The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Separation of powers? Is that a trick question? > Comments

Separation of powers? Is that a trick question? : Comments

By Greg Barns, published 28/6/2006

Our democratic tradition is being undermined by the Howard Government.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
When I read, "Greg Barns is a former senior advisor to the Howard Government. After being disendorsed as Liberal candidate for the Tasmanian seat of Denison he joined the Democrats" I had almost read enough to know he is just another arsehole masquerading as a politician, if that is the correct way to phrase it.
Posted by citizen, Wednesday, 28 June 2006 5:36:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps we may have forgotten that the incumbent Liberals hold a Senate 'majority' - this in itself is a powerful tool with which to legislate, (all too often without a proper 'debate' as such).

In the dead of night bills get their second readings, get the nod and pass on into law, meanwhile human rights (with monotonous regularity) are shelved, negated and disregarded in the process.

With the lamented loss of an effective 'opposition' we see the forgone conclusions enacted on a daily basis.

Remembering Ben Franklins famous words: "Those who would give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The greatest lie is the one of Australian 'democracy', perpetuated, fostered, and touted since Federation. We are a Monarchic - autocratic society, the senate majority exercised by Howard's Fascists is living testament to it.

Wake Up Australia - Land of the Anal Ostriches. Heads firmly planted in our fundamental orifices - oblivious to all but Murdoch, Packer and Fox realpolitik. Swallowing the mac Donald's line of political correctness, a craft devoid of helmsmen, a ship about to broach upon the reef of regional appeasement.

Well may we say "god save the queens", because the lavender mafia, feminazis and assorted buffoons have not come up with plausible answers thus far, and God help us when the day of reckoning is knocking at the door. Your politically myopic, single view perspectives are our greatest undoing.

Emigrate and give it all back to the kangaroos I say!
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Wednesday, 28 June 2006 7:16:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rossco, the irony of Cooper's incompetent answer to Quentin Dempster's question on the separation of the powers was that it came less than 12 months after Joh's similar blunder in the Fitzgerald enquiry http://www.ozpolitics.info/rules/sep.htm This demonstrated that in the wake of Fitzgerald the Queensland Nats, like the Bourbons, "had learnt nothing and forgotten nothing".

Plerdsus, I have seen it argued that our Constitution, being a very sketchy document, was designed as an open framework to allow maximum flexibility for politicians and judiciary. It is not an argument I agree with, but whenever any article on this forum suggests a bill of rights (or other similar codification of constitutional rights) the idea is always howled down as being a recipe for a "lawyers picnic". Seems you can't please everyone. And please, what exactly is the point of railing against American "judicial activism"? How is it relevant to Australia?

I can only presume that the reference to commonwealth control over aviation is a plea for States rights. If so, who cares? Aside from State politicians (for whom it is a meal ticket), you could hold a States Rights Conference in a phone box.
Posted by Johnj, Wednesday, 28 June 2006 8:37:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The sacred document, the revered scroll, the omnipotent scribble called the Australian Constitution - does not enshrine the most basic right - the 'right to life'. What good is it if even this is not proscribed?

Anachronistic arsehole fodder - nothing more!

Democracy - what a wank!
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Wednesday, 28 June 2006 8:48:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Refering to the doctrine of seperation of power it states that the three government instituitions are suppose to be seperated from each other that is Executive, Legislative and Judicial body which means that each body has equal power prescribe in the Constitution.

Aim for seperating the power is to prevent abuse of power in any of the government institution. However, there are arguements that High Court exercise too much power. I doubt that High Court does exercise too much power.

What do you think ?
Posted by JunKen, Wednesday, 28 June 2006 9:18:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hang on,gang.

We don't have separation of powers in Australia. Not in its classical sense. We have a Westminster system of "Responsible Government" based on a fundamental abrogation of the separation of powers. The seniormost executive agency (the cabinet) must be drawn from the legislature (Constitution, s.64). Thus by definition the Prime Minister controls both the executive, and the lower house.

Under responsible government, the legislature is supposed to hold the government to account (hence "responsible") because the legislature can toss the government out at will, by voting no confidence or by defeating a budget measure.

Naturally, these days that does not happen because of our over-disciplined party system. In the US or UK, "crossing the floor" barely raises an eyebrow. It's institutionalised in the UK with the system of one, two and three line whips, and in the US the majority party regularly relies on support from the minority party to offset leakage from its own side. Not so in Australia, where most backbenchers do little more than make up the numbers.

This is why Barns is onto something, although he argues it clumsily. It's not about separation of powers, it's about responsible government. By putting government majorities and government chairs in charge of all committees, the government has effectively removed the last real avenue by which the legislature held the executive accountable. Responsible government becomes utterly compromised when the legislature lacks such tools.

So now we have unresonsible government. From there, of course, it is but a tiny step to irresponsible government.

The obvious answer to this is that the people can toss out the government. Two problems there. First, that would be an elective dictatorship, where we elect a government for three years and then are completely unable to control it. Second, last week the government used its numbers in the Senate to fundamentally change the laws for elections in a way which, surprise surprise, helped the Liberal Party and hindered the Labor Party. When a party abuses its control of the legislature to tilt the electoral system in its own favour ... Bjelke anybody?

Anth
Posted by Anth, Thursday, 29 June 2006 8:54:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy