Given the astounding success of my last post about Australian politics (2 whole comments on topic, 19 correcting my grammar), I feel duty-bound to engage you with the latest goings-on down-under. 😀
Our High Court, as High Courts are wont to do these days, has declared Juliar’s “Malaysian Solution” to the “Boat people” illegal – as being contrary to the complex legislation (The Migration Act and Regulations) that addresses, inter alia, our responsibilities as signatories to the Refugee Convention (UNHCR).
Gillard is spitting chips, and accusing the court in general and The Chief Justice in particular of changing the entire face of immigration, and of being inconsistent. Her colleagues are undecided as to whether they should –
- support her,
- support her publicly whilst arranging for her political assassination,
- ask one of a number of old has-beens to take over (including Peter Beatty, ex-Premier of Queensland, a very popular chap, now retired, and, would you believe it, even dear old Kevin Rudd), or
- push the young Commissar Shorten into the rôle before his time, a behind the scenes factional power-broker so ghastly, so doctrinaire, that he makes Juliar look honest and right-wing.
What Gillard should do, of course, is call a general election, but the chance of that is almost vanishingly small since they all – her party, the Greens and the three Independents who side with her – like power far too much to give it up before they have to.
She has demonstrated her lack of integrity and incompetence many times over, and her attack on the Judges is now highlighting her inner petulance. Pity us, for we probably have another two years of this before we can throw her and her hard left, corrupt and bullying cronies out.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Bearsy, may I mention that your fourth bullet point needs to start with an imperative, ‘push’ rather than a participle, ‘pushing’. 🙂
Australia and the UK both need some sort of ‘recall’ system to restore some semblance of accountability to our respective governments. the Dear Leaders of both countries have gained their offices by telling a big lie to their electorates – in your case, ‘No carbon tax,’ and in ours, ‘we will hold a referendum on the (expletive deleted) EU constitreaty. Both are maintained in power by minority parties rejected – for government – by the electorate. Both are more interested in retaining power than responding to the concerns of the electorate.
Get them out!
Quite right, Bravo, but we both lack the constitutional means to do so. Any ideas?
I am surprised that there has not been more of an uproar on these pages, and elsewhere, about the fact that all those refugees are being allowed to stay rather than being sent to Malaysia for processing.
The Malaysian solution was a terrible idea. Even those who would send every “illegal” back where they came from were not keen on it.
I’m not really sure how the ‘recall’ systems in some US States work, perhaps one of the charioteers from across the pond can help out.
I would suggest that any such system should have some safeguards to avoid its use for party political purposes – perhaps a proviso that any recall proposal in a constituency should have some sort of support from the constituency party of the sitting MP?
How might a recall system work for the PM of the day? A sort of general no-confidence vote from the electorate rather than self-serving MPs?
Oh, OK. I can’t pretend I knew much about the scheme, but it just seemed to me that most Australians would have preferred illegals to be processed outside the country. I will take your word for it though.
What are the Australian diminutive terms for ‘illegals’ and ‘refugees’? I would imagine, refugees are called ‘reffos’, or is that something else?
Trouble is, Bravo, our pollies hate the idea of being “representatives” of the people (which is what they should be), and would no more vote for a people-driven ‘recall’ system than turkeys would vote for Christmas. I fear that stronger measures will ultimately prove to be unavoidable. 😦
Sounds reasonable, Sipu, but I’ve never heard either term shortened, strangely enough.
Bravo, look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election
and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_recall_election,_2003
You will see from the second site that
“Under California law, any elected official may be the target of a recall campaign.[4] To trigger a recall election, proponents of the recall must gather a certain number of signatures from registered voters within a certain time period. The number of signatures statewide must equal 12% of the number of votes cast in the previous election for that office.[5] For the 2003 recall election, that meant a minimum of 897,156 signatures, based on the November 2002 statewide elections, but 1.2 million were needed to ensure that there were enough valid signatures”.
Then today we have this.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I see nothing wrong at all with the government extracting a few favours from the new Libyan Government in return for ‘services provided,’ in fact, more power to their elbow, say I.
It may also be the case that..
It seems to me, though, that some explanation ought to be forthcoming…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8736496/Libya-the-minister-the-Tory-donor-and-a-contract-to-supply-oil.html
Bit off topic, but a reminder that we do need to keep a wary eye on our ‘betters’ and there is a need for some system where they can be held to account outside the self-serving arena of party politics.
Can she pull rank on the high courts?
As for the other pollies, if they are anything like our lot I suspect many whetstones are being used in dark corners. Jools had better be aware that any public pat on the back she may receive in the coming days is most likely to be a recce mission for the knife. 🙂
Bravo,
A national right to redress eh?
Nope, Ferret, she can’t.
She could pass legislation to change the law, which the Court would then have to obey, but she’d be cactus if she tried, and Australia would stink in the UNHCR arena.
As I recollect, the Malayasian solution involved sending a certain number of illegal immigrants out of Australia, but accepting an even greater number in. Seemed weird to me.
Sheona – you’re right. No one seems to understand quite what the idea was. I’d pack the whole lot back to the nearest refugee camp to their home-land, stamp their papers “broken Australian law” and leave them at the back of the queue behind all the ‘real’ refugees who are trying to do it the right way..
Ferret, exactly – perhaps we should explain to the other charioteers what a ‘redress of grievance’ is in the Armed Forces?
Ah, the moment I was waiting for: “The referee’s decision is final”. 😉
Sipu,
You get the wooden spoon for that one. 🙂 Gold stirring medal and bar.
Ferret, I hope it is taken in the humorous vein that was intended. 🙂
Yes Please!
Definitely worth of a gold-plated wooden spoon!
It was!
The referee’s decision should be final on the issue of immigration – I find it quite ridiculous how many ‘appeals’ are allowed – especially in the UK!
The idea was that we sent them roughly 600, in return for which we accepted 4,000 from them. The ‘rationalisation’ is that their 4,000 have already been ‘proven’ to be ‘genuine refugees’, whereas our 600 are ‘unprocessed’.
It was intended to “send a message” in order to stop further illegals, as Malaysia is seen to be beastly to refugees.
Go figure! 🙄
I have no objection to illegal immigrants appealing against being called that, but only once they are safely back home. I do object to my tax money being used to pay some slimy yooman rights lawyer like Cherie Blair to present endless appeals. If these illegals can rustle up thousands to get themselves smuggled into Britain, then they can rustle up some more thousands to enrich the legal profession in their own countries.
But Malaysia’s definition of “genuine refugees” may not be the same as Australia’s. Malayasia could simply be getting rid of a bunch of undesirables. Bulgaria and Romania were very quick to issue passports to Roma and others whom they wanted to get rid of.
Bearsy: there is a way to get a government to collapse through recall without having to recall the entire government. It would require recalling the weakest, most vulnerable MPs. Say, 5 or 6 of them causing Gillard to lose the majority in parliament and making it inevitable that her government collapses.
Sheona – I did not say I agreed with the concept, nor that it was without problems. I was merely reporting. 🙂
Christopher – Yes of course, but we have no way to recall any MP (except by having him/her found guilty of a crime and sentenced to a jail term of 12 months or more, or being declared insane).