Australia's Monarchy (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

Senate boss blasts PM's monarchy
By Gerard Ryle, Lisa Pryor and Mark Metherell
June 21, 2005


The Australian Parliament has deteriorated into a form of elective monarchy where the Prime Minister "rules all he surveys", says the most senior public servant in the Senate, Harry Evans.

In remarkably frank reaction to Herald revelations that parliamentary inquiries are being ignored by the Government, Mr Evans, the Clerk of the Senate, says it is time the public insists on better representation.

Writing in the Herald today, he argues: "We no longer have parliamentary government in any meaningful sense of the term."...
Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/senate-boss-blasts-pms-monarchy/2005/06/20/1119250927991.html

The opinion peice written by Mr Evans.
Democrats share Mr Evans' concerns.

An interesting development (and something that carries on the from a point raised by stamos in another thread).

Feel free to discuss the issue in general, but I'll pose this question to get the ball rolling - Are we, the citisens, at risk of losing our representation as the politicians are increasingly 'forced' to toe the party line?

 

[transcendent]

Yes .

 

[tomorrows_angel]

God save our gracious Queen :rollseyes:

it was inevitable that one day politicians would get so up themselves that they no longer stand for society and it's people, but rather their own personal interests.

And whilst the public chooses who represents us, it is hardly feasible that any candidate chosen will represent what the community really wants them to. All that parliamentary peer pressure... whilst it is obvious that radical (read non-conformist) politicians have hardly a leg to stand on when they are clearly outnumbered.

don't mean to offend anyone...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Sounds like a bunch of whinging from sissy cry babies to me. I don't think it's a matter of them caring for the "fabric of democracy" or being worried that the public isn't being properly represented when people "toe the party line"... It's more that they're just upset that they're not in power.

Tall poppy syndrome, it'll probably work... Howard will have a decreased majority because people will be upset that he has all the power.

Congratulation collective intellectual whores that all sprout the exact same nonsense constantly while accusing others of being "conformists".

 

[spell check]

I can't even put into words my feelings. It just makes me so angry.

that's because your feelings are stupid

obviously it is bad when the government orders 70 parliamentary inquiries into issues and then ignores the findings, and when members of parliament who oppose a certain policy are labelled 'political terrorists' for disagreeing with their party

what does "que'd" mean anyway?

 

[townie]

me and my mum have been saying this for a looong time.

the PM, esp J.H. has far too much power. all this crap about "mandate" doesnt stack up. how can the people give a "mandate" for one person to be able to deal with as he see's fit any problem that has come or will come. yes, electors can give a mandate for election issues, they cannot give a mandate for things that weren't campaigned on, or new deciscions of the government.

yet, J.H. could do anything he likes, and claims he has a mandate to do so! There needs to be heaps less party line on ALL SIDES of politics.

in america, demo's and republicans are not as constrained on party lines, nor in britain, and they seem to function pretty reasonably (so dont go arguing "omg, if every1 had their own opinion, no legislation would get passed").

the fact is, the only time people should toe the party line is on wat i would call core issues, and the only core issues that should exist are one's in which the government was elected on that particular, exact policy.

there should be more debate, all legislation should not rest with the P.M. and cabinet.

The P.M. has far too much power, every P.M. since WW2 has....there need 2 be debate.

ELIMINATE THE "PARTY LINE". this angers me so much

 

[stamos]

Feel free to discuss the issue in general, but I'll pose this question to get the ball rolling - Are we, the citisens, at risk of losing our representation as the politicians are increasingly 'forced' to toe the party line?

I think that the internal rules of the major parties have usurped the power given to the House of Reps in the constitution. Important policy decisions are made in the secrecy of cabinet, and getting legislation through the lower house is a formality.

People are apathetic because party loyalty is absurdly strict. It leaves parliament rife with sycophants, which delivers the power of many into the hands of a few.

The senate is another matter, of course.

 

[loquasagacious]

Australians in general are very loyal to their parties with 75%> voting how their parents and grandparents did. Further to this Australians do not actively participate in politics (only 2% party members at any one time and 10%< of members are active)beyond voting which many wouldn't do if they didn't have to. Because of this the Australian party machines are designed for grass-roots involvment.

Townie is wrong about the British system (westminster system) it also encourages rigorous party discipline dissent is only on very major issues and is important and reported for its rarity (eg Iraq war). Indeed it is the westminster/cabinet elements of Australian system that encourage the rigid discipline.

Our system places huge powers in the hands of the PM, far greater than the US President. This is because power is centralised and dependent, because the executive is formed in the lower house it can rely upon its dominance there. As opposed to in the US where the executive, legislative and judiciary are firmly seperated. Also partly because of the voluntary nature of the american system there is more participation and greater candidate connection with their constituents. They must focus on 'getting the vote out' and connecting with voters as they are unable to rely on 45% of the electorate to automatically vote for them.

As a further note to townie Britain is even more centralised as the judiciary is part of the upper house, since 1911 the upper house can only delay not block legislation and there is no middle teir of government.

Stamos: The senate is NOT another matter, party members are as loyal to the party as in the reps. The difference is that the proportional state-electorate system means there is a far greater diversity of parties.

Donald Horne wrote eloquently on this issue in God is an Englishman (well worth the read - end plug), spefically he argued that those who believed that issues should be freely debated were making a fundamental mistake. That in their hypothetical perfect parliament of free debate and the power of oratory there exists no stable governance. The government of the day is constitued of a loose coalition of essentially independents only held together through the leadership of a member. We are all well aware of how stable loose coalitions are with just one or two parties and the instability increases exponentially. For proof look no farther than israel. Also this system would open the door to demagogic power.

 

[Monkey Butler]

Regarding the seperation of the judiciary from the other two arms of government, who appoints High Court judges if not for the government? Should the people do it like the US does with its DAs? That would just create even more, and potentially greater, problems.

Our democracy works pretty well; there are flaws, but most are atributable to the flaws in human nature.

I believe that it's entirely possible to better the system that we have, and that we should always try to, but it's just naive to think that we can have a perfect political system.

 

[stamos]

Stamos: The senate is NOT another matter, party members are as loyal to the party as in the reps. The difference is that the proportional state-electorate system means there is a far greater diversity of parties.

that's what i was getting at

the system of senate election makes the major parties more accountable to voters

imo

 

[townie]

addymac: yes, the british is more strict than say america, but i would argue there is still more dissent than in Australia. take the war here, little, if any, liberal dissent, and certainly not from any cabinet members, further, there wasnt even a vote in parliament on the issue, decided completley by cabinet.

and yes, whilst the upper house can only delay legislation, it could conceivably delay it by enough for a change in government, and i believe it will turn into a house of more similarity to the senate once hereditary members are fully phased out and no doubt more reforms will follow. and whilst the judiciary is part of the upper house, i doubt they vote on issues, and further will move to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, completley seperate from the house of lords

 

[Suga_baibe]

you know what....... GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

 

[loquasagacious]

I would say that the reason that there appears more dissent in Britain is that Westminster is the scene of the dissent at what we would term federal and state level. They also tend to deal with issues of more weight eg the Iraq war was a far bigger commitment for them than for us. Finally by luck rather that structure there is a viable third party in the house of commons.