Recent Posts
A hung Parliament is exactly what the two major parties deserve. Now the ALP and the LNP are banished to a Parliamentary neverland devoid of a clear mandate, lacking direction and deficient of the Australian public’s confidence. The two major parties have been rightly forced to spend the next term (albiet one likely to be shorter than usual) shamefully reflecting their recent performance in government and in opposition. Even with the mind-blowing capabilities of Australia’s citizens, our technological advancement and our relatively stable and steadfast democratic institutions, there is still so much more that needs to be done. Australia is rife with xenophobic and claustrophobic attitudes; education is incredibly expensive; healthcare is held together by bandaids and staples; climate change demands action; and there is corruption, disease, warfare and poverty in our neighbouring countries and in the wider global context that a humanitarian nation simply cannot ignore. The policies offered by both the ALP and LNP were offensive and embarrassing in light of these imperatives, and the Australian public reacted accordingly. They should have known that in order to be granted the honour and to be considered worthy enough for Australians to grant them the responsibility of government they: need to find a leader with vision, who is perhaps a tad charismatic with a good cred; must develop advertising that is directed towards the issues and policy formulation; need to realise that going negative is a bad move and stinks of desperation; and, that Australian’s are not impressed on how quickly you can get from Hasluck to Longman. Despite having made all of these elementary mistakes and more both parties arrogantly expected Australian’s to trust them.
Australian’s had no other choice but to vote the way they did. However unfortunately, and even though the voters were pushed to do it, it seems as though we may have shot ourselves in the foot. While the votes are still being counted, it seems as though the decision about which party will hold minority government is in the hands of four independents and one Green MP. Five people will decide who is in government and five electorates gave them that power. In terms of our democratic credentials there is a lot to be said for re-evaluating our electoral system.
Despite this, for now at least, it is our Parliamentary reality. What exactly does this mean for the next term? Developing policy and having it pass through both houses of Parliament will be at times an insurmountable task. Our government will be weak and inept and will be prone to collapse without much coaxing. The Opposition will have an easier job though. The government will not be able to hide behind their majority or use their mandate to govern as an excuse for controversial policies. Minority views will be given a platform from which they have never heralded before. There will be no bold policy based on conviction and so many issues will be considered too sensitive to tackle that all major party MPs will be walking on eggshells. GetUp is taking solace in the hope that it provides an opportunity for Australians to pressure political parties on all of the major issues. Also, with the unprecedented success of the Greens, both parties, particularly the ALP will hopefully wake up to the fact that they are not insignificant, that their position in Australian politics is stable and that they belong to an international movement with issues that demand attention.
The last time a hung Parliament was a reality was in 1940 when the Coalition government headed by Sir Robert Menzies was returned but only with the support of two independents. He was dumped in 1941 and was replaced by John Curtain. History is therefore not very encouraging for the leader or their party who does eventually crawl across the line. Pandering to the all-powerful independents in the next few days will determine who is in charge for the next term. The situation is one that both of the major parties deserve to be facing but it is certainly not what the Australian public deserves. Everything has an end and this election brings it closer for both major parties in their current form. Either they re-develop themselves by returning to their roots and working out what they really stand for or they stand aside and make room for a party who is capable of fulfilling such an auspicious role (as soon as one is developed).
The following is intended to be a brief but comprehensive overview of the Liberal Parties election promises as they currently stand and the criticism that they have received as a result.
The environment
The plan
• Develop a Green Army consisting of 15,000 people to plant 20 million trees by 2020.
• The Liberals want to think more about capturing carbon in the soil
• Plan to reward those who cut emissions but would not impose any penalties on those that don’t
• They would axe a $300 million institute as part of a $1.2 billion savings plan
Criticism
• The Greens believe there have to be penalties for big polluters otherwise no one will change their practices
Background
• Tony Abbott once told an audience that climate change science was ‘absolute crap’. Later he said he didn’t really mean it.
Health
The plan
• Haven’t release a complete plan to date
• Promised $1.5 billion for mental health services
• Large proportion of the money will be spent on programs for young people who Tony Abbott says ‘bear the brunt’ of the problem
• Money will be used to fund more care places, establishing new clinics, 20 early intervention programs, and 800 more mental health beds. Also promised 60 new ‘headspace’ centres
• They have also promised that within 6 months of the election, they would ensure that every major pubic hospital in NSW and QLD would get a local control board which would be in charge of its budget
• John Mendoza, former chairman of the Mental Health Advisory Council has supported these policies and has said that they will save lives
Criticism
• In order to afford their plan they are going to abandon the government’s plans to boost after-hours doctor’s services, discard the plan to establish 23 GP super clinics, and ditch the planned authorities to monitor costs and performance, as well as the $466 million plan to develop electronic health services
• If Abbott had really wanted to make changes in Health he would have made them during his years as John Howard’s health minister
Education
The plan
• Adopt the recommendations of the independent auditor
• Continue with Labor’s school halls project but would hand control over to school principles and let them decide on how to spend the cash.
Asylum-seekers
The plan
• Bring back Howard’s policies, including temporary protection visas and offshore processing.
Criticism
• The Greens believe that asylum seekers should stop being treated like a threat to Australia’s security and should not be used as a political football.
Immigration
The plan
• Tony Abbott’s plan is to encourage the Australian population to have more babies.
• Apart from the above, the Liberals don’t have an independent policy on this subject as it was highlighted quickly after the debate that Abbott’s announcement regarding projected immigration figures was simply promising what the current government was already delivering
Industrial Relations
The plan
• The Liberals have guaranteed not to amend Labor’s IR laws at least for the first term
Criticism
• One of the Liberals major Budget savings plans is to cut funding for union ballots and industrial elections. To do this, they would be required to make amendments to the workplace relations laws. The Liberal Party have denied needing to amend the Fair Work Act instead assuring they will achieve their plan “in other ways”…which are??
• Abbott believes in Workchoices – if he really is a politician led by his convictions how can he justify abandoning such an integral component of such convictions?
The economy
The plan
• Restore the budget to surplus within 3 years
Criticism
• The Liberal Party have been anything but clear on exactly how they are going to achieve this especially when they:
o want to cut company tax rate to 28.5% (0.5% below Labor’s); and
o provide more income tax cuts
o propose to ditch the mining tax.
Paid Parental Leave
The plan
• Parents will receive the mother’s wage for 26 weeks, up to a cap of $75,000
• The baby bonus can still be paid and super would still be payable by the employer
• The Liberal Party will afford this by placing a 1.7 per cent levy on businesses earning more than 5 million a year
Criticism
• Mr Abbott once said that government funded paid parental leave will only occur ‘over my dead body’, but says he changed his mind after hearing from friends how hard they were finding it to make ends meet without one.
• Businesses earning more than $ 5 million a year include Coles and Woolworths – this will surely blow a hole in family budgets across the country
• Because the Liberals scheme is based on the salary of the mother, it will inevitably discourage paternity leave due to pay inequities that exist between males and females.
Water
The Plan
• The Liberals have promised $16.5 million of federal money for stormwater re-use in a demonstration project in South Australia
• They have also promised $100 million worth of Community Water Grants Program which are intended to encourage community organisations and schools to develop water conservation projects designed to reclaim stormwater and purify it to drinking standards
Criticism
• The stormwater project is exactly the same program Julia Gillard announced two days before, just with an extra $6.5 million attached
Childcare
The plan
• Prior to the election campaign, the Coalition suggested paying the rebate weekly and directly to the centres, eliminating out-of-pocket expenses. However, this has not official been announced during the campaign as yet.
• The Coalition has promised to restore indexation of the rebate, costing $89 m overall, or giving about $300 a year more per child to families
Broadband
The plan
• Tony Abbott has vowed to rip up the plans for the national broadband network
• Instead the Coalition has proposed to create incentives for the private sector rollout of broadband and upgrades to the hybrid fibre coaxial operated by Optus and Telstra
Criticism
• Anthony Albanese, mocked the opposition’s plan saying it was synonymous with ‘trading in your iPhone for a walkie-talkie’.”
Crime
The plan
• Like the ALP the Coalition have had a dig at a State issue promising to resurrect the National Community Crime Prevention Program at a cost of $50 million
• The Coalition would also establish a national database of violent gangs to track the activities of such groups around the country and create a squad under the Australian Crime Commission to lead the fight against violent gangs
• Only hours after Gillard made Labor’s announcement, Abbott promised to extended the list of banned weapons and to place tougher uniform penalties for people who are found with them and would provide more funding for metal detectors
The following is intended to be a brief but comprehensive overview of the ALP’s election promises as they currently stand and the criticism that they have received as a result.
The ETS
Plan
• Set a cap on pollution
• Penalise businesses who exceeded limits
• Reward businesses who come in under the limits
• Have a citizens assembly of 150 ‘ordinary Australians’ to decide among other things, what the cap should be set at
• Gillard says she will still push the merits of the ETS, but if she can’t convince the 150 then it won’t go any further
• Establish a Climate Commission to keep up to date with what’s happening overseas
Criticism
• In terms of the cap:
o Prices would rise because those charges would be passed on
o The Coalition says it’s all a camouflage for a carbon tax and doesn’t believe that Australia should be leading the way on climate change when they argue that China, India and other serious carbon emitters aren’t doing anything about it
o The Greens believe a cap is too generous to big polluters
o Family first says action on the environment must be balanced against what it will cost the community
• In terms of the citizen’s assembly
o The Greens say it is a cynical waste of time
Background
• After an ETS was presented to Parliament and didn’t pass, Julia Gillard urged Kevin Rudd to shelve the plan until 2012
Climate change more widely
The plan
• The ALP believe in having a carbon price but only when there is community consensus
• Give $2000 each to people who trade in pre-1995 cars for more fuel efficient ones. The money to do so ($394 million) will be taken out of programs to develop solar energy or carbon capture and storage.
• This plan is apparently going to cut emissions by 1 million tonnes and save buyers $344 million in fuel costs.
Criticism
• So much for having a leader with the guts to lead and develop policies in accordance their convictions
• The maths doesn’t add up - $394 million spent to save $344 million is $50 million wasted.
The Hospital Takeover
The plan
• This is a Rudd government plan that has come into fruition over the past year and a half.
• A national hospitals network is to be created with takeovers commencing in 2012.
• The national hospitals network is intended to fund the various local hospital networks, which would manage local hospitals. This will see the Federal government as the dominant contributor to hospital funds
• They also want to instil tougher targets on waiting times. Their solution for this is to give money to GP’s who treat patients out of hospitals thereby decreasing the demand for beds
• If patients are still waiting too long for a hospital bed they will be given a private one
• Currently, all the stated except WA have signed up to the plan
• During the election campaign, the ALP also promised 3000 emergency nurses /trainers and 27 more doctors a year for the next 10 years.
Criticism
• WA refuses to sign onto the national hospitals network – devaluing the use of the word ‘national’ in the plan’s title
• Labor has been criticised of ignoring mental health so much so that it lead to the resignation of one of Australia’s top experts from his government advisory role in June this year.
Education
The plan
School Building Project
o A major response to the GFC was the implementation of the $16.2 billion plan to build school halls and other centres
o The idea was soundly based on the idea that a number of industries would have been supported during a potentially perilous economic time
The Myschool website
o Compares the performances of 10,000 schools around Australia including information about academic performance and demographics
o Labor sees this as an important tool for parents to use when making the somewhat difficult choice about their children’s education
National Curriculum
o Part of this plan is the allocation of $2 billion in order to provide each student in Australia in years 9 to 11 with a laptop.
Criticism to the School Building Project
• The schools building project attracted significant amounts of criticism
• In response, Mr Rudd has stated that the ALP “acted rapidly to keep the economy going, to stop it going over a cliff…So mistakes were make along the way. It’s important to learn from those mistakes, and that’s what we’re doing.”
• The government’s independent auditor considered the policy and its rollout in depth and released its report earlier this year which found that there had been more than $1.5 billion used to keep up with costs while the school buildings were built. It also found that there was a significant amount of red tape as schools had to deal with local, state and federal bodies when seeking to have buildings established
• The report did however recognise that the policy undoubtedly saved jobs although it was unable to specify how many
• Regardless of who comes to power after the election, the report says that it would be inappropriate to suspend the scheme now because some schools would be stuck in the queue and would be unfairly punished.
• Despite this, the Coalition maintains that the money was a feel-good spending spree that helped plunge the economy into debt.
Criticism to the MySchool website
• Heavy criticism came from teachers who were concerned that poor performance from students would impact their job security. They also worry that struggling schools will be abandoned
• The Coalition says the site is about looking like something is being done without actually improving school standards
Asylum seekers
The Plan
• Mandatory detention of asylum seekers – a policy it introduced years ago – remains ‘essential’.
• Prime Minister Gillard would like other countries to take asylum seekers off our hands and is keen to develop a processing centre in East Timor although it seems as though this plan is unlikely
Criticism
• Everyone knows the Coalition will revert back to Howard’s extremely tough and inhumane policies in dealing with asylum seekers. Those who support the plight of people fleeing unimaginable situations expected more from the ALP.
Background
• Kevin Rudd axed the Howard government policy of sending asylum seekers to Pacific nations for processing as well as temporary protection visas.
Immigration
The plan
• The ALP are now pushing for a sustainable Australia rather than a big Australia
• Their plan is to send people to smaller cities
Criticism
• The ALP under Gillard have backflipped on Rudd as he was a fan of the big Australia plan emphasising that it was a good thing that Australia was getting bigger while other countries were going backwards
• The plan to send people to the country will be paid for by removing $200 million from the fund which was originally set aside to help lower rental stress
• Big business says our skills shortage demands that we increase our population
Industrial Relations
The plan: Fair Work
• Over the last three years Labor has restored much of what was lost under WorkChoices.
The plan: Superannuation
• The ALP plans to make employers contribute 12 per cent, up from the current 9 per cent to employee’s superannuation funds. It will start from 2012 but will be phased in over 10 years.
The Economy
The plan: Company tax
• To alleviate the harshness of the aforementioned superannuation policy, the ALP originally wanted to drop the company tax from 30 per cent to 28 per cent. However, the need to compromise with big mining over the mining tax, the company tax rate will only drop to 29 per cent.
The plan: The budget deficit
• The ALP’s plan under Rudd for overcoming the budget deficit was the mining super profits tax.
• This was a hugely controversial policy so much so that it cost Mr Rudd his job
• As soon as she became leader, Julia Gillard cut a deal with the miners to put the issue to bed.
• However the deal meant that $1.5 billion would be cut from Labor’s budget
• On Wednesday 28 July the Reserve Bank’s governor gifted the ALP with the announcement that the economy was travelling along quite well – at 2.7 per cent on an annualised basis, inflation in the last quarter was well within the Reserve Bank’s “comfort zone” (between 2 and 3 per cent).
• This shut down the argument propelled by the Liberals that the economy was spiralling out of control under the ALP.
• In recent months, the Reserve Bank governor has defended the government’s stimulus packages and dismissed the Coalition’s increasingly alarmist view of the national debt.
Background: The GFC
• In late 2008 stock markets began to crash suddenly. The world was warned of a Depression far worse than that of the 1930s. In response, the government implemented a $43 billion stimulus plan, including the $900 cash payments to so many of us, the school building program and massive investments in IT programs. Obviously, this sent Australia into a massive debt – the Budget went from a $20 billion surplus to more than $50 billion in deficit. Despite this Australia was one of the only countries in the entire world not to fall into recession. The government says that their spending is to thank.
Paid Parental Leave
The plan
• Parents will receive 18 weeks at the minimum wage (currently $534.78 per week which will be taxed) but employers are able to add to that figure
• In order to qualify parents must have worked about one day a week in 10 of the last 13 months to qualify
• Those who earn more than $150,000 a year will miss out
• The overall 18 weeks can be split between either parent
• Bosses won’t have to pay super on top of the scheme
• Unfortunately parents who elect this scheme can’t claim the baby bonus or family tax benefits
Childcare
The plan
• The ALP amended the childcare rebate so that parents are paid every three months, instead of every year giving them cash back sooner
• From next year parents can elect to continue receiving payments as they are or they can elect for them to be made fortnightly and direct to providers
Criticism
• In the 2010 Budget the rebate was frozen at $7500 for four years. The changes cost many families about $280 a year
• Kevin 07 promised that the ALP would deliver 260 more child care centres but has since axed the plan with only about 30 centres finalised now saying that there is no longer the demand and that existing providers can accommodate the current need
Broadband
The plan
• The ALP have promised to develop a National Broadbank Network which will see fibre-optic cables laid out across the country giving us internet speeds 100 times faster than what we’ve got now.
• The cost will be $43 billion
• It will contribute to increasing competitiveness in Australia’s communications sector by breaking Telstra’s monopoly on infrastructure
• A heads of agreement deal has already been struck with Telstra which will decease the $43 billion cost
• The network has started to be rolled out in Tasmania, with new areas on the mainland added in the lead-up to the election.
• This policy demonstrates the ALP’s relevance in a technologically advanced society and their commitment to fresh ideas.
• In Tasmania, where the plan has already been rolled out, communication plans start at around $30-$50 a month for 25 Mbps connection and about 15GB of data a month. High-level plans are between $140-$160 a month for 100Mbps connection and 180GB of data.
• The most significant benefit of the plan is that unlike other services, fibre does not degrade, or slow down the service with distance from an exchange.”
Criticism
• The Coalition says it’s irresponsible to spend so much of our money and there are other ways to get faster broadband
• Experiences industry consultant and project manager Malcolm McKenzie told Radio National’s Background Briefing program that the costs of big telecommunications rollouts always blow out. Red tape and rain are just two issues that cause delay
• The opposition has vowed to extract the government from the Telstra deal (which it can as it was only a deal as to heads of agreement and does not carry legal penalties for backing out) and promises to suspend work on the project as it believes the plan is reckless and that there are better ways to achieve better broadband.
Mental Health policy
The Plan
• Will allocate $276.9 million to suicide prevention
Criticism
• Too little too late for many mental health professionals
Gender Equity
The Plan
• The Minister for the Status of Women, Tanya Plibersek, announced that a re-elected Gillard government would set a target of at least 40 per cent women and 40 per cent men on federal government boards in five years’ time.
Criticism
• They have made no minimum quota requirement
Water
The Plan
• During the campaign the ALP promised to spend $10 million on a storm-water reclamation project in South Australia
Criticism
• They continue to ignore the significant Murray-Darling problem – seem to have just put it in the too hard basket
Web Filter
The plan
• The ALP plans to force internet providers to block access to a secret list of banned web pages
• The list is said to include material such as child pornography and instructions in crime
• In early July, the government announced the plan would be put on hold pending a one-year investigation into what material should really be considered too offensive to allow
Criticism
• The Greens believe that government censorship is very dangerous and believes there are more effective ways of combating the problem
• Tech-savvy people would beat the ban
Crime
The plan
• The government has promised to spend $15 million on making our suburbs safer in their ‘Safer Suburbs Plan’ – this has already begun to be rolled out with a serious of micro-grants being given to communities
• On Tuesday, Home Affairs Minister Brendan O’Conner announced funding for CCTV cameras at railway stations and a mall in the seat of Deakin, which the ALP holds by 1.4%
• Further, the ALP has promised to release a list of 22 weapons it will effectively ban
Criticism
• Many projects have been in Labor marginal seats or those within its grasp after redistribution
Children with disabilities
The Plan
• Plan to provide new access to early intervention services called ‘A Better Start for Children with Disability’
• Children up to the age of six with a diagnosis of hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome or Fragile X syndrome will be eligible to receive up to $12,000 for early intervention services
• Children diagnosed with a disability prior to their 13th birthday will have access to new Medicare services for diagnosis and treatment but must be used before they turn 15
Criticism
• What about children older then 15?
Some History
The Country Party, as it was then known, was formed in 1913 in Western Australia and quickly spread to the other states to such an extent that 11 Members of Parliament whom had been elected in the 1919 federal election as supporters of the Australian Farmers’ Federal Organisation decided to nationalise the party in 1920. Creation was largely driven by small farmers, particularly wheat-growers interested in ensuring that the interests of Australia’s regional residents were being conveyed, and to create a viable alternative to the Hughes Nationalist Party and their economic policies. The Tasmanian member for Franklin, William McWilliams, was elected its first leader however resigned his post in 1921 to make way for the NSW Member for Cowper, Dr Earle Page who took over on the 5th of April. The Australian Country Party won 14 seats in the 1922 federal election. This margin was enough to deny the Nationalists an overall majority and as the only other prominent non-Labor party at the time, The Country Party became the only viable option for a coalition partner. However, Dr Page refused to serve under Hughes and therefore forced his resignation. Hughes’ replacement, Stanley Bruce succumbed quite readily to Page’s conditions of coalition. The Country Party walked away from negotiations with five of eleven Cabinet seats, including the Treasury portfolio and the second rank in the ministry for Dr Page. The Coalition arrangement has remained in tact since December 1949 but for during two short periods – for 17 months while in Opposition from December 1949 through to May 1974 and for four months during the ‘Joh for Canberra’ fiasco. In 1975 The Country Party changed its name to the National Country Party which only lasted until 1982 when it adopted its current title
[ Click here to read more ]
Some History
Born out of opposition to the construction of new dams and the flooding of Lake Pedder along with similar environmental concerns was the United Tasmania Group in 1972. This group was the first Green party to be formed anywhere in the world. Unfortunately the party was unsuccessful in their attempts to stop the flooding and to gain political representation in the 1972 Tasmanian State election. Despite this, their commitment to environmental protection did not dwindle and during the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s they continued to campaign about environmental issues most markedly over the construction of the Franklin Dam in Tasmania. As a result, activist Norm Sanders was elected to the Tasmanian Parliament as an Australian Democrat. He retired from politics in 1982 and (current Senator and Leader of the Australian Greens) Bob Brown was elected to replace him on a count back. The first federal parliamentarian to emerge from the Green movement was Josephine Vallentine of the Nuclear Disarmament Party who was elected as a Western Australian Senator in 1984. In 1992 the Greens organised themselves nationally. Bob Brown resigned from the Tasmanian Parliament in 1993 and was elected as a Senator for Tasmania in 1996
[ Click here to read more ]
With the announcement that the federal election will be held on 21 August 2010, un-enrolled voters have only today and until 8pm tomorrow night left to enrol. Those who are already enrolled but have changed residence and have not informed the Australian Electoral Commission of their change of address have until 8pm Thursday 22nd July to update those details. With this in mind I have dedicated this post to presenting the case for immediate enrolment. The following are 16 reasons to enrol:
1. Australian citizens above the age of 18 are legally obliged to vote. Since 1911 enrolment for federal elections has been compulsory. Since 1924 voting in federal elections has been compulsory and those eligible are therefore legally obliged to enrol. Section 245(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) states that “it shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election
[ Click here to read more ]
Ultimately, responsibility for ensuring that the bulwarks of the rule of law are abided by in a liberal democratic state with government institutions organised according to the doctrine of separation of powers is born by the judiciary. Originally philosophized by Montesquieu in the distinguished L’Esprit des Lois, the separation of powers was designed to ensure that governmental power was not concentrated in the hands of one body or person. Instead Montesquieu considered that safeguards needed to be in place whereby the political arms of government – the legislature and executive, could be balanced with an apolitical body - the judiciary, responsible for keeping the legislature and executive accountable and within the bounds of the law. Contrasted with the American version of the separation of powers where, “the Executive i.e. The President, and whoever he chooses to appoint as Secretaries of State (i.e. Ministers), are not members of the legislature” (Wells, Dean, ‘Current Challenges for the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers – The Ghosts in the Machinery of Government’, paper presented at Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, 2006 at [107.]), there is much overlap in Australia between the Legislature and the Executive. Where George Washington and Thomas Jefferson followed Montesquieu in creating distinct lines of separation between each arm of government in an attempt to create sufficient checks and balances on one another, Australia followed the 19th century British jurist, Walter Bagehot who said that the “efficient secret of the Westminster constitution was that the Executive and the Legislature are not really separate. The Parliament, or a majority of it selects the Cabinet and because they are therefore not at odds with one another they can comparatively easily despatch the business the public expected them to do when they voted to put them there.” (Wells, above at p107) The American model has led to an immobilization of legislative processes – for example in 1995/6 the “Republican Congress refused to pass President Clinton’s money bills to stop him spending so much on social welfare, many public service agencies closed, and 300 000 public servants” (Wells, above at p107) were out of work. In Australia, the Executive is constituted by the Prime Minister and a select group of Ministers who are also members of the Legislature. This effectively means that policies developed by the government will more often than not pass through the lower house easily, but are still developed subject to accountability mechanisms due to the role employed by the Senate.
The judiciary’s role is still important in this regard as party politics, and a double majority situation can lead to over-reaching laws’ passing through the Senate undermining the review role to be performed by the upper house. Haig Patapan argues that the doctrine also developed with “a Blackstonian view that a division of powers is the best means of institutionalizing the rule of law, by which is meant the establishment of legal foundations for just decision making and securing individual liberty. In this view, the separation of judicial power is the most important.” (Gelber, Katherine, ‘Commentary: High Court review 2005: The Manifestation of Separation of Powers in Australia’ (2006) 41 Australian Journal of Political Science, 3 at p439) If people distinct from those creating the laws are responsible for determining their validity “the laws are likely to be applied more objectively and impartially.” (Wells, above at p106) This requires the “judiciary to speak out publicly against any attempt by the Legislature or the Executive to undermine the rule of law.” (McHugh MH, ‘Tensions Between the Executive and the Judiciary’ (2006) 6 The Judicial Review, at p130) Particular tension therefore exists between the Executive and the Judiciary
[ Click here to read more ]
Ultimately, responsibility for ensuring that the bulwarks of the rule of law are abided by in a liberal democratic state with government institutions organised according to the doctrine of separation of powers is born by the judiciary. Originally philosophized by Montesquieu in the distinguished L’Esprit des Lois, the separation of powers was designed to ensure that governmental power was not concentrated in the hands of one body or person. Instead Montesquieu considered that safeguards needed to be in place whereby the political arms of government – the legislature and executive, could be balanced with an apolitical body - the judiciary, responsible for keeping the legislature and executive accountable and within the bounds of the law. Contrasted with the American version of the separation of powers where, “the Executive i.e. The President, and whoever he chooses to appoint as Secretaries of State (i.e. Ministers), are not members of the legislature” (Wells, Dean, ‘Current Challenges for the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers – The Ghosts in the Machinery of Government’, paper presented at Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, 2006 at [107.]), there is much overlap in Australia between the Legislature and the Executive. Where George Washington and Thomas Jefferson followed Montesquieu in creating distinct lines of separation between each arm of government in an attempt to create sufficient checks and balances on one another, Australia followed the 19th century British jurist, Walter Bagehot who said that the “efficient secret of the Westminster constitution was that the Executive and the Legislature are not really separate. The Parliament, or a majority of it selects the Cabinet and because they are therefore not at odds with one another they can comparatively easily despatch the business the public expected them to do when they voted to put them there.” (Wells, above at p107) The American model has led to an immobilization of legislative processes – for example in 1995/6 the “Republican Congress refused to pass President Clinton’s money bills to stop him spending so much on social welfare, many public service agencies closed, and 300 000 public servants” (Wells, above at p107) were out of work. In Australia, the Executive is constituted by the Prime Minister and a select group of Ministers who are also members of the Legislature. This effectively means that policies developed by the government will more often than not pass through the lower house easily, but are still developed subject to accountability mechanisms due to the role employed by the Senate.
The judiciary’s role is still important in this regard as party politics, and a double majority situation can lead to over-reaching laws’ passing through the Senate undermining the review role to be performed by the upper house. Haig Patapan argues that the doctrine also developed with “a Blackstonian view that a division of powers is the best means of institutionalizing the rule of law, by which is meant the establishment of legal foundations for just decision making and securing individual liberty. In this view, the separation of judicial power is the most important.” (Gelber, Katherine, ‘Commentary: High Court review 2005: The Manifestation of Separation of Powers in Australia’ (2006) 41 Australian Journal of Political Science, 3 at p439) If people distinct from those creating the laws are responsible for determining their validity “the laws are likely to be applied more objectively and impartially.” (Wells, above at p106) This requires the “judiciary to speak out publicly against any attempt by the Legislature or the Executive to undermine the rule of law.” (McHugh MH, ‘Tensions Between the Executive and the Judiciary’ (2006) 6 The Judicial Review, at p130) Particular tension therefore exists between the Executive and the Judiciary
[ Click here to read more ]
Providing a solid foundation for building a political profile as a leader capable of ‘getting the job done’, Prime Minister Gillard came to terms with the miners (well some of them). On Friday 2 July 2010 the new PM sealed her first deal as leader and although the name has changed, and many of the details vary from the policy that was originally conceived, politically it was a win. Paul Kelly agrees: “For Gillard, this deal is a multiple victory: it defines a new prime ministerial style, an end to the political war with the mining industry and, on the figures, retention of almost all the tax revenue the government had initially projected.”
The details
[ Click here to read more ]
A credit to their prophetic intellect Australia’s constitutional framers realized how fundamental the rule of law is and adopted its characteristics by embedding them into Australia’s liberal democracy. In Australia, the rule of law is so engrained that many take it for granted, but its existence ensures three highly important values.
“First, it is thought to curb the power of government; to prevent it from becoming absolute. Second, it is thought to protect the rights, and particularly the liberties of the citizen. Third, it promotes personal autonomy in that individuals can predict the circumstances when governments will interfere with their lives and thus plan their lives accordingly.” (Bottomley, Stephen and Parker, Stephen, Law in Context 2nd ed, NSW, Australia, The Federation Press, 1997, p47
[ Click here to read more ]
|
|
|
Add Comments
Comments (2)
Read More
Comment by Kate Slack
on Why politics is life
Politics
Politics is Life