Australian Democracy at a Tipping Point

Guest Author Uncategorized

Today’s Guest Poster is Paul G. Dellit, from The Australian Independent Media Network. It is a good summary much of what many us have been thinking and saying for a long time.

(Image Credit: Otiose94)

Well, we may well have reached the tipping point between genuine democracy in Australia and the beginnings of creeping fascism. You may think this to be one of those ‘shock-horror’ attention-grabbing opening sentences. It is. And I also believe it to be an unalloyed statement of the danger we now face.

History is littered with hindsight surprise that those with power and those who might have opposed those with power didn’t take action to avoid an obviously looming disaster. Of course, the ‘loomingness’ of disasters is often not appreciated by its contemporaries. It would be naïve to expect otherwise. Couldn’t they see that the South Sea Bubble would burst? Couldn’t they see that a grossly overheated investment market populated with stocks that were either massively overvalued or worthless would result in ever-widening ripples of market failures and a worldwide Great Depression. Couldn’t they see you don’t fix Depressions by reducing the size of economies. Obviously they couldn’t see any of those things. And with the dawning optimism of a new century, they couldn’t even remember them, or if they could, they were playing that ‘main chance’ game of ‘I’ll make what I can make out of this and bugger all of the rest of them who lose the lot’.

Prime Minister Abbott and his acolytes, Ministers Dutton and Morrison, propose the passing of a law that would create a precedent for the end of the rule of law in this country. It would invest a Minister with the powers of policeman, judge and jury to act upon an untested suspicion of guilt to deprive an Australian of his/her citizenship. Following current LNP practice, the reasons for stripping someone of their citizenship would be deemed secret for security reasons. So this Ministerial power would be exercised covertly and absolutely beyond judicial or other form of independent review. The Minister would be required to form his suspicions on the basis of the intelligence provided to him. The name Dr. Haneef immediately springs to mind. But even if our security organisations and the foreign security organisations with whom they trade information were as infallible as our PM believes the Pope to be, and even if they had no self-interested agendas, the Minister invested with this power could exercise it to suit his own ends – say, just before an election – to manufacture a terrorist scare and then appear to be the ‘man of the hour’ who restores our peace of mind (coincidentally winning the votes of a few more undecided Alan Jones listeners to save his marginal seat).

The proponents of changing Australia from a common law country, based upon the separation of powers, to rule by ministerial fiat, as their proposal would enable through the precedent it would establish, argue that they are honourable men who would exercise their new powers dispassionately, wisely, and in the public interest. Of course, this is irrelevant. Laws are not made to fit the character of current holders of high office. They are intended to safeguard against, as far as possible, abuse by those who are partisan, stupid, and prone to act in their own self-interest.

The proposed new law deliberately excludes those safeguards.

Consequently, we need some way of ensuring that the current and all subsequent Ministers, thus empowered, will ensure the intelligence they receive is impeccable, and will interpret that intelligence dispassionately, wisely, and in the public interest.

So let’s run an eye over the proponents of the new law, just for starters.

Malcolm Fraser considered Tony Abbott to be perhaps the most dangerous politician in Australian history. You may have thought that a little hyperbolic. I did. There can be little doubt that our current Prime Minister is the least equipped for high office since Sir William McMahon. And the record also shows that Prime Minister Abbott was able to pass through one of Australia’s finest schools and one of England’s finest universities untouched by exposure to academic research methods, the principles of logic and dispassionate evaluation, the values-free acquisition of knowledge, and even by the evidence that compassion and empathy are fundamental to social cohesion. It is apparent that his academic success is based upon often uncomprehended rote learning, the way he learned and then recited his Catechism as a small child. These are flaws in the makeup of the man that speak to his lack of intelligence and general incompetence.

But as we began to see in the run up to the most recent election, and as more information about Tony Abbott’s past was revealed, we began to understand that Malcolm Fraser’s assessment of him was, if anything, an understatement. We began to see his pathological need to win, we read of his violence against a woman when he lost, we observed his relentless, dishonest, misogynistic attacks upon Julia Gillard as part of his strategy to win office, we heard the litany of lies he told to win office, and the lies he has told about lying and about anything else to suit his purpose, after he had won office.

How could we ever contemplate granting power without safeguards to a person with such a pathological need to win, to get his own way, and to retain power regardless of the consequences for anyone else? Can we imagine Peter Dutton having the stomach to independently exercise his discretion against the wishes of Tony Abbott? It wouldn’t matter if he did. Tony Abbott has the Captain’s right to sack him and bestow that office upon himself if he needed to to get his own way. And can we imagine Scott Morrison doing anything that would compromise his leadership ambitions? Smug self-satisfaction was his only reaction to the human tragedy unfolding daily as the result of the exercise of his Ministerial discretion?

It was some small relief to know that the more intelligent members of Cabinet objected to the extreme Abbott proposal that second generation Australians could be stripped of their citizenship based on nothing more than a Minister’s suspicion, as we have said, covertly exercised and beyond judicial or other independent review.

But now, two thirds of the LNP Back Bench have signed a letter in support of the proposed Abbott law. They may be distinguished as a group for being considered not good enough to serve on the most incompetent Front Bench since Federation, but they may just give Tony the support he needs to make another ‘Captain’s Call’.

If Prime Minister Abbott does cross this Rubicon, so will Australia and God help Australian democracy when Ministers of any stripe use the precedent set by this law to expand its operation into other aspects of our lives to suit their own personal ends.

600 thoughts on “Australian Democracy at a Tipping Point”

  5. Yes. You would have thought The Man Who Would Be King would have shown.

  7. Pell the Bully threatens legal action after last night’s revelations. Legal action against someone personally appointed by the Pope, as Pell was.That could get interesting.

    Probably suing the Nine Network. Or maybe just asking for a retraction. Pell would look foolish – and guilty as charged – if he didn’t.

  11. I was right about a stunt today – Abbott found an urgent need to visit Harvey Norman in Fyshwick, just as Shorten was about to make his speech. He didn’t have enough time to go all the way to Queanbeyan.

    What. A. Bastard.

    The prime minister and the treasurer are currently surrounded by plasma televisions at Harvey Norman in Fyshwick. Tony Abbott is concerned that the small business budget measure that everyone supports will not pass the parliament. That’s why we are at Harvey Norman. Making sure the budget measure (that is not in peril) is not in peril. This small business budget boost must pass the parliament. It simply must.

    How about same sex marriage?

    Tony Abbott:

    We don’t have to do everything immediately

    http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2015/jun/01/bill-shorten-introduces-same-sex-marriage-bill-politics-live

  12. So many say: “Labor and LNP are just the same”. Looking at the pic, it’s obvious that there are major differences between the two sides.

  13. The Australian Christian Lobby is also not amused. Having worked through predictable arguments against same sex marriage, we are now down to “will no-one think of the celebrants.”

    Good.

    Eventually, the Australian Unchristian Lobby will work out that most of us don’t give a rat’s about their amusement.

  14. The “rights” of children? They have so often been ignored in some religious institutions.

    Lyle Shelton from the Australian Christian Lobby has criticised the push towards same-sex marriage as one that disregards the rights of children.

    “This is legislation that requires some children to miss out on a mother and a father — and that’s something a civil society should never do,” he said.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-01/same-sex-marriage-bill-shorten-introduces-bill-parliament/6511208

  15. The penny is dropping. Very slowly

    The prime minister thinks legalising same sex marriage is important but he also thinks it’s more important to press on this week with a small business budget measure which is in absolutely no danger of being rejected by the parliament. Just because.

    …

    Abbott has also not seen a letter from a bunch of backbenchers that has been in the public domain for 48 hours.

  16. TLBD

    Loved the ACL god botherer’s way of saying ‘No Poofters !”

    “if they believe that marriage is inherently gender diverse.”

  17. Would Lyle care to hazard a guess on the degree of violence towards children and partners that takes place with same-sex couples and hetero couples?

  18. “gender diverse”?

    He might care to ponder exactly what that means. Like, where do transsexuals fit there?

  20. Because they want to be the ones to put up the bill or to co-sponsor it.

    It’s a Look At Me thing.

  21. The pouting and dummy spitting from the Greens has been a hoot. All that talk about ‘their’ same sex marriage bill and Labor got there first. Leyonhjelm is also sulking.

    What these fools don’t realise is their bills were never going to get up. If either one of them has somehow been approved by the senate it still would have been defeated by the reps. The government would never have allowed a private member’s bill from a Green or an independent to succeed.

    The way the MSM, the Greens and Leyonhjelm have been carrying on has been deliberately deceptive. A bill introduced into the senate and passed by the senate still has to go to the reps for their vote. I haven’t seen much mention of this at all, just a lot of pushing of the assumption that one of them would have succeeded in becoming law.

  22. Australia points to Direct Action in response to tough UN questions on climate responsibility

    Australia has pegged its international climate change credibility on the Abbott government’s Direct Action scheme in its response to a series of tough questions from world super powers.

    Responding to the climate probe from countries including China and the United States, on Monday, Australia has also said it was unwilling at this stage to detail what emissions cuts Direct Action is expected to generate because it would be “premature”

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-points-to-direct-action-in-response-to-tough-un-questions-on-climate-responsibility-20150601-ghdz0x.html

  24. I thought I had read those articles on Pell incorrectly when I was confidently assured by a friend that Cardinal Pell was getting legal advice FROM the Pontiff’s appointee against all the calumnies against him.
    Having just now re-read the articles so generously located for us this morning (thanks BK) I am struck, yet again, by how people are interpreting ‘news reports’ these days.

    My brain is starting to hurt trying to keep up with the way in which words are twisted to fit the narrative that people seem to want to follow, I am starting to wonder to what extent we are actually living in Bizzaro world right now

  26. Katharine is not very kind to Your Government today

    Immigration minister Peter Dutton is now telling Bill Shorten that he must stare down Tanya Plibersek and the left at the national conference in July on boat turnbacks otherwise the people smugglers will be back. There is a push on from the left to prohibit boat turnbacks in the ALP policy platform. I’m pretty confident Plibersek is not at the forefront of that push, but she is in the left.

    Dutton makes a glancing aside to Wayne Swan, former Labor treasurer, now Labor backbencher. Swan blows Dutton a kiss.

  27. Er, HoJo, remember the Carbon Tax Money Tree and the MRRT Money Tree?

    The treasurer Joe Hockey is telling the chamber he’s been searching for Labor’s money tree, high and low, low and high.

    I can report there is no money tree.

  29. SNAFU

    Madam Speaker has ruled the question out of order. After some outrage, Labor is moving dissent in that ruling. Burke says the question was ruled out of order before it was even asked.

    Tony Burke:

    You are shutting down debate in this parliament, Madam Speaker.

  31. ABC24 is part of the protection racket.

    “ABC 24 stopped broadcasting house of reps because ‘the outcome was predictable’.
    The one time the opposition get to speak.”

  32. Excellent tweet from over the road. Really does say it all.

    “ellinghausen ‏@ellinghausen
    Politics this morning so far…
    The PM and Treasurer visit Harvey Norman
    Shorten introduces Marriage Equality Bill”

  33. I’ve been tied up with a lengthy phone call.

    What’s this Division about, could someone help?

  35. Scorps

    Broomhilda rightfully getting a serve.

    Labor moves a motion of dissent against the Speaker

    Burke is going to town in this motion. He says the government should be accountable for its interactions with Gina Rinehart, a person with close links with senior ministers in the Abbott government. He says Bishop is making a joke of the parliament. He says the government is arrogant, and Bishop has used the chair to prevent questions being asked.

    It makes a farce of this being question time.

    How can you rule a question out of order that you haven’t heard?

    Fitzgibbon:
    This is not a protection racket, this place, Madam Speaker.

    http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2015/jun/01/bill-shorten-introduces-same-sex-marriage-bill-politics-live

  36. Dissent from a Broomhilda ruling.

    Wanted to ask tone about Bananaby. Didn’t get the Q in before she binned it.

  37. I guess Poodle Pyne knows Labor’s charges against Bronny are true. Not a word of defence in his waffle reply to the motion.

  38. BK, kaffeeklatscher & Ducky!

    Many thanks. I’m sorry I missed it.

    They should have one of these “every” Question Time until Bronny gets so fed up with them that she reluctantly upholds the standards that reasonable people expect of a Speaker!

    Wishful thinking I reckon! 😉

  41. Broomhilda as the Mad Hatter, Dormouse Pyne, Rabbit Abbott.

    Joel Fitzgibbon, wandering past Madam Speaker, suggests she might want to have him round for a restorative cup of tea.

    Madam Speaker:

    I’d better have you all round for a cup of tea.

  42. tlbd

    Funny how abc24 used to show all this sort of stuff up to the end of 2013, and now decided it isn’t important. No wonder I don’t watch that station any more.

  44. It’s always about Tony – Abbott thinks only of the increasing value of his own home, doesn’t spare a thought for young families who cannot afford to buy even a dog kennel in Sydney.

    ‘I do hope our housing prices are increasing’: Tony Abbott quizzed on housing bubble

    Asked by Labor leader Bill Shorten about John Fraser’s comments earlier on Monday, Mr Abbott said housing affordability was important but that home owners like him would prefer to see house prices continue to rise in Sydney.

    “As someone who, along with the bank, owns a house in Sydney I do hope our housing prices are increasing,” Mr Abbott said in question time on Monday

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/i-do-hope-our-housing-prices-are-increasing-tony-abbott-quizzed-on-housing-bubble-20150601-ghe3y1.html

    An echo of John Howard, in 2003.

    The Prime Minister said there was nothing wrong with more valuable houses other than in the case of first homebuyers.

    “For people who are already in the housing market, the increase in the value of their homes has been welcome,” he said.

    “I don’t get people stopping me in the street and saying, ‘John you’re outrageous, under your government the value of my house has increased’.

    “In fact, most people feel more secure and feel better off because the value of their homes has gone up

    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/04/1059849310713.html

  45. 2gravel
    Also funny how ABC24 used to show every speech and stunt Abbott made when he was LOTO but ignores Bill Shorten.

  46. Gravel & Leone,

    And then the numbnuts in the msm and many on the left criticize Mr Shorten for “failing to get his message out”.

  47. Coalition ‘bad for business’ says former NAB boss Cameron Clyne

    Mr Clyne, whose retirement last year at the age of 46 surprised the market, Clyne defended the Labor legacy, saying he was “arguing against the lazy narrative that Labor is bad for business and the Coalition is not”.

    He said it was a Coalition government that had promised a paid parental scheme that was far too generous and scrapped a market-based approach to tackling climate change, among other anti-business policies.

    He said the trouble the Abbott government was having now was “trouble they have made themselves”.

    “I think future governments… will actually realise that just winning is not enough.”

    http://www.afr.com/news/politics/coalition-bad-for-business-says-former-nab-boss-cameron-clyne-20150531-ghdcel

  48. Fiona
    Exactly the same with FPMJG. Nothing but endless comment on leadershit, nasty denigration of every single thing JG did or said, hardly a mention of new policy at all and then the same bleating about Labor not getting their message across.

    Now, if there is criticism of Abbott, it is done in a blokey-jokey, cutesy way. Abbott is still the pet when it comes to journalists.

Comments are closed.