|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 2013 Australian election results and voting system -
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The entire point of a Senate is to prevent free and easy rule by the popular majority. It always amuses me when people get so upset that it works.
Rather naughty, Orfeo. You know as well as I do that the Senate was established as it is for 2 reasons: firstly to reassure the smaller states that there would be a chamber where they would have a voice equal to that of the larger; and to allow the States as States the opportunity to review legislation. The second still lingers in the US in the form of senatorial courtesy, but it never took root here. The Senate has always operated on party lines.
Giving the smaller States an equal voice is entirely my point. The purpose of the Senate, and of our referendum mechanism, is to ensure the vastly greater populations of NSW and Victoria don't get to decide everything. The principle of equal Senators from each State was consciously adopted from the United States.
And most of the people who get upset about the Senate are from NSW and terribly used to the idea that Sydney controls the country.
I might also add that Canberra exists for the exact same reason. The criteria for the location of the national capital were placed in the Constitution as well.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The entire point of a Senate is to prevent free and easy rule by the popular majority. It always amuses me when people get so upset that it works.
This is why Quebec was given a Legislative Council but Ontario was not under the British North America Act, 1867. Ontario elected a populist Grit (proto-Liberal) majority and was almost entirely English; Quebec was 25% English and 75% French.
The Quebec Legislative Council was the last to disappear in 1968. The Nova Scotia Legislative Council was abolished in 1928 after a lengthy battle with the House of Assembly and an appeal to the Privy Council.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Giving the smaller States an equal voice is entirely my point. The purpose of the Senate, and of our referendum mechanism, is to ensure the vastly greater populations of NSW and Victoria don't get to decide everything. The principle of equal Senators from each State was consciously adopted from the United States.
And most of the people who get upset about the Senate are from NSW and terribly used to the idea that Sydney controls the country.
I might also add that Canberra exists for the exact same reason. The criteria for the location of the national capital were placed in the Constitution as well.
The "review" by the senate is on party lines, not on State lines. It was review on State lines that was intended. And I am aware of the basis for the choice of Canberra as the national capital.
As to your second paragraph, I stand by the position I've stated. It's undemocratic to give such power to those elected by such a small number of electors. The real answer of course is to do away with the States and move much closer to a confederal system such as Canada and Switzerland.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
What on earth has doing away with the States got to do with Canada or Switzerland? If you're suggesting that a different distribution of powers is preferred, that's your view, but it's not as if Canadian provinces or Swiss cantons have no powers or separate existence!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Simple - do away with States and the present local govt, and establish provinces on a confederal basis in place of both. And in drawing the boundaries of the new provinces, ignore those of the present States.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
And again I ask, what has this got to do with Canada or Switzerland? Because what you're proposing looks nothing like the history of either country. Canadian provinces existed before federal Canada, and Swiss cantons existed before Switzerland. They weren't created by some central authority whimsically doodling on a map.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Simple - do away with States and the present local govt, and establish provinces on a confederal basis in place of both. And in drawing the boundaries of the new provinces, ignore those of the present States.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
What gave you the impression that Canada is more centralized then Australia? Some rather misinformed commentary from the 1890's in Australia aside, the opposite is the case. Currently Australia is more centralized then Canada is due to political pressure in Canada and different constitutional jurisprudence.
There is no Canadian equivalent of the First and Second Taxation Cases. Provinces have the explicit constitutional right to levy income taxes and Ottawa never wanted to go as far as raising its rates to exclusive levels and push the provinces out of the field completely through Federal Paramountcy.
Quebec has its own completely separate system parallel to the Federal system; the other provinces levy their own rates independently and use the Federal Government as their collection agent.
Second, there is no Canadian equivalent to the Social Service Referendum. Medicare is a provincial responsibility and the Federal Government simply has a general grant system for it given to provinces.
Which leads me to my fourth point, that Canada has no Tied Grant system like Australia does, far from it. Equalization is untied and the Health and Social Grants have extremely vague guarantees. The Canada Health Act has five "principles" that must be adhered to and that's it. Quebec would scream blue murder if it were ever subjected to the tied grant system that Australian States put up with.
Fifth, Australians never read far enough when studying Canada to get to the really important gentlemen, the Wicket Stepfathers of Confederation, aka the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Between 1880 and 1920 they managed to eviscerate the Federal Trade & Commerce Power in favour of the provincial Property & Civil Rights Power and vastly overused the "Local Matters" power. Canadian jurisprudence still hasn't fully recovered though admittedly the JPCC had help from Oliver Mowat, Premier of Ontario 1870-1896 and called the "Father of Provincial Rights". POGG, the Reserve Power is not used so much anymore, instead the Supreme Court prefers the "Living Tree Doctrine" which can cut either way.
Australia started out with the Reserved Powers Doctrine and then eschewed it in the Engineer's Case. Canada started out without a Reserved Powers Doctrine and managed to contrive one.
Which brings me to my last point, Australia has no counterpart to Quebec. It's like the unholy offspring of Queensland and Western Australia with the worst aspects of both parents redoubled. You try living with that!
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
SPK - it's not as simple as less centralised vs more centralised as if it's a one-dimensional continuum, there are some aspects which go each way in each country. You might remember the thread a couple of months ago where we talked about the awkward issue of the state crowns and the six bills authorising the commonwealth parliament to act on the behalf of the state with respect to the royal succession changes - and the de-patriation of the Canadian constitution along the way. At that time, you argued the Canada was more centralised than Australia and that it was a good thing!
Given that the arrangements in Canada (along with Britain, Switzerland and the USA) were looked at in the process of drafting our Constitution (both to pick the good bits and make sure mistakes weren't repeated) you can expect that where there are differences some will go either way.
As for our equivalent of Quebec, I'm sure the Principality of Hutt River should be wacky enough to count ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
My comments then were only in reference to the Crown, not to the global picture. The far greater fiscal autonomy afforded to Canadian provinces is the biggest factor that outweighs the others.
Everyone's fine with our national Criminal Code instead of provincial criminal law (which doesn't exist). Disallowance is a dead letter in Canada. The new Charter of Quebec Values, which in days gone by would have been a prime candidate for Reservation and Disallowance will instead fall on the Charter of Rights & Freedoms at the Supreme Court.
You put far too much emphasis on what people intended in 1867 and 1900 respectively, my dear giant cheeseburger. That ideal is not what either country has, see WorkStart in Australia or Securities Regulation in Canada. You have to examine what came out of the washing after the courts got done with both Constitutions.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And again I ask, what has this got to do with Canada or Switzerland? Because what you're proposing looks nothing like the history of either country. Canadian provinces existed before federal Canada, and Swiss cantons existed before Switzerland. They weren't created by some central authority whimsically doodling on a map.
I was suggesting a confederation. Both Canada and Switzerland are confederations, and perhaps we could learn from their experience. Just thinking.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mertide
Shipmate
# 4500
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And again I ask, what has this got to do with Canada or Switzerland? Because what you're proposing looks nothing like the history of either country. Canadian provinces existed before federal Canada, and Swiss cantons existed before Switzerland. They weren't created by some central authority whimsically doodling on a map.
I was suggesting a confederation. Both Canada and Switzerland are confederations, and perhaps we could learn from their experience. Just thinking.
Australian states existed before federal Australia too. I don't see them voting themselves out of existence. At least, not any apart from NSW or Victoria, perhaps. Western Australians, Queenslanders and Tasmanians are I would say at least as loyal to their state as to the federation.
Posts: 382 | From: Brisbane | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The wikipedia article on confederations takes issue with the notion of EITHER Canada or Switzerland being a confederation in modern terminology. In the case of Canada it positively states it is a federation, and in the case of Switzerland it points out that the 2 words meant exactly the same thing at the time.
And the article on 'Federation' makes the exact same points. So no, I don't think Canada and Switzerland are confederations.
[ 20. September 2013, 08:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Also, suggesting confederation and 'abolish the States' in the same breath suggests you don't actually have a clue what a confederation IS. The constituent parts of a confederation have greater autonomy, not less, than in a federation.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
It may suggest that to you, Orfeo, but I do have some idea of what a confederation is, ways in which it may operate, and how confederations have operated in the past.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Orfeo wrote:
quote:
And again I ask, what has this got to do with Canada or Switzerland? Because what you're proposing looks nothing like the history of either country. Canadian provinces existed before federal Canada, and Swiss cantons existed before Switzerland. They weren't created by some central authority whimsically doodling on a map.
Actaully, as this time-lapsed map shows, most of the Canadian provinces did not exist with their current territory at the time of Confederation, and in fact five of them did not exist at all.
BC, in fact, was outright British territory until 1871, and Newfoundland was a Falklandsy colony of the UK until 1949.
So, the Canadian provinces, as we currently know them, were largely created by central authorities carving up land on a map.
[ 20. September 2013, 09:23: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Clarification...
quote:
and in fact five of them did not exist at all.
BC and Newfoundland did exist with their current borders, but were not Canadian territory. The other three were carved out of Canadian territory after Confederation, Manitoba in various stages.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
All of which I know. All of which is remarkably similar to the history of another federal country just south of Canada.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
To which I can only add that under the Constitution Act, 1982 the boundaries of a province can only be changed with that province's consent.
Which is just like Australia, AIUI South Australia handed over the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth under provisions of the Australian Constitution to do so.
Canada can't go ripping up provinces on a whim.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
SPK beat me to it. The Northern Territory was part of Sth Australia from around 1860 until decade after federation. Perhaps others were not taught that in their Aust History classes.
Orfeo, can you not find an authority for your approach to confederation?
And Mertide, you're almost certainly right that the less populated States would be against the proposal, but that does not stop some of us thinking of alternatives to the present system, some of which would be closer to the principle of one vote, one value.
When you look at it, the only natural State boundary is the southern bank of the Murray - all others are just lines drawn on a map. Developments since have not always paid regard to what may be better boundaries. The Gold Coast/northern NSW and Albury/Wodonga are frequently cited, but the lower Murray region, starting around Mildura, is another area which has developed as a region, split amongst 3 States. Would it make sense to combine these into a province? Or perhaps to combine much of the northern end of the NT with the Pilbara and Kimberly as another? What I was suggesting is that these are matters worth considering.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mertide
Shipmate
# 4500
|
Posted
The NSW/Vic centrism that considers the Murray River a more natural border than Bass Strait is the whole point, really, of bumping the regional voting power in the Senate.
There are arguments for rather increasing the representation of the regions. Splitting into voting cantons strictly based on population, as if each say 5 House of reps were a state (and even then, you'd have to combine three western Australians with the two NT's so that mini-state would contain at least a third of Australia - how many states would Sydney contain?
Canada appears to be all over the place compared to Australia since Federation - SA getting rid of the half they didn't want to the Commonwealth has been the only significant change. I can see how you can imagine a better system, I can't for the life of me see how you intend to get a majority of states to agree to disband in a referendum.
Posts: 382 | From: Brisbane | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
My apologies - I had intended to write that it was the only natural mainland boundary, to deal with the matters you raise.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Sorry for double post, but things went wrong.
For some reason, States-Righters work on the basis that states have an existence independent to that of its citizens. You are right, as I said before, that it is very unlikely that a move to smaller provinces would succeed.
An alternative is to vary the number of senators each State returns, in an attempt to equalise the value of votes. Perhaps Tas could return 6 Senators - still more than the number of Representatives - and NSW and Vic a dozen each; other states in between.
That would of course mean fewer Senators overall. Apart from the problems in persuading the electors in a majority of States to agree, there would be the very great difficulty of persuading party machines. A Senate seat is seen as a way of rewarding one of the party faithful (a few euphemisms there) at the cost of the general public purse, rather than as a burden on party funds. But let's be honest. The pool of talent to return a dozen Senators from the larger States is very limited, and the position in the smaller ones even more so.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mertide
Shipmate
# 4500
|
Posted
The thing is, I'm not sure if the bottom right corner understands just how lightly populated the Top End is. If you take the 26th parallel (the NT border, across WA, and Qld apart from the SE corner) you have less than 2 million population, three quarters of that in Qld. Half the country, less than 1/10th the population. Sydney has more than twice that. You have population proportional representation in the Reps, the Senate goes a small way toward redressing the voice of the regions.
Posts: 382 | From: Brisbane | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Aust is called the empty continent for that very good reason. But aren't we electing representatives of the people, and don't we ascribe the philosophy of "one vote, one value"?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mertide
Shipmate
# 4500
|
Posted
In the Reps, yes. In the Senate, never has been. On a strict one person one vote for the Senate, Sydney would have a quarter of the Senators. I'm not sure that would be an improvement. Any further movement to centralize power in the Melbourne/Sydney/Canberra triangle would see at least WA and North Queensland increase their secession pressure.
While the Senate votes on party lines (largely), the parties have to take regional interests into account in their caucusing. One vote, one value could result in the country being run for the benefit of the large cities to an even greater extent than it is at present.
Posts: 382 | From: Brisbane | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Er, "Province" is used as synonymous with "state", especially when comparing India, Australia, Canada and the United States.
GeeD's use must be an OZ idiosyncrasy.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Orfeo, can you not find an authority for your approach to confederation?
I wasn't aware I was supposed to be looking for one, apart from having spent a Semester studying the Canadian system when I was at university, and 2 Wikipedia articles on federation and confederation both of which cite various sources to say that the Canadian 'confederation' is not, in modern parlance, actually a confederation, and which cite the European Union as the closest thing to a modern confederation.
I already mentioned the Wikipedia articles. Where's YOUR authority?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Er, "Province" is used as synonymous with "state", especially when comparing India, Australia, Canada and the United States.
GeeD's use must be an OZ idiosyncrasy.
More like a GeeD idiosyncrasy.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
For some reason, States-Righters work on the basis that states have an existence independent to that of its citizens.
...when exactly is the last time you read the Constitution?
There are lots of references in there to States as their own entities.
I am hardly a States-Righter. I don't even live in one. But we live in a system that was created by 6 separate colonies agreeing to join together.
Of course those 6 colonies had PEOPLE in them, but the legal world is full of countries, organisations, societies, etc etc ad infinitum that have their own legal status as you very well know. And the Constitution is chock full of references of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the States/each State. If you don't think the States really exist, one could just as easily say the Commonwealth doesn't really exist either. We're just 23 million people wandering around on a piece of land not-entirely-correctly-defined by the boundaries of a continental shelf (PNG and a few bits of Indonesia belong with us).
I'm well aware that many Senators appear to just blindly vote along party lines, but there are also those that don't, and there are also quite a few that do hard work for their particular State outside the chamber. I've seen several Senators publicly voice their views on an issue that they think is particularly relevant to their State. The ACT's Liberal Senator crossed the floor on a vote that pertained specifically to the ACT.
It's quite obvious to me that it's pointless to attempt to 'even out' the Senate vote to create a second House of Representatives, when one House of Representatives will do. The Senate is there to provide a check. I have no problem with it doing that because it doesn't actually block things that often, and it's pretty much only the more hare-brained ideas that don't get through. The Constitution already provides the means for dealing with a really serious dispute between the 2 houses, and ensures that the House of Reps will win such a dispute.
[ 21. September 2013, 02:10: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Orfeo, submissions I was making a couple of weeks ago made considerable reference to the Constitution, esp Chapter III and also to a couple of the placita in s.51. What about you?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
House of Representatives ballots are now fully counted after the expiry of the postal vote deadline last night and final postal/declaration votes counted today.
That means it's now official that the bitch is ditched in the division of Indi ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
The division of Farifax in Queensland is headed for a recount as the margin of Clive Palmer's win was only 36 votes, less than the 100 mark where a recount is automatic. He was going to exercise his right to request a recount even if it wasn't going to happen automatically, due to the large number of former military personnel who use their temporary employment with the Australian Electoral Commission to enact military coups d'etat ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mertide:
In the Reps, yes. In the Senate, never has been. On a strict one person one vote for the Senate, Sydney would have a quarter of the Senators. I'm not sure that would be an improvement. Any further movement to centralize power in the Melbourne/Sydney/Canberra triangle would see at least WA and North Queensland increase their secession pressure.
While the Senate votes on party lines (largely), the parties have to take regional interests into account in their caucusing. One vote, one value could result in the country being run for the benefit of the large cities to an even greater extent than it is at present.
Well said. It certainly would not be an improvement to have that many Senators from NSW.
Here in Perth, federalism is barely tolerated at the best of times - and that's when our population is feeling super patriotic, like during the Olympics. Or when our Premier so badly mismanages the nation's strongest economy that we need the Feds to do us a solid.
Many of us would be very happy to see reforms to the Senate voting system, to avoid ballot papers that double as bed sheets, or to ensure stupid parties (see: Australian Sports Party, Motoring Enthusiasts Party) don't get a seat despite winning a microscopic proportion of the primary vote. But no way would I be comfortable with the reforms Gee is advocating, and good luck finding a Sandgroper who would be.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Herrick
Shipmate
# 15226
|
Posted
Posted by the Giant Cheeseburger
-------------------------------------------
House of Representatives ballots are now fully counted after the expiry of the postal vote deadline last night and final postal/declaration votes counted today.
That means it's now official that the bitch is ditched in the division of Indi
--------------------------------------------
Agree with you 100%, she is one of the nastiest, mean-spirited politicians I've ever seen in our Federal sphere.
--------------------
A careless shoestring in whose tie
I see a wild civility
Posts: 1194 | From: NSW | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
As I said, the pool of talent is very limited even in the larger States. The way out is to reduce the numbers of Senators instead. The only constitutional restriction is that there be at least 6. The problem is in taking away jobs for party faithful.
It's a curiosity that it is the mendicant States which are the least federally minded. For example, had WA succeeded in seceding in 1933, within 15 years or less it probably would have been in the position of Newfoundland in the immediate post World War II years. The defence of the west coast during WW II could only have been achieved either as a part of the federation which had been left, or by calling on the stretched resources of the UK.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mertide
Shipmate
# 4500
|
Posted
What defence of the west coast? And from who? The only landing was a 4 man Japanese reconnaissance in the Kimberleys, that stayed 1 night and left. There were 3 gun placements in the south, and one of them consisted of US naval guns.
Broome was almost undefended when it was bombed. There's no evidence I know of that the West Coast was seen as anything as significant as Tenterfield, with it's tank traps.
edit traps
[ 22. September 2013, 11:01: Message edited by: mertide ]
Posts: 382 | From: Brisbane | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
AIUI, there was a considerable naval presence along the w coast, of which the fatal patrol by HMAS Sydney was only one example. Have a quick look at Randolph Stowe"s The Mery-Go-Round in the Sea for some more detail (and a good read as well).
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
The Merry-go-round in the sea is a bloody good read. You know it's a novel, right? You know - fiction?
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
It's fiction, but fiction along the lines of Dance to the Music of Time. In other words, fiction but strongly informed by author's own life growing up in Geraldton during WWII.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As I said, the pool of talent is very limited even in the larger States. The way out is to reduce the numbers of Senators instead. The only constitutional restriction is that there be at least 6. The problem is in taking away jobs for party faithful.
It's a curiosity that it is the mendicant States which are the least federally minded. For example, had WA succeeded in seceding in 1933, within 15 years or less it probably would have been in the position of Newfoundland in the immediate post World War II years. The defence of the west coast during WW II could only have been achieved either as a part of the federation which had been left, or by calling on the stretched resources of the UK.
I believe you mean WWI. Newfoundland threatened to default on its debt in 1933; the debt resulted from building the Newfoundland Railway in the 1890's and from Newfoundland's participation in WWI (namely the Newfoundland Regiment). The House of Assembly was disbanded in 1933, Responsible Government was withdrawn and the Commission of Government instituted. In 1945 Newfoundland was solvent and had a $12 million surplus on hand, though nobody expected the good times to continue.
Westminster gave such a cold shoulder to Western Australia in 1933 precisely because it didn't want another Newfoundland.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thanks SPK for the correction. I had understood that in 1948/9, the UK was a desperate vendor and Canada an unwilling purchaser. Is that right?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The UK was a most willing vendor but Canada was a most eager buyer in 1949.
Newfoundland participated in the Confederation Conferences at Charlottetown and Quebec in 1864 but was diffident, and dropped out by 1869. Confederation again was raised in 1895 when Newfoundland's banks went bust but the motion was again defeated (Canadian banks moved in anyway and Newfoundland adopted the Canadian Dollar).
Confederation was briefly discussed in 1933 but Canada didn't want a liability. However WWII changed everything.
Newfoundland was the base for air patrols over the Western Atlantic and it played a leading support role to Halifax in the Battle of the Atlantic. Newfoundland was the most heavily militarized area in North American in WWII.
Worringly for Canada, the Americans got bases there too and got a naval base at Argentia under the "Destroyers for Bases Agreement". So it was time to buy, or else.
None other then Clement Atlee chaired the British Parliamentary Committee in charge of Newfoundland during the war. He made it clear that when the War was done, Newfoundland was to go, gently, in a respectably democratic fashion. Canada quietly agreed to do what it always did in Confederation Elections, buy victory with lots of funds. Newfoundland had no election expense laws.
The Confederate Party was led by Joey Smallwood, a radio broadcaster and pig farmer. He got elected to the National Convention (a democratic fig-leaf) in 1948. The Convention sent out two delegations, one to London and one to Ottawa. The London delegation was told there was no money and that Responsible Government meant absolutely no money on any terms whatsoever.
The Ottawa Delegation was received by the Prime Minister and Clerk of the Privy Council (head of the Public Service). Headed by Smallwood, they received briefing books about what Canadian programs Newfoundlanders would receive as Canadians, the standard Provincial powers and returned with draft Terms of Union. Smallwood was also given a list of reliable Liberal donors in Toronto and Montreal to solicit funds from by the PM's Chief of Staff.
The entire Canadian elite funded the Confederate Party in the Newfoundland Referendums. The cartoons in the popular "Confederate" newspaper were drawn by the Glove & Mail's staff cartoonist and mailed to St. John's daily. All free.
Annoyingly, the Convention, stuffed full of the old elite left Confederation off the Referendum Ballot. London put it back on. Two Referendums later, Newfoundland was Canada's 10th Province and its arms were carved in the stone shield reserved for it on the entrance to the Peace Tower. Joey Smallwood was known from then on as the "Last Father of Confederation".
So yeah, London was a willing seller and Canada was a willing buyer. You must understand that when it comes to Confederation Elections, the Confederation side has no use for mere rules on spending. No effort is spared to save and expand the country, see New Brunswick 1866, Newfoundland 1949 and Quebec 1995.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
AIUI, there was a considerable naval presence along the w coast, of which the fatal patrol by HMAS Sydney was only one example.
Sydney was sunk by a German commerce raider in the course of a patrol to protect vital merchant shipping routes, not by the escorts of a Japanese invasion force.
An invasion going through WA was impossible simply because no army in the world had the capability to extend a logistical tail long enough to do anything useful. Port towns that were important for strategic logistics were of course military targets that needed self-defence capability against raids and minelaying, but that's very different to the sort of territorial defence that led to MacArthur's controversial Brisbane Line strategy.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
TGC, I don't disagree with what you're putting, but I don't think I was saying that the defence requirement was limited to forestalling an invasion of Aust through WA. Any invasion would have been limited to coastal WA, maybe as far as Kalgoorlie. The consequence of a successful invasion would have been to place that Allied shipping in the Indian Ocean under severe threat. The Kormarin's activities were targeted directly at that shipping, rather than an invasion of WA. Taking of WA coastal towns would have greatly facilitated both the privateering type activities and also formal actions.
Had either the Germans or the Japanese started to invade, an independent WA govt would have had 3 choices: to ask the Aust govt for support (which would have been forthcoming, even if it were delayed); to have sought and obtained UK assistance, with an even greater delay; or invited the invaders in for a cup of tea.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
I'm not sure why we are talking about a fictitious invasion (which, as tgc explains adroitly above, is simply logistically impossible) of a fictitiously independent WA. I am not advocating secession. I do not think it is a good idea. Australia should be united.
I was just saying, Gee, that your ideas for senatorial reform are not only not particularly good (with respect), but they would not be tolerated in WA, where federalism is something that most people - however mistaken they probably are - believe is not always in the state's best interests.
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thanks DK. I think the discussion arose from my comment that had the Westralia movement succeeded, the new dominion would have been looking to the Commonwealth from which it had seceded for protection in WW II. And from my other comment that it is the mendicant states which are those least attached to the federation.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
"It ain't over till the fat lady sings"! Yes, folks, a key part of the Australian election looks set to be re-run.
The result of the Senators to represent Western Australia having originally been decided by less then 20 votes (out of 1.3 million). It then went automatically to a recount, which had a different last 2 in the 6 elected, but again with less than 20 votes in it. Worse: 1375 votes had gone missing in between the original count and the recount!
The result affects not only a nice salary windfall for those lucky enough to be elected, but also the balance of power in the (Federal) Senate.
So the result looks set to go to the High Court, which is probably going to order an unprecedented new election for WA senators. Maybe a whole lot of new micro-parties will emerge to contest it, given the results in other states, where at least one senator was elected after getting less than 1% of the primary vote.
What do Aussie voters think?
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
I hope that voters wake up and realise not to vote for microparties who have no policies and whose opinions on issues of importance are quite unknown in the vast majority of cases. Am in support of returning to the polls in WA, suspect it will benefit the ALP, but who knows.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
What do Aussie voters think?
I think a lot of nasty things have been said about the Electoral Commission, most of them unwarranted. I've seen lots of comments along the lines of "how hard can it be?" and I'd say the answer is "quite hard, actually". I'd like to lock some people in a room with 2 million ballot papers and see how they go with getting an accurate count.
Anthony Green says that, assuming the missing ballot papers were found and were error-free from the first count, it would literally have come down to a single vote.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
My guess is that these votes haven't just vanished, and that somebody - probably an electoral commission temporary employee who didn't declare their party affiliation - has taken them. 1375 freshly printed ballot papers would be pile standing about 20cm tall, 1375 ballots which have been filled in and folded take up over twice the space - they didn't disappear through a crack in the floor.
Consider that the the Labor-Green Party was desperately fighting to minimise a record defeat, it was the Green part of the LGP which mysteriously called for a historic first Senate recount despite no credible suggestion anything went wrong with the first one, and then a whole lot of votes "went missing" (all above-the-line group ticket votes where the effect would be predictable) leading to the LGP gaining two seats they didn't from the original count. It's a little too hard to believe it's all a coincidence or a mistake.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Well, you really have out-conspiracy theory'd yourself, tgc.
A recount for a margin as small as 14 is actually pretty standard, and suggesting there was something untoward about that is absurd. When Palmer was in trouble in his seat and the margin was seven, no one had any trouble with the fact that a recount took place as a reflex.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
