Australia - New PM?

[Rust Never Sleeps]

Publicus, as you call yourself a political junkie ,I thought I could add a little more.

In 1972 the Australia Labor Party under Mr Whitlam won office after 27 years in the political wilderness.

In 1974 the Liberal Party blocked the supply of the budget causing an election which the Australian Labor Party won.

In 1975 the Liberal Party again blocked the supply of the budget causing the sacking of the government by the Governer-General(the Queens representative and a member of an affiliated CIA group in the 50s) and elections were held that year which the Liberal Party won.

The pretext for the sacking was the incompetence of Labors economic performance ( true to an extent), but what has later been revealed is the involvement of the CIA and NSA in helping the Liberal party in undermining the Labor Party due to its hostility towards aspects of US foreign policy,(intellignce gathering,Pine Gap as one example).What influence the CIA and NSA is open to conjecture.

Under the agreement of Pine Gap, the US government is not obliged to inform the Australian government on its information collected.

I have only given an outline of the events of the situation.

[Old Croc]

Some polls are showing huge improvement for Labor:

[Old Croc]

Another one goes.

Former climate change minister Greg Combet will leave parliament at the next election

Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/political-news/combet-to-exit-federal-politics-20130629-2p3ps.html#ixzz2XaLJUjRt

[chooka]

Publicus, as you call yourself a political junkie ,I thought I could add a little more.

In 1972 the Australia Labor Party under Mr Whitlam won office after 27 years in the political wilderness.

In 1974 the Liberal Party blocked the supply of the budget causing an election which the Australian Labor Party won.

In 1975 the Liberal Party again blocked the supply of the budget causing the sacking of the government by the Governer-General(the Queens representative and a member of an affiliated CIA group in the 50s) and elections were held that year which the Liberal Party won.

The pretext for the sacking was the incompetence of Labors economic performance ( true to an extent), but what has later been revealed is the involvement of the CIA and NSA in helping the Liberal party in undermining the Labor Party due to its hostility towards aspects of US foreign policy,(intellignce gathering,Pine Gap as one example).What influence the CIA and NSA is open to conjecture.

Under the agreement of Pine Gap, the US government is not obliged to inform the Australian government on its information collected.

I have only given an outline of the events of the situation.

Whilst the only actual direct piece of evidence of CIA involvement in the 1975 Dismissal comes from Chris Boyce (of "Falcon and the Snowman" fame) who claimed during his espionage trial that the whole reason why he decided to start spying against the US was because of a misdirected CIA message he received at TRW's Black Room, which acknowledged the involvement of the CIA, there are other pointers

http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/resources/history/whitlam_coup.html

A piece from the movie at 9.45 refers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YzzeMDJ4lvk

[Sing_Sling]

Picture game:

Shame that Abbot will be the next PM instead of Turnbull, though

[David48]

Shame that Abbot will be the next PM instead of Turnbull, though

Do I assume that it is a poisoned chalice?

I reckon that Malcolm Turnbull is playing the long game.

And I agree ... I'm a Turnbull fan.

.

[Sing_Sling]

It is indeed . . .

[samran]

The return of financial stability again and an effort to reduce the massive debt that Labour has run the country into. As usual Australia was billions of dollars in the black, but Labour spent it all on junk and "give aways" in a short time and then began borrowing and spending like a drunken sailor. The Nat/Libs will stop all this and start to repair the damage done. This happens every time the nation gets a Labour govt. They could'nt manage a piss up in a brewery without going broke !

I dont know about that.

The economic reforms from Hawke and Keating and things like tarriff cuts under Whitlam have helped put Australia in the enviable economic position it is in today

I agree with oldsailor35 (paraphrasing) that Labor is usually about Social change and the Coalition is usually more fiscally conservative.

However, BookMan has a good point with some actions of Labor governments past.

The floating of the Australian Dollar and ...

... the Introduction of the Superannuation scheme

are two initiatives, introduced by Labor that were great ideas and continue to serve this country well.

.

lowering tariffs

Medicare

Access to university regardless of financial back ground

...and in time, pricing of carbon and disabilty insurance.

From Howard we got bloated middle class welfare (baby bonus, expanded first home buyer grants, scrapping of petrol indexation, 30% private health care rebate so people could get accupuncture and yoga classes on their 'extra's). Plus a GST, but I actually think that is a good thng.

Gawd help us now Rudd is back. The guy is the ultimate 'look at moy' populist.

[FDog]

It will be interesting to see what impact voting for the Wikileaks Party will have by way of preferences on the election outcome for Liberal/Labor seats

Prior to Kevin coming into play I would say there was going to be a lot wasted votes on the minor parties. Both Gillard and Abbott have been viewed by a large portion of the public to be unsuitable for P.M.

If it wasn't against the law not to vote how many people would actually turn up? Personally I think Australians should be given the "freedom" to think for themselves and make their own choice if they actually want to vote. Yes I stand on the conveyor belt with all the other miserable looking people who wish they were somewhere else (Football finals) get my name checked off and then walk straight out the door without voting. Will refuse to do so until there is someone to vote for.

The only issue I have with voluntary voting is that, in general, aussies hate politicians and not many would leave the footy to go and vote. As it is, a lot of people just do an informal vote to show their displeasure at who is running.

The lack of many people voting could cause vocal minorities could lobby a party for favours in order to get their block vote. This could be dangerous as a minority mindset could determine who gets into govt.

Compulsory voting does tend to get the result of the majority of people, or at least close enough. Though in saying that, it isn't compulsory to actually vote, it is compulsory to attend the electoral office to have your name ticked off.

[chooka]

ALP and Coalition neck and neck, poll

The poll, published in Sunday's News Ltd newspapers, also shows most voters think Mr Rudd will be a better prime minister than Mr Abbott, scoring 51 per cent compared to Mr Abbott's 34 per cent.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/06/29/23/43/alp-and-coaltion-neck-and-neck-poll

[Sing_Sling]

Has Rudd smoked some muscle-tobakky?

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/howard-blasts-rudd-over-disgraceful-indonesian-comments-20130629-2p3p3.html

Sadly he has begun his campaign very, very badly for the country . . . I had massive sympathy with him previously, but that is gone now . . . also, judging from the relatively closely won return to power - who is going to be our PM a year from now? With the Libs it will be whoever was elected . . . with Labor????

[Publicus]

Publicus, as you call yourself a political junkie ,I thought I could add a little more.

In 1972 the Australia Labor Party under Mr Whitlam won office after 27 years in the political wilderness.

In 1974 the Liberal Party blocked the supply of the budget causing an election which the Australian Labor Party won.

In 1975 the Liberal Party again blocked the supply of the budget causing the sacking of the government by the Governer-General(the Queens representative and a member of an affiliated CIA group in the 50s) and elections were held that year which the Liberal Party won.

The pretext for the sacking was the incompetence of Labors economic performance ( true to an extent), but what has later been revealed is the involvement of the CIA and NSA in helping the Liberal party in undermining the Labor Party due to its hostility towards aspects of US foreign policy,(intellignce gathering,Pine Gap as one example).What influence the CIA and NSA is open to conjecture.

Under the agreement of Pine Gap, the US government is not obliged to inform the Australian government on its information collected.

I have only given an outline of the events of the situation.

Yes, all of that - and more - is known, and not from the movie.

When the order of then Gov Gen Sir John Kerr was publicly read to dismiss the Whitlam government, it was spontaneously pronounced, "God Save The Queen!" You'd have to admit, Whitlam's government had been, still is, the only government to have suffered a double dissolution in the parliament.

Moreover, had London appointed, as you imply, a CIA operative as governor general of the Commonwealth of Australia, then that would be a matter to discuss with the appointing authority of the time, in London - and you know where in London. (As of just recently, the governor general no longer is appointed from London, s/he is instead appointed by Australians)

You omit that, In the subsequent general election, the Conservatives soundly defeated Whitlam and the Labor party.

I think that domestically Whitlam and the Labor party did a great deal for Australians and Australia. In certain aspects of his foreign policy, however, he got on somebody's wrong side.

[FDog]

Publicus, as you call yourself a political junkie ,I thought I could add a little more.

In 1972 the Australia Labor Party under Mr Whitlam won office after 27 years in the political wilderness.

In 1974 the Liberal Party blocked the supply of the budget causing an election which the Australian Labor Party won.

In 1975 the Liberal Party again blocked the supply of the budget causing the sacking of the government by the Governer-General(the Queens representative and a member of an affiliated CIA group in the 50s) and elections were held that year which the Liberal Party won.

The pretext for the sacking was the incompetence of Labors economic performance ( true to an extent), but what has later been revealed is the involvement of the CIA and NSA in helping the Liberal party in undermining the Labor Party due to its hostility towards aspects of US foreign policy,(intellignce gathering,Pine Gap as one example).What influence the CIA and NSA is open to conjecture.

Under the agreement of Pine Gap, the US government is not obliged to inform the Australian government on its information collected.

I have only given an outline of the events of the situation.

Yes, all of that - and more - is known, and not from the movie.

When the order of then Gov Gen Sir John Kerr was publicly read to dismiss the Whitlam government, it was spontaneously pronounced, "God Save The Queen!" You'd have to admit, Whitlam's government had been, still is, the only government to have suffered a double dissolution in the parliament.

Moreover, had London appointed, as you imply, a CIA operative as governor general of the Commonwealth of Australia, then that would be a matter to discuss with the appointing authority of the time, in London - and you know where in London. (As of just recently, the governor general no longer is appointed from London, s/he is instead appointed by Australians)

You omit that, In the subsequent general election, the Conservatives soundly defeated Whitlam and the Labor party.

I think that domestically Whitlam and the Labor party did a great deal for Australians and Australia. In certain aspects of his foreign policy, however, he got on somebody's wrong side.

Yes, the US govt's wrong side. That is the point.

I have vague recollections of way back then. But I query your thoughts on London appointing the governor general.

I'm not so sure they appoint anyone, just rubber stamp whovever is put forward. I believe it is the aus govt that decides who is the gov gen.

[ripstanley]

You are correct FDog. Whitlam appointed Kerr as Governor General.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerr_(governor-general)

Kerr was appointed Chief Justice of New South Wales in 1972. He was knighted in the New Year's Honours of 1974. Sir Paul Hasluck was due to retire as Governor-General in July 1974, and the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, needed to find a suitable replacement. His first choice, Ken Myer, declined; he then offered the post to Sir John, who accepted on condition that he could expect to have ten years in the office, and that he could represent Australia overseas as Head of State.^[3] Kerr was announced as Governor-General-designate on 27 February 1974.^[4][5] Kerr did not know Whitlam well, but he had remained friends with several ministers in Whitlam's government, such as Jim McClelland and Joe Riordan.

[Publicus]

You are correct FDog. Whitlam appointed Kerr as Governor General.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerr_(governor-general)

Kerr was appointed Chief Justice of New South Wales in 1972. He was knighted in the New Year's Honours of 1974. Sir Paul Hasluck was due to retire as Governor-General in July 1974, and the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, needed to find a suitable replacement. His first choice, Ken Myer, declined; he then offered the post to Sir John, who accepted on condition that he could expect to have ten years in the office, and that he could represent Australia overseas as Head of State.^[3] Kerr was announced as Governor-General-designate on 27 February 1974.^[4][5] Kerr did not know Whitlam well, but he had remained friends with several ministers in Whitlam's government, such as Jim McClelland and Joe Riordan.

I would add that the then governor general Sir John Kerr conferred with the chief justice of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick, prior to dismissing the government.

[Rust Never Sleeps]

Publicus, as you call yourself a political junkie ,I thought I could add a little more.

In 1972 the Australia Labor Party under Mr Whitlam won office after 27 years in the political wilderness.

In 1974 the Liberal Party blocked the supply of the budget causing an election which the Australian Labor Party won.

In 1975 the Liberal Party again blocked the supply of the budget causing the sacking of the government by the Governer-General(the Queens representative and a member of an affiliated CIA group in the 50s) and elections were held that year which the Liberal Party won.

The pretext for the sacking was the incompetence of Labors economic performance ( true to an extent), but what has later been revealed is the involvement of the CIA and NSA in helping the Liberal party in undermining the Labor Party due to its hostility towards aspects of US foreign policy,(intellignce gathering,Pine Gap as one example).What influence the CIA and NSA is open to conjecture.

Under the agreement of Pine Gap, the US government is not obliged to inform the Australian government on its information collected.

I have only given an outline of the events of the situation.

Yes, all of that - and more - is known, and not from the movie.

When the order of then Gov Gen Sir John Kerr was publicly read to dismiss the Whitlam government, it was spontaneously pronounced, "God Save The Queen!" You'd have to admit, Whitlam's government had been, still is, the only government to have suffered a double dissolution in the parliament.

Moreover, had London appointed, as you imply, a CIA operative as governor general of the Commonwealth of Australia, then that would be a matter to discuss with the appointing authority of the time, in London - and you know where in London. (As of just recently, the governor general no longer is appointed from London, s/he is instead appointed by Australians)

You omit that, In the subsequent general election, the Conservatives soundly defeated Whitlam and the Labor party.

I think that domestically Whitlam and the Labor party did a great deal for Australians and Australia. In certain aspects of his foreign policy, however, he got on somebody's wrong side.

Firstly, I did not imply that London appointed the G/G as a CIA operative.He at one stage sought pre-selection as a candidate for the ALP in the 1950's but became disallusioned after the ALP moved to the left, in his opinion.

Secondly,I did mention that the Liberal Party did win win the election in 1975,but omitted the word, landslide.

Thirdly, the G/G is a cerermonial position to sign papers on behalf of the present day government.

Also I would like to add that only the states of Victoria and New South Wales have newspapers that are not controlled by a right leaning idealogies(now controlled by News Corp). So the information that was at the given the time was one-sided in the other states.

Australia has always been a conservative country but has not allowed itself to become obsessed about politics which probably led to the ALP's loss in 1975 through their lack of awareness to what was going on at the time.

One of the saving grace's in Australia is 90% of the people at the end of the day know there is not much difference between the two major parties and life goes on as usual in this modern day and age.(my opinion).

BTW I do know that the Australian parliament elects the G/G.

[samran]

Publicus, as you call yourself a political junkie ,I thought I could add a little more.

In 1972 the Australia Labor Party under Mr Whitlam won office after 27 years in the political wilderness.

In 1974 the Liberal Party blocked the supply of the budget causing an election which the Australian Labor Party won.

In 1975 the Liberal Party again blocked the supply of the budget causing the sacking of the government by the Governer-General(the Queens representative and a member of an affiliated CIA group in the 50s) and elections were held that year which the Liberal Party won.

The pretext for the sacking was the incompetence of Labors economic performance ( true to an extent), but what has later been revealed is the involvement of the CIA and NSA in helping the Liberal party in undermining the Labor Party due to its hostility towards aspects of US foreign policy,(intellignce gathering,Pine Gap as one example).What influence the CIA and NSA is open to conjecture.

Under the agreement of Pine Gap, the US government is not obliged to inform the Australian government on its information collected.

I have only given an outline of the events of the situation.

Yes, all of that - and more - is known, and not from the movie.

When the order of then Gov Gen Sir John Kerr was publicly read to dismiss the Whitlam government, it was spontaneously pronounced, "God Save The Queen!" You'd have to admit, Whitlam's government had been, still is, the only government to have suffered a double dissolution in the parliament.

Moreover, had London appointed, as you imply, a CIA operative as governor general of the Commonwealth of Australia, then that would be a matter to discuss with the appointing authority of the time, in London - and you know where in London. (As of just recently, the governor general no longer is appointed from London, s/he is instead appointed by Australians)

You omit that, In the subsequent general election, the Conservatives soundly defeated Whitlam and the Labor party.

I think that domestically Whitlam and the Labor party did a great deal for Australians and Australia. In certain aspects of his foreign policy, however, he got on somebody's wrong side.

Firstly, I did not imply that London appointed the G/G as a CIA operative.He at one stage sought pre-selection as a candidate for the ALP in the 1950's but became disallusioned after the ALP moved to the left, in his opinion.

Secondly,I did mention that the Liberal Party did win win the election in 1975,but omitted the word, landslide.

Thirdly, the G/G is a cerermonial position to sign papers on behalf of the present day government.

Also I would like to add that only the states of Victoria and New South Wales have newspapers that are not controlled by a right leaning idealogies(now controlled by News Corp). So the information that was at the given the time was one-sided in the other states.

Australia has always been a conservative country but has not allowed itself to become obsessed about politics which probably led to the ALP's loss in 1975 through their lack of awareness to what was going on at the time.

One of the saving grace's in Australia is 90% of the people at the end of the day know there is not much difference between the two major parties and life goes on as usual in this modern day and age.(my opinion).

BTW I do know that the Australian parliament elects the G/G.

Parliament doesn't elect the GG. It is the perogative of the PM to recommend to the Queen as to who should appointed as the GG. The Queen of Australia (ha!) by convention, follows her PM's advice. One of the more undemocratic aspects to our democracy.

Edited June 30, 2013 by samran

[FDog]

Not sure why it's undemocratic. Does the Queen ever say no? I don't know the answer.

I think it is more just a procedural matter, just going through the motions.

Edit: I note the monarch has not, and cannot say no. The monarch has no discretion and must agree to appoint the gg.

Edited June 30, 2013 by FDog

[Publicus]

Not sure why it's undemocratic. Does the Queen ever say no? I don't know the answer.

I think it is more just a procedural matter, just going through the motions.

Edit: I note the monarch has not, and cannot say no. The monarch has no discretion and must agree to appoint the gg.

Well, I'm no expert either so all I can say is that Wikepedia says the UK monarch has "reserve power" by which s/he can refuse an act of parliament or a recommendation of a prime minister. The reserve power includes dismissing an elected government, which has occurred twice and only in the Commonwealth of Australia.

I gleaned that and also the following from Wiki:

While the reserve power to dismiss a government has not been used in the United Kingdom since 1834, this power has been exercised more recently in Australia, on two occasions:

1. On 13 May 1932, when Governor Sir Philip Game dismissed the Government of New South Wales.
2. On 11 November 1975, when the Australian Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed the Commonwealth Government.

In both cases an election was held very soon afterwards and, again in both cases, the dismissed government was massively defeated by popular vote.

Wiki makes the two particular GGs of Australia look like geniuses. However, according to Wiki, in respect to governors general of the Commonwealth, "After a 1926 Imperial Conference decision, the governors-general ceased to be advised in any way by the British government."

So it would appear that in each instance of a governor general of or in Australia dismissing a government, the GG acted independently of Buckingham Palace or of anyone outside Australia.

However, the sovereign reigning monarch of the UK remains the sovereign reigning monarch of, among other Commonwealth countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power

And John Howard fooled no one by his convoluted language in the referendum on the question, as republicans voted for a republic and monarchists voted for the status quo. I think it was after that that the Aussie GG became appointed on the recommendation of the PM.

I think only republican parliaments of other countries elect their president, who is primarily chief of state and, as such, invites a government to form or, conversely, is advised by the PM that the government recommends a dissolution of the parliament, thus causing the president of the republic to call an election.

The United States is of course the exception, with its three branches of government. And don't let anyone convince you they are separate but equal. Congress is the superior branch of the US Government. The Congress can remove the president or any or all judges/justices. Only the voters or the Congress itself can remove a/the Member{s} of Congress.

[samran]

Not sure why it's undemocratic. Does the Queen ever say no? I don't know the answer.

I think it is more just a procedural matter, just going through the motions.

Edit: I note the monarch has not, and cannot say no. The monarch has no discretion and must agree to appoint the gg.

Lets see, an unelected foreign head of state who is chosen based on birth and who can't be Catholic, let alone Australian, gets to choose who nominally holds the reigns of power in Australia. Whether it is based on advice from the far flung regions of an non-existent empire matters not a jot. A resident for president, please.

[chooka]

Not sure why it's undemocratic. Does the Queen ever say no? I don't know the answer.

I think it is more just a procedural matter, just going through the motions.

Edit: I note the monarch has not, and cannot say no. The monarch has no discretion and must agree to appoint the gg.

Lets see, an unelected foreign head of state who is chosen based on birth and who can't be Catholic, let alone Australian, gets to choose who nominally holds the reigns of power in Australia. Whether it is based on advice from the far flung regions of an non-existent empire matters not a jot. A resident for president, please.

Australia is grown up now (112 yrs old) and needs to cut the umbilical cord and stop relying on mother England

[FDog]

Not sure why it's undemocratic. Does the Queen ever say no? I don't know the answer.

I think it is more just a procedural matter, just going through the motions.

Edit: I note the monarch has not, and cannot say no. The monarch has no discretion and must agree to appoint the gg.

Lets see, an unelected foreign head of state who is chosen based on birth and who can't be Catholic, let alone Australian, gets to choose who nominally holds the reigns of power in Australia. Whether it is based on advice from the far flung regions of an non-existent empire matters not a jot. A resident for president, please.

The monarchy does not 'normally' decide who holds the reigns of power. Where did you get that idea?

[IMA_FARANG]

Australia needs my "None Of the Above" as a legal choice on any ballot.

That's when a majority of the electorate votes "None Of the Above" and if that choice wins a majority vote of all the candidates ..... then the vote is nulled, the election is declared invalid, and another election must be scheduled after a minimum of 90 days for a campaign and a breathing period.

My slogan for my "None of the above" party vote would be this

"This country's future is to important to let the d_mn fool politicians run the country".

[Xangsamhua]

Australia needs my "None Of the Above" as a legal choice on any ballot.

That's when a majority of the electorate votes "None Of the Above" and if that choice wins a majority vote of all the candidates ..... then the vote is nulled, the election is declared invalid, and another election must be scheduled after a minimum of 90 days for a campaign and a breathing period.

My slogan for my "None of the above" party vote would be this

"This country's future is to important to let the d_mn fool politicians run the country".

I suspect most Australian politicians aren't too bad. Not angels, no, but how many of the voters are angels?

It's the ones that'll do anything to be leader that worry me.

[briboy]

maybe there should be a system where we can go to the polling booth and pick our own, few from this party a couple from the other etc, that way we DO really have a say in who we want to govern Aus, not told by a party who we are having........

[jamhar]

.....

As a political junkie I look forward to this campaign for the sake of it. I generally favor Labor in most instances abroad although they tend to be less than charming towards the US than the Conservative or Liberal parties abroad. Gordon Brown was awful towards the United States but John Howard was off the deep end as another of Bush's lapdogs, I think it's fair to say. I recall survey polling in OZ during Bush's presidency that said Aussies thought Howard's government followed the US too closely in foreign policy. Gilllard however was very cooperative and supportive of Prez Obama's "rebalancing" to the Indo-Pacific geostrategic area. So it's rarely a case of black or white.

Australia is obliged to support the US as it is reliant on the US for strategic defense, intelligence sharing, protection of sea lanes for commerce etc

Hopefully its more of a mutual interests, than an obligation.

It may not mean too much to the people of Oz, but as an american, i can tell you that there's a genuine feeling of connection between the people of US (at least myself, my friends, and colleagues) and the people of Oz.

I've said it before, its a small fraternity. Only a handful of country's get that almost family like treatment from the US public. And we get the sense the feelings are mutual..

So yes hopefully its more of a mutual interest and not a one sided, obligation.,,,,,

[samran]

Not sure why it's undemocratic. Does the Queen ever say no? I don't know the answer.

I think it is more just a procedural matter, just going through the motions.

Edit: I note the monarch has not, and cannot say no. The monarch has no discretion and must agree to appoint the gg.

Lets see, an unelected foreign head of state who is chosen based on birth and who can't be Catholic, let alone Australian, gets to choose who nominally holds the reigns of power in Australia. Whether it is based on advice from the far flung regions of an non-existent empire matters not a jot. A resident for president, please.

The monarchy does not 'normally' decide who holds the reigns of power. Where did you get that idea?

Where did I get that silly idea? The Consitution.

"2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him."

daaa, I win.

Also, I didn't say 'normally' I said 'nominally'. And the reigns of power are indeed instilled in the GG, as we have just seen a few days ago. Julia Gillard in her last act as PM before she resigned recommended to the GG that the GG should install Rudd as PM. The GG followed her advice, and via the GG powers, Rudd was installed as PM. The new PM then recommended ministers to the GG and the GG swore them in, countersigning their appointments.

The GG also signs off on all laws in Australia.

As I said, unelected.

Edited July 1, 2013 by samran

[simple1]

.....

As a political junkie I look forward to this campaign for the sake of it. I generally favor Labor in most instances abroad although they tend to be less than charming towards the US than the Conservative or Liberal parties abroad. Gordon Brown was awful towards the United States but John Howard was off the deep end as another of Bush's lapdogs, I think it's fair to say. I recall survey polling in OZ during Bush's presidency that said Aussies thought Howard's government followed the US too closely in foreign policy. Gilllard however was very cooperative and supportive of Prez Obama's "rebalancing" to the Indo-Pacific geostrategic area. So it's rarely a case of black or white.

Australia is obliged to support the US as it is reliant on the US for strategic defense, intelligence sharing, protection of sea lanes for commerce etc

Hopefully its more of a mutual interests, than an obligation.

It may not mean too much to the people of Oz, but as an american, i can tell you that there's a genuine feeling of connection between the people of US (at least myself, my friends, and colleagues) and the people of Oz.

I've said it before, its a small fraternity. Only a handful of country's get that almost family like treatment from the US public. And we get the sense the feelings are mutual..

So yes hopefully its more of a mutual interest and not a one sided, obligation.,,,,,

of course their is mutual interest, but the bottom line is that Australia needed a strong defense posture when the UK pulled out of Asia after WW11, look up SEATO and the ANZUS treaty. However, obligation is a strong component e.g. if Oz had followed the NZ government decision to ban nuclear armed US warships from it's ports and waters or ordered the removal of Pine Gap (on the cards at one time) you still believe the US would have had a warm and friendly relationship with Australia

[chooka]

.....

As a political junkie I look forward to this campaign for the sake of it. I generally favor Labor in most instances abroad although they tend to be less than charming towards the US than the Conservative or Liberal parties abroad. Gordon Brown was awful towards the United States but John Howard was off the deep end as another of Bush's lapdogs, I think it's fair to say. I recall survey polling in OZ during Bush's presidency that said Aussies thought Howard's government followed the US too closely in foreign policy. Gilllard however was very cooperative and supportive of Prez Obama's "rebalancing" to the Indo-Pacific geostrategic area. So it's rarely a case of black or white.

Australia is obliged to support the US as it is reliant on the US for strategic defense, intelligence sharing, protection of sea lanes for commerce etc

Hopefully its more of a mutual interests, than an obligation.

It may not mean too much to the people of Oz, but as an american, i can tell you that there's a genuine feeling of connection between the people of US (at least myself, my friends, and colleagues) and the people of Oz.

I've said it before, its a small fraternity. Only a handful of country's get that almost family like treatment from the US public. And we get the sense the feelings are mutual..

So yes hopefully its more of a mutual interest and not a one sided, obligation.,,,,,

Yes the feeling are mutual between the people but Aussies may not have a love of the U.S Government. I'll have a frothy with a yank no problems as long as he returns the shout.

[Publicus]

.....

As a political junkie I look forward to this campaign for the sake of it. I generally favor Labor in most instances abroad although they tend to be less than charming towards the US than the Conservative or Liberal parties abroad. Gordon Brown was awful towards the United States but John Howard was off the deep end as another of Bush's lapdogs, I think it's fair to say. I recall survey polling in OZ during Bush's presidency that said Aussies thought Howard's government followed the US too closely in foreign policy. Gilllard however was very cooperative and supportive of Prez Obama's "rebalancing" to the Indo-Pacific geostrategic area. So it's rarely a case of black or white.

Australia is obliged to support the US as it is reliant on the US for strategic defense, intelligence sharing, protection of sea lanes for commerce etc

Hopefully its more of a mutual interests, than an obligation.

It may not mean too much to the people of Oz, but as an american, i can tell you that there's a genuine feeling of connection between the people of US (at least myself, my friends, and colleagues) and the people of Oz.

I've said it before, its a small fraternity. Only a handful of country's get that almost family like treatment from the US public. And we get the sense the feelings are mutual..

So yes hopefully its more of a mutual interest and not a one sided, obligation.,,,,,

of course their is mutual interest, but the bottom line is that Australia needed a strong defense posture when the UK pulled out of Asia after WW11, look up SEATO and the ANZUS treaty. However, obligation is a strong component e.g. if Oz had followed the NZ government decision to ban nuclear armed US warships from it's ports and waters or ordered the removal of Pine Gap (on the cards at one time) you still believe the US would have had a warm and friendly relationship with Australia

There's plenty enough support of the US among Australian elites and enough of the population so that, for example, things such as the removal of Pine Gap doesn't happen regardless of who may be in favor of removing it at a given time. The same is true generally concerning US-Australian relations. However, I've run into a lot of Aussies in Thailand and too many of them are antagonistic towards the United States, one might say envious or worse.

I know Americans almost universally view Australia and Australians favorably, however, that positive attitude isn't always returned, at least based on a lot of my experience with Aussies in Thailand. I was quite surprised by this negativity and remain perplexed by it. Still, scientific surveys of Australians indicate a positive view of the US among the Aussie population in general. (There always are people who will say anything to survey pollsters.)

I can easily say I'm generally impressed by the Aussies I know regardless of their attitude towards the United States. Australians are more than competent at what they do, modern, progressive. Despite being in the midst of all those oceans and seas down there, Australian culture and society haven't ever been isolated. Perhaps the continuous contact with the UK has been beneficial, a decisive factor - I don't know.

Australia in the Age of IT however can now do without continued apron strings to the UK, or I should think so. Australia's big deal countries have become its neighbors to the North, not on the other side of the planet in the opposite hemisphere. So the bottom line is that it's encouraging to continue to see a strategic partnership exist between Australia and the United States.