Australian Politics

1261 readers
1 users here now

A place to discuss Australia Politics.

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
26
 
 

Linked is the USyd magazine article published by their Student’s Representative Council.

The article says 'over 500 students', although other sources such as Green Left estimate over 700, with even News Corp publications (The Australian, Sky News, etc.) claiming almost 800 students.

One part which isn't mentioned in those articles: Witnesses at the meeting told me there was some attempt to finish up the meeting before the second motion could be declared, which was counted with a chorus of "Let us stay!". Apparently the meeting was only scheduled for an hour and delayed by a filibuster from a S4P speaker.

27
28
 
 

Anthony ‘Each Way’ Albanese has angrily responded to claims he has been captured by the gambling industry, pointing out that the likelihood of his watered-down gambling reforms working is still paying $4, or an enticing $12 when placed in a multi with Labor winning the next election.

29
 
 

But while the Albanese government soaked up the plaudits for engineering Assange’s long overdue return, several of the signs on display that evening hinted that not everything was well on the home front. “Assange, McBride, Boyle”, offered one. Another particularly well-worn sign had the demand: “Fix the PID Act”. The WikiLeaks publisher may be free, but the Public Interest Disclosure Act – the whistleblower protection law for federal public servants in Australia – remains broken, as recent high-profile cases demonstrate all too well.

30
31
32
33
 
 

'The health of our planet hangs in the balance while those entrusted with legislative power prioritise short-term political gain over the well-being of future generations.'

[...] Disruption is a tool.

But now, disruption is a crime. We’re not climate activists; we’re criminals.

(Article is soft-paywalled, archived link if you need it)

34
 
 

In short:

  • Barnaby Joyce told protesters at a wind farm protest rally to use their ballot paper as bullets to "say goodbye" to the prime minister.

  • He apologised and conceded the metaphor wasn't appropriate when presented with footage of the rally on Monday morning.

What's next?

  • The prime minister has challenged Peter Dutton to sack Mr Joyce from the shadow cabinet.
35
36
 
 

In short:

  • Former NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian has failed to overturn the finding that she engaged in serious corrupt conduct.

  • Last year, the Independent Commission Against Corruption found Ms Berejiklian breached public trust, while serving as state premier, during her secret relationship with former NSW MP Daryl Maguire.

  • Ms Berejiklian has long insisted she always acted in the public interest, beginning legal action shortly after the corruption watchdog released its report.

37
 
 

Senior government ministers Linda Burney [Minister for Indigenous Australians] and Brendan O'Connor [Minister for Skills and Training] will retire from federal politics at the next election and immediately vacate their cabinet positions, prompting a reshuffle.

38
 
 

Linda Burney, the Minister for Indigenous Australians and first Aboriginal woman in the lower house, will retire from politics at the next election.

Skills and Training Minister Brendan O'Connor, who also sits in cabinet, will join Ms Burney to retire at the end of this term of government.

The pair will step down from their positions as ministers immediately, prompting a ministry refresh.

Announcing their retirements, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he was proud to call Ms Burney and Mr O'Connor his friends.

"I am proud to have witnessed first-hand their passion for this nation, their determination to leave this country better," he said.

Labor will call for nominations to its frontbench, and Mr Albanese expects to announce his new ministry on Sunday, when they will be sworn in.

Ms Burney has represented the Sydney seat of Barton since 2016, when she became the first Indigenous woman elected to the House of Representatives, and later the first Indigenous woman to serve as Indigenous Australians minister.

39
 
 

Just in case anyone here still thinks nuclear is viable.

40
 
 

Author: Paul Strangio, Emeritus Professor of Politics, Monash University

For nearly 200 years, the notion of American political exceptionalism has had currency in the United States: it is an idea rooted in the nation’s status as the first modern republic. As we watch from afar, disturbed yet mesmerised by the latest chapter of violent political division in America, the country seems less a paragon than a symbol of democratic pathology.

America’s certainty in its political uniqueness is symptomatic of a brash national chauvinism. By way of contrast, Australia is prone, if anything, to undue bashfulness about its democratic credentials. How else can we explain that this month marks the centenary of the most extraordinary feature of the country’s democratic architecture, and yet the anniversary is slipping by with neither comment nor reflection. I refer to compulsory voting, which was legislated in the federal parliament in July 1924.

Compulsory voting is not unique to Australia. Calculating how many countries abide by the practice is notoriously difficult, since in around half the nations where compulsory voting exists in name it is not enforced. Most estimates, however, put the figure in the vicinity of 20 to 30.

If not unique, Australia’s experience of compulsory voting is highly distinctive for a number of reasons.

First, its emergence in the early 20th century was consistent with the nation’s larger tradition of innovation and experimentation when it came to electoral institutions and practices. This record is typically traced back to the pioneering in the 1850s of the secret ballot (sometimes called the “Australian ballot”) in a number of the Australian colonies and the embrace of other advanced democratic measures in the second half of the 19th century.

These included manhood suffrage, payment of MPs and the extension of the franchise to women, beginning in South Australia in 1894. The innovations continued in the 20th century with such things as preferential voting and non-partisan bureaucratic electoral administration.

Second, Australia is alone in embracing compulsory voting among the Anglophone democracies to which it typically compares itself. The electoral systems of Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States are all based on voluntary voting.

Third, unlike many other compulsory voting countries, Australia does not pay lip service to its operation. Electoral authorities enforce compulsory voting, albeit leniently. It has been strongly upheld by the courts and is backed by a regime of sanctions for non-compliance.

Fourth, compulsory voting has been consistently and unambiguously successful in achieving high voter turnout. Though there has been a slight downward trend in turnout at the past five national elections (it hit a low of 90.5% in 2022), it has not fallen below 90% since the adoption of compulsory voting a century ago.

This is around 30% higher than the recent average turnout in countries with voluntary voting. It is also well above the recent average in countries with compulsory voting systems.

Fifth, the public has strongly and consistently backed the practice. Evidence from more than half a century of opinion polls and election study surveys shows support hovering around the 70% mark.

An impregnable practice

Perhaps the most singular aspect of the nation’s experience of compulsory voting, however, is how seemingly impregnable is the practice if measured by its durability, the dearth of controversy over it, the consistency of its enforcement by authorities and the way citizens have dutifully complied with and supported it. Together these things make Australia an exemplar of compulsory voting internationally.

This is not to say compulsory voting has been a sacred cow in Australia. In the final decades of the 20th century and first decade of this century, there was a concerted push to end the practice emanating principally from within the Liberal Party.

The torchbearer of the agitation for voluntary voting was the avowed libertarian South Australian senator, Nick Minchin. For Minchin, compulsory voting was anathema:

[…] in relation to the most important single manifestation of democratic will, the act of voting, I profoundly detest Australia’s denial of individual choice. It seems to me that an essential part of a liberal democracy should be the citizen’s legal right to decide whether or not to vote. The denial of that right is an affront to democracy.

Minchin had a number of like-minded supporters of voluntary voting in the Liberal Party. Among them, importantly, was John Howard, whose prime ministership coincided with the mobilisation to abolish compulsory voting.

Howard had been on record as an opponent of the practice since his entry to the federal parliament in 1974. The Liberal Party campaign against compulsory voting manifested in, among other things:

  • the party’s federal council resolving in favour of voluntary voting
  • shadow cabinet endorsing a recommendation for a change of policy to voluntary voting being placed before the joint Liberal-National party parliamentary room
  • the introduction in the South Australian parliament of two bills to repeal compulsory voting by successive Liberal state governments
  • Coalition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters repeatedly recommending the abolition of the practice.

In the end, these agitations achieved nought. The most fundamental reason was that the opponents of compulsory voting failed to generate community resentment towards the system. Howard, while restating his preference for voluntary voting, admitted as much in 2005 when shutting down debate on the issue in his government:

As I move around the country, I don’t get people stopping me in the street and saying, “You’ve got to get rid of compulsory voting.”

Indeed, election survey data suggests the Liberal campaign coincided with a firming of public support for compulsory voting. In the two decades since, opposition has been dormant. For the foreseeable future, Australia’s compulsory voting regime is secure.

An Australian democratic exceptionalism?

As noted above, compulsory voting has kept voter turnout at elections above 90% for the past century. Kindred democracies marvel at, and envy, this level of participation. It affords legitimacy to election outcomes in this country. Significantly, it also produces a socially even turnout.

Compare this to the situation in this month’s United Kingdom election. Turnout is estimated to have slumped to a record low 52%. There was a clear pattern of the “haves” exercising much greater say at the ballot box than the “have nots”. Those who stayed away from the polls were predominantly less well-off, non-homeowners, the young, the lower-educated and of minority ethnic background.

Australia cannot be complacent in this regard. Low and declining turnout in remote electorates with high Indigenous populations is the most worrying chink in the performance of compulsory voting. In 2022, turnout in the Northern Territory seat of Lingiari fell to 66.8%. Even so, the practice largely succeeds in achieving inclusive voter participation across the country.

Crucially, compulsory voting is also recognised as one reason the political centre holds better in Australia than in many comparable nations. It exercises a moderating influence because it ensures it is not only impassioned partisans at either end of the political spectrum who participate in elections. This in turn means they are not the chief focus of governments and political parties.

Under a compulsory voting system, middle-of-the-road citizens and their concerns and sensibilities count. This inhibits the trend towards polarisation and grievance politics evident in other parts of the globe. It helps explain why Australia has been less receptive to the aggressive conservative populism that has taken root in the United States and Europe.

Compulsory voting also goes hand in hand with other institutional bulwarks of the nation’s democracy. While there is plenty of evidence in Australia of increasing disaffection with politics, one thing that helps bolster faith in the democratic system is the politically independent national electoral authority, the Australian Electoral Commission.

The AEC’s trusted impartial administration of the electoral system lends integrity to the democratic process. So do the many procedures it manages to facilitate voting. To name a few: Saturday election days, assistance for the ill, aged and those from non-English-speaking backgrounds, mobile polling stations, postal, absentee and early voting, and active and regular updating of registration.

Indeed, Australia has been described as “the most voter-friendly country in the world”. Compulsory voting encourages this accessibility: if citizens are obliged to vote, then it becomes incumbent to smooth the path to them participating. The ease of voting in Australia contrasts with what goes on elsewhere, for example, the rampant state-based voter-suppression practices in the United States.

Dare we suggest, then, that compulsory voting is a mainstay of an Australian democratic exceptionalism? That we little note, let alone extol, the practice is perhaps not only a product of an inherent national modesty but because it is second nature after 100 years. Habituated to being compelled to participate in elections, we are inured to its specialness.

Let’s hope this casual familiarity does not induce apathy rather than vigilance when next the system is challenged.

41
 
 

Foreign Minister Penny Wong was forced to concede that Australia was exporting parts into the F-35 global supply chain but then doubled down. She told ABC Insiders on 16 June: “We have F-35s… we are part of 18 nations who are part of that consortia. We are involved in non-lethal parts…”

The UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) makes no mention of the lethality of the individual parts or components that comprise the weapons (“conventional arms”) it covers.

The Arms Trade Treaty and the Geneva Conventions are clear on human rights responsibilities. Article 6.3 states that a nation-state should not authorise any transfer of conventional arms if it knows at the time that the items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, or other war crimes.

Much more in the article

42
 
 

It's not $238, it's $238 OVER the level of rort that would simply get him a slap on the fingers.

What sort of "crime and punishment" message is sent if this doesn't get him booted?

43
 
 

Full transcription:

Israel kills Palestinian men, women, and children, and then they look around the world and they don't receive a single sanction, a single sanction to stop. They are emboldened and they keep acting. I mean, this motion is a joke. It is a joke "as part of a peace process". What peace process? Israel is carrying out a genocide. Israel is carrying out a genocide in Gaza. It's not a peace process. Why is it that 146 countries could find it within their hearts to recognise Palestine right now. Why is it that the Australian Government refuses?

How is it that when a Labor Senator, Senator Payman, who had the principles and the courage to cross the floor to vote with the Greens to immediately recognise Palestine, why is it that Senator Payman face [sic] more sanctions than Labor has dished out against Israel?

What do you all do? What does this Labor Government do? They can recognise Israel but they can't immediately recognise Palestine. You can't end two-way arms trade. You can't cancel the Elbit Systems contract. You can't sanction Israel. And you should all be deeply, deeply ashamed.

— Max Chandler-Mather MP, Member for Griffith

44
 
 

“We are a party that is built on tolerance, acceptance and a diversity of opinion” one talking point read, accompanied by a note in the margin which declared “SAY THIS PHRASE IN YOUR MEDIA INTERVIEWS TODAY OR PENNY AND I WILL NEVER TALK TO YOU AGAIN!”

45
1
🎥 Fatima Payman announces decision to quit Labor Party (mediacore-live-production.akamaized.net)
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by Zagorath@aussie.zone to c/australianpolitics@aussie.zone
 
 

I am torn, deeply torn. On one hand, I have the immense support of the rank-and-file members, unionists, the lifelong the party volunteers, who are calling on me to hang in there and to make change happen internally.

On the other hand, I am pressured to conform to Caucus solidarity and toe the party line.

I see no middle ground and my conscience leaves me no choice.

46
47
48
 
 

This is fucked reporting right? The quote they use as evidence is her saying something is "in God's hands". Elsewhere articles are run using quotes of her praying to god.

This is like, extremely normal lexicon for even casually religious people right? I'm an atheist with a pretty negative view of religion and to me this looks like pearl clutching.

Lots of extremely normal people say "I am praying for guidance" when they're reflecting on something. That in isolation doesn't mean they expect a hedge to catch fire and tell them what to do...

If our standard is pollies never mention religion then we might want to do some stuff about the Lord's prayer, the oaths, and the magical mace of the Royal cult.

49
 
 

Anthony Albanese said Fatima Payman disrupted the government's messages around cost of living relief by conducting an interview to declare she would cross the floor again to vote in support of Palestinian statehood.

Related coverage:

50
 
 

Distinguished journalist and publisher Julian Assange is free and finally home, but he spent 13 years in detention, of which over 5 years in a high security prison before being sentenced to time served. The empire's clutches reach far and wide. Australia and the United Kingdom accept the US' jurisdictional overreach. The precedent set by his decade and a half of persecution and torture will have lasting consequences for our right to speak and hear of US government crimes. Julian was coerced to plead guilty to the crime of journalism as criminalised by the Espionage Act (1917) even as he believes it is in contradiction with the First Amendment of the US constitution. Today we celebrate Julian's return home to us. Tomorrow we declare our independence.

view more: ‹ prev next ›