will never be offered as an option. Where is that coming from? To be clear, for starters, what model are you advocating for? Aren't you putting the cart before the horse, here? It doesn't do that. It didn't remove any rights that the Australian people had to determine "sovereignty" or "independence" or the "type of system" that runs the country. Perhaps you should be proposing that the Constitution be amended to allow for "direct democracy" rather than representative democracy. Is that what you're advocating for, then? This all seems very muddled and unclear.
At the time John McCarthy QC put out a proposition that there was no need for a Bill of rights in Australia because everything was covered in our Constitution and Federal/Sate laws. I sent him a copy and he agreed that the right to determine what type of system that ran in this country was not covered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._McCarthy In the 36 years before the Australia act 1986 came into being many important referendum questions were put to the people and many were approved by yes votes in a majority of the states. Since then there has only been 2 trivial 'preamble' change questions put (both failed) and now we are going to get another one to introduce a token first nations parliament that the federal parliament can ignore, why bother. Do you think this is acceptable? Why?
As I understand what is going to be proposed a representative Parliament for those who identify as Australian First Nation Persons only. Note identify no need to prove (DNA?) such OK - Can we move any serving politician who identifies as Australian First Nation Person across to this new set up. Follow up with elections to replace them with elections which excludes those who identify as Australian First Nation Persons ie only open to anyone who doesn't Balance restored - ya right Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
LaurieAG: How about this: I'll answer your question after you have answered the ones I put to you in my previous post. Okay?
No. There is no proposal for a new Parliament. The proposal is for a First Nations voice to Parliament, in the form of a representative body. Details are still to be specified at this time. We're a long way from a referendum question. Move? What? Huh? What are you on about?
One politician I heard in a interview she was giving expressed what I poor have repeated There would be a seperate Parliamentary body in Parliament with only those who identify as Australian First Nation Persons. This body would also have its own overseas ambassador Reposition them into this newly formed body? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A First Nations Voice to Parliament would obviously want to be comprised of First Nations representatives. This is the first I've heard of that. Who proposed this? Ambassador to where/whom? Why? Australia already has ambassadors.
The female politician (Might have been Penny Wong) giving the TV interview fleshing out the details of the proposed new Parliamentary body Yes already have ambassadors to many places so now with a new Parliamentary body we will have another ambassador from that Parliamentary body who will - importantly - speak with that body's voice Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So you have no actual source for this you can link me to? Well, I guess I'll wait until I read about this myself, elsewhere. I find it very hard to believe that the government would seriously be suggesting that Australia double its number of ambassadors, sending an extra one to every other country where Australia has an embassy. As far as I'm aware, this would be completely unnecessary to satisfy what the Uluru statement asks for. It would also be costly. It would also put other nations in the bizarre position of not knowing what Australia's position is on a given diplomatic matter, if there were differences of opinion between the two ambassadors. My guess is that it is far more likely that you, Michael, have got your wires crossed or misunderstood what somebody proposed. It looks like I need a more reliable source on this stuff than you're able to be.
Agree very possible Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Edit However ‘First Nations foreign policy’: Labor to appoint First Nations ambassador https://www.skynews.com.au/world-ne...ssador/video/3065eedc5a9c4a6be35264b70ed7b7ff Not read because my nurse wants my attention Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We appear to agree on something, the Australia Act was introduced to cover those powers that 'didn't exist', they are probably the ones about removing veto's etc that you didn't comment about. https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-p...uestions/why-are-we-a-constitutional-monarchy Pigs bum we do! "Australia's Head of State is the Queen of Australia, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Under the Australian Constitution, executive power is exercised by the Governor‑General as the Queen's representative. The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia." From my post "It seems one question that will never be asked of the Australian people will be 'Would you like to change Australia from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Constitutional Republic with a popularly elected President and popularly elected State Governors who have all the original powers of the monarch between them, through the Australian Constitution, as approved by the people'." Obviously the Governor Generals original powers go to the President and the State Governors original powers go to the State Governors. So now the last election reduced the first preference vote for our 2 major political parties to their lowest in 100 years and a small minority of people think they should be given total power.
LaurieAG: If a veto was removed, that suggests to me that it was a power that existed. The words "representative democracy" appear on that page. Did you read it? The Constitution can be amended by means of a referendum! What's the problem? Which "original powers" are you concerned about, in particular? The Australian people decided who they wanted to vote for, yes. That's what usually happens in representative democracy. Which small minority? What are you talking about?
It was a power of a state Governor under a state constitution not a federal power. So how can the head of state be changed if the politicians don't ask the referendum question? 36 years since our politicians put the crown on their own head and no approval by the people via referendum! Obviously those powers removed by the Australia Act 1986. But we don't get to choose our head of state and the Governor General is just a rubber stamp for our politicians! Are you an expat?
