Dear Banjo,

The Westminster system violates Montesquieu’s checks and balances. He proposed a system of government where one body (the legislature) makes the laws, another body (the executive) enforces the laws and a third body (the judiciary) interprets the laws and specifies penalties for those who violate the law. These three bodies check and balance each other. In Australia the government is part of parliament. There is no separate executive. To secure an independent judiciary judicial appointments by the executive must be discussed, debated and approved by parliament after such discussion and debate. In Queensland Premier Campbell appointed Carmody to be chief justice. Other members of the judiciary and many members of the legal profession pointed out his lack of qualifications, but Campbell Newman’s will be done. Apparently Carmody was a crony of Newman. In Australia Montesquieu is a dead letter.

I prefer a free society. A low-risk society is not the same. Nazi Germany was a low-risk society. Provided a German kept quiet and was not a member of a group not favoured by the government life was great. Social services were excellent, and streets were safe to walk on at any time during day or night.

Free speech is at a premium in Australia. Defamation laws can be used by the powerful and wealthy to quiet critics. Jo in Queensland used them in that way. Defamation laws are not the same as libel laws. Truth is no defence. Recently a broadcaster for SBS was fired because of certain remarks he made on social media. I regard his remarks as offensive. However, if we have free speech one has the right to make remarks others may find offensive. If he had made those remarks while broadcasting it might have been a cause for dismissal. Malcolm Turnbull called the director of SBS to mention the broadcaster who was summarily dismissed. Later Turnbull maintained that he didn’t ask for the man to be dismissed but only pointed out the comments by the man. Of course he didn’t need to say he wanted the broadcaster’s dismissal. The director got the message.

Continued

Continued

IMHO one measure of the worth of a society is how it treats those at the bottom. Two groups at the bottom are asylum seekers and Aborigines. Asylum seekers are held in hell-holes which are made difficult for reporters to access. I know a plumber who goes on contract to work at the offshore detention centres. His employment carries the proviso that he must not talk about what he sees there. After the inquiry concerning Aboriginal deaths in Custody most of the recommendations were not carried out.

Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR) and the Refugee Action Collective are two organisations concerned with Aboriginal rights and the asylum seekers. I have been active in both. I find it deplorable that both Labor and the Libs are united to show how tough they can get with the boat people.

I have a very good life in Australia. On our veranda I am surrounded by greenery. This morning while my wife was tossing bits of meat to the kookaburras, butcherbirds, noisy miners and magpies that come around for their handout we saw a wallaby. Lorikeets, rosellas and other brightly coloured birds come around to the seed feeder.

However, I am mindful of those who don’t have such a good life.
I also think that the religious opinions or lack of them by its citizens should be no business of government. Yet Australia funds chaplains, largely fundamentalists, in the public schools. They are beasts of pray, preying on innocent children. I have also contributed to the lawsuits which seek to end that funding.

With all that Australia is far better than most countries. However, there remains great room for improvement.

While highly appreciative of the author’s historical insight and careful analysis I feel I must differ profoundly from any notion that war is in itself an evil. Aggression and expansion through conquest are evils, resistance to both is noble and failure to resist is suicidal. Exercising imperial control over distant populations against their will is an evil, resistance to it is noble. The American Revolution was noble and failure to pursue it would have been craven and suicidal.

However evil lurks in warfare directed to resisting injustice even though war directed to imposing injustice is unalloyed evil. Promoting a culture of instant, abject, unquestioning obedience is what the jingoistic Anzac Day ballyhoo is all about, brought to a ridiculous crescendo in the 100th anniversary extravaganza. Even worse, the objective of the Anzac landing was not to resist aggression but to serve British geopolitical ambitions far from the primary theatre and purpose of the war.

.

Dear David,

.

« The Westminster system violates Montesquieu’s checks and balances. »
.

Point well taken, David. I couldn’t agree with you more.

Not surprisingly, it seems there is no perfect system. There is no doubt that the checks and balances of the American Washington system are far more effective (at least in their conception) than those of the Westminster parliamentary system, even in its most highly developed form (including a federal constitution and bicameral parliament).

But despite that, the authors of the Human Rights Atlas 2015 consider that Australia is a “low risk” country and the US a “medium risk” country.

I found this interesting analysis of the “Pros and Cons of the Westminster or Parliamentary System on the internet :

http://www.southsearepublic.org/article/2811/read/pros_and_cons_of_the_westminster_or_parliamentary_system/

I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed by the obsequious attitude of my compatriots vis-à-vis the British monarchy and the “mother country” and its institutions. There has never been much in the way of reciprocity in the relationship. We began as slaves and abandoned by our masters to our sad fate at a crucial moment in our history when in dire straits and most in need of their help and protection. We, on the other hand, have always rushed to their aid whenever they called to arms, regardless of the cause, be it just or not.

As EmperorJulian points put on this thread :

« … the objective of the Anzac landing was not to resist aggression but to serve British geopolitical ambitions far from the primary theatre and purpose of the war. »

Sadly, after all these years, we have still not managed to shake off the heavy yoke of our self-inflicted servitude.

It has been suggested that we might reconsider the possibility of abandoning our constitutional monarchy and setting up a republic at the demise of our dear Queen Elizabeth II.

We’ll just have to wait and see - and hope for the best !

.