Looking In
As an American who's lived in Australia for more than 6 years, a comparison of the two systems makes me appreciate are some aspects of my homeland as never before.
One is the Bill of Rights. For all the courtroom furor that this document causes at all levels of law enforcement and jurisprudence, it is deep sense of reassurance to know that these rights belong to every American. Give me the madness of the conflicts which for rights to mature and define themselves constantly in the American system. It is far better than the sad pretense Australians must live under. The mind-numbing consciousness that no person in Australia has even the most rudimentary rights, other than those properly executed under the law.
And the average Australian has no right to question if a law is properly executed. It costs too much, and they endanger their lives and property to do so.
Australia is a nascent democracy. Its people cannot be condemned for their distrust and misunderstandings about the functions of a democratic state. The government itself is sloppily formed and politicians revel in condescending dismissals of popular perceptions of injustice. The people are told they just don't understand the system. The fact is neither do the people running the system. The system is so poorly formed as to defy understanding.
Iraq may soon have a more mature democratic structure when it comes out from under the lingering influence of Saddam. The lack of an operational Blll of Rights is only one glaring example.
The second is the lack of a true Executive branch of government.
And the third is the conflicting role of the judiciary, which is often resolved by conveniently ignoring the second key role defined in the weak Australian Constitution.
In the American system, there are three distinct branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Each serves as a check and balance against the abuse of the powers of the other two. Legislators and Executive branch officers are elected separately. At any level of government, a party may have a majority in one or the other of two legislative houses, or both. And the Executive officer is elected individually. He or she may or may not have earned their election by following party lines or policies.
Although they may or may not be from the same party, their roles in government are different.
In the Australian system, there are effectively two branches of government: the Legislative-Executive and the Judiciary.
Australians form a government from the elected legislative representatives. That weakens the Executive branch because its officers are also the leaders of the majority party.
Indeed, it is not unusual to see one minister having conflicting duties: to their own electorate, and to one or more portfolios.
Since the role of Cabinet Minister is more prestigious, the electorate is under-represented or simply not given any consideration. The result is a Minister of a Portfolio is considered to be only a token or titular head of a ministry, even by the Minister himself.
The most important role for a Minister is to ensure that his or her party is re-elected, not representing the electorate or even the priorities of the Ministry.
The judiciary in both systems is ostensibly independent, but only in the Australian system is there no oversight. Judges at various levels in the American system are elected, or subjected to judicial reviews which govern their performance according to published standards.
It is truly laughable, - in the most darkly cynical way -, that a law may be written to not be enforced by the Australian judiciary, for example, the recent Victorian Charter of Rights. This removes the primary purpose of law: to be available for the protection of all citizens.
The weak Australian Constitution allows Australia to ratify and sign onto any international treaty or resolution without requiring the terms of the Agreement to have effect inside Australia. It is a grand hypocrisy that Australia constantly rants onto the international stage about high morals, human and civil rights violations, yet has no legal mandate to enforce any such agreements for anyone within its own boundaries. - And, indeed, it does not, as evidenced by the many human and civil rights violations within Australia which force unending demonstrations and civil disobedience from its citizens.
Under the weak Executive, confusion allows inordinate power to be held by other agencies.
Ted Baillieu and Steve Bracks, for example, have promised increased numbers of police across Victoria in the current election. Baillieu though made the mistake of saying he would assign 25 new police members to Ballarat and 76 to Geelong.
The Police Association quickly responded publicly that even if Mr Baillieu were elected Premier of Victoria, he would not tell the police where and how to assign police.
If the Premier of Victoria, elected on a majority of voters across the state with his party, does not control where the police are assigned, then what is the point of the pretense of representative government?
The confused roles of the Executive branch has allowed the police to become a law unto themselves, - a state within a state - with their own laws and interpretations of the law. Tim Holding, the ostensible Minister of Police, and Rob Hulls, the Interior Minister, are far too concerned with kowtowing to percieved voting blocks to do their jobs, which would include administration of police.
Both Hulls and Holding know the police are considered the protectors by the average citizen, and that they control a sizeable voting block. Hulls and Holding know very well which side butters their political bread.
The Police Association is signaling to its members and supporters in its response to Baillieu.
Any complaints to these ministers about the actions of police are quickly dismissed as beyond their jurisdiction. It is, of course, precisely their jurisdiction, - their duty in fact -, to represent the authority of the citizens over the police.
Where it is constitutionally reasonable to maintain the judiciary as independent, it is constitutionally dangerous to allow the police to govern themselves. The police union and police are jealous of this constitutional independence.
Innumerable banana republics around the world have found this out the hard way. There is little to indicate that Australia will not suffer the same indignities.
It is no wonder that even after Christine Nixon was assigned to clean up corruption in Victoria, - so visible that it has been taken as part of the character of the state for decades - she has yet to accomplish one successful conviction.
One is the Bill of Rights. For all the courtroom furor that this document causes at all levels of law enforcement and jurisprudence, it is deep sense of reassurance to know that these rights belong to every American. Give me the madness of the conflicts which for rights to mature and define themselves constantly in the American system. It is far better than the sad pretense Australians must live under. The mind-numbing consciousness that no person in Australia has even the most rudimentary rights, other than those properly executed under the law.
And the average Australian has no right to question if a law is properly executed. It costs too much, and they endanger their lives and property to do so.
Australia is a nascent democracy. Its people cannot be condemned for their distrust and misunderstandings about the functions of a democratic state. The government itself is sloppily formed and politicians revel in condescending dismissals of popular perceptions of injustice. The people are told they just don't understand the system. The fact is neither do the people running the system. The system is so poorly formed as to defy understanding.
Iraq may soon have a more mature democratic structure when it comes out from under the lingering influence of Saddam. The lack of an operational Blll of Rights is only one glaring example.
The second is the lack of a true Executive branch of government.
And the third is the conflicting role of the judiciary, which is often resolved by conveniently ignoring the second key role defined in the weak Australian Constitution.
In the American system, there are three distinct branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Each serves as a check and balance against the abuse of the powers of the other two. Legislators and Executive branch officers are elected separately. At any level of government, a party may have a majority in one or the other of two legislative houses, or both. And the Executive officer is elected individually. He or she may or may not have earned their election by following party lines or policies.
Although they may or may not be from the same party, their roles in government are different.
In the Australian system, there are effectively two branches of government: the Legislative-Executive and the Judiciary.
Australians form a government from the elected legislative representatives. That weakens the Executive branch because its officers are also the leaders of the majority party.
Indeed, it is not unusual to see one minister having conflicting duties: to their own electorate, and to one or more portfolios.
Since the role of Cabinet Minister is more prestigious, the electorate is under-represented or simply not given any consideration. The result is a Minister of a Portfolio is considered to be only a token or titular head of a ministry, even by the Minister himself.
The most important role for a Minister is to ensure that his or her party is re-elected, not representing the electorate or even the priorities of the Ministry.
The judiciary in both systems is ostensibly independent, but only in the Australian system is there no oversight. Judges at various levels in the American system are elected, or subjected to judicial reviews which govern their performance according to published standards.
It is truly laughable, - in the most darkly cynical way -, that a law may be written to not be enforced by the Australian judiciary, for example, the recent Victorian Charter of Rights. This removes the primary purpose of law: to be available for the protection of all citizens.
The weak Australian Constitution allows Australia to ratify and sign onto any international treaty or resolution without requiring the terms of the Agreement to have effect inside Australia. It is a grand hypocrisy that Australia constantly rants onto the international stage about high morals, human and civil rights violations, yet has no legal mandate to enforce any such agreements for anyone within its own boundaries. - And, indeed, it does not, as evidenced by the many human and civil rights violations within Australia which force unending demonstrations and civil disobedience from its citizens.
Under the weak Executive, confusion allows inordinate power to be held by other agencies.
Ted Baillieu and Steve Bracks, for example, have promised increased numbers of police across Victoria in the current election. Baillieu though made the mistake of saying he would assign 25 new police members to Ballarat and 76 to Geelong.
The Police Association quickly responded publicly that even if Mr Baillieu were elected Premier of Victoria, he would not tell the police where and how to assign police.
If the Premier of Victoria, elected on a majority of voters across the state with his party, does not control where the police are assigned, then what is the point of the pretense of representative government?
The confused roles of the Executive branch has allowed the police to become a law unto themselves, - a state within a state - with their own laws and interpretations of the law. Tim Holding, the ostensible Minister of Police, and Rob Hulls, the Interior Minister, are far too concerned with kowtowing to percieved voting blocks to do their jobs, which would include administration of police.
Both Hulls and Holding know the police are considered the protectors by the average citizen, and that they control a sizeable voting block. Hulls and Holding know very well which side butters their political bread.
The Police Association is signaling to its members and supporters in its response to Baillieu.
Any complaints to these ministers about the actions of police are quickly dismissed as beyond their jurisdiction. It is, of course, precisely their jurisdiction, - their duty in fact -, to represent the authority of the citizens over the police.
Where it is constitutionally reasonable to maintain the judiciary as independent, it is constitutionally dangerous to allow the police to govern themselves. The police union and police are jealous of this constitutional independence.
Innumerable banana republics around the world have found this out the hard way. There is little to indicate that Australia will not suffer the same indignities.
It is no wonder that even after Christine Nixon was assigned to clean up corruption in Victoria, - so visible that it has been taken as part of the character of the state for decades - she has yet to accomplish one successful conviction.
posted by Unknown at
5:10 PM
Social bookmark this
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home