i dont know
but i know what you mean
i was kind of refering purely to the election time date thing.. but as for the govs powers.. sorry dont know
Please feel free to call me Olga, Setanta.
I was referring to the "children overboard" issue in my post. There has been lots on that. But maybe you weren't reading this thread at that time. I'm genuinely sorry if I've offended you. I mean that, OK?
ive been awake all night too... so im far from my best
No Miss Olga, i was not offended. It just seemed that there wasn't answer in the thread on two basic constitutional issues, the term of Parliament (absent the loss of a vote of confidence, i'm sure the PM cannot cause Parliament to sit indefinitely) and any residual powers of the Governor General. Please forgive me for being testy, i ought not to have taken that tone.
As for addressing you as Olga, it rather goes against my upbrining. Were we to meet in person, i would address you as Miss Olga.
I'm uncertain at which stage this can happen within a governing period, but the PM has the right to determine the date of the next election. He has to gain the approval of the Govenor General, but really, this is merely a formality. This obviously gives the current government an advantage. John Howard has been playing cat & mouse about possible election dates for months now. According to number of political commentators in the media (see previous A2K posts, dated today) he has chosen to call an election now to avoid the parliament sitting again this week.
I have spent ages on search engines trying to find out what the Governor General's role & power actually is. Theoretically he/she is merely the Queen's representative in Australia. Theoretically this is considered to be a "figurehead" position. Yet 1975 (the dismissal of the Whitlam Government, as a result of a double dissolution) required the Governor General's approval. Could this happen again? Who knows for certain, but it has been generally accepted that this sort of intervention by the Governor General/Queen in Australian political life is inappropriate.
Thank you, Miss Olga, that's the sort of thing i was looking for. Is there, then, no set term to the sitting of a Parliament? Were there no interference from the G-G, and there were no motion of no confidence, could the Parliament sit indefinitely? Theoretically?
The parliament's term is 3 years ... However, it's the PM's perogative to call an election when he chooses. I'm not sure if there's a prescribed minimum period. The GG is required to approve the Prime Minister's choice of election date, but this really is just a formality. It's unheard of for the Governor General to reject the PM's choice to election date.
Here's something on it, everyone:
In Australia we have a better system than in the UK. When our constitution was adopted in 1900 by popular vote of the people in each State, while the powers were 'vested' in the Queen, they were all to be exercised (only) by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative. (It is similar in each State.)
The Governor-General's powers are vast and include the powers of Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Navy and Air Force as the Queen's representative, the power to call Parliament together, to dismiss Parliament and to appoint anyone as a Minister of State, so long as they get into Parliament within three months.
The Governor-General has real powers, seldom used but essential to ensure that the advice he gets is legal and that the Ministry not only controls the House of Representatives but can get 'supply' or the money to run the Government from the whole Parliament.
Do you think that Australia will get another referendum anytime soon?
Hmmmm - beginning to be talked about.
Thing is, the damn things are so expensive! And - Howard scuttled the whole thing so cleverly last time (by tying the question of becoming a republic to a model of republicanism that was very unpopular, and foisted upon us without proper debate and refining) that the republic folk are wanting to be very sure next time.
Overall, we want a republic.
Here we go ... on a wing & a prayer!
Scare campaign takes off at alarming rate
By Peter Hartcher, Political Editor/ Sydney Morning Herald
August 30, 2004
" ...Zeroing in on the most electorally tender economic issue in the mortgage-laden marginal seats, he implied that a Latham government would add $960 a month to repayments on an average new mortgage - an increase of 80 per cent.
This incendiary claim, however, ignores Labor policy, and depends on invalid assumptions.
To arrive at this figure, Howard applied Keating government interest rates to a Latham government. To do the same to the Liberals would be to apply Fraser rates to a Howard Government - and that implies Howard would increase mortgage payments by $621 a month. .."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/29/1093717840749.html
Lol!!!!
Now - here's a dilemma - do I be all active in my OWN marginal seat - or in another, where a friend is standing?
Hmmmmmmm - well - I think I'll go with the friend! Better parties....
I'd probably go with the friend, Deb. Loyalty & all that ...
But which seat is the more marginal?
Hmmm - good question - I don't know!!!!!
He damn nearly won it last ime - the friend....
Go with the friend, then. He might do it this time!
It's really horrendous that Howard has begun this campaign with the same old tactics: Scare the **** out of the voters! I would have thought he'd learnt something from the past few weeks - but no, he's up to the same old stuff. The worrying thing is that the voters bought it last time (kids overboard). Will they go along with what ever he manages to come up with in the next six weeks? And it the going gets rough, WHAT amazing lies, distortions & half truths will he use to win at any cost?
