babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Australian politics

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Australian politics
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 04 February 2005 05:18 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This might be better in the "politics" forum rather than FAQs, but I am going to start it here and let the other moderators decide.

On another thread here one of our Australian friends was asking about the reasons for supporting same-sex marriage in Canada and mentioned that the right-wing PM in Australia had implemented legislation against SSM.

I thought about getting into this on the other thread but I didn't want to derail it. Just what is the deal with John Howard and the Australian right wing, anyway?

I always figured Australian politics would be a lot like Canadian politics. We're both mid-sized, economically advanced, English-speaking former British colonies with a federalist and parliamentary system of government. We both have had similar labour and progressive movements in our history. We currently exist in a similar economic and cultural orbit around the current "big power" in the English speaking world: the United States. We even both have currently governing poltical parties called the "Liberals," both of which trace their origins to Arthur Gladstone and the 19th C. British parliament.

In Australia, as I understood it, the labour movement was even stronger historically than it was in Canada, with the country electing the first Labour Party government in the English-speaking world at the beginning of the 20th Century. Our "labour party," the NDP, still has not won power federally, although our Liberal Party has tended towards the left to keep the NDP out, while the Australian Liberals moved to the right to become the pro-business alternative to Labour instead.

Based on my limited knowledge of the two countries' histories, I figured the two countries' politics would be broadly similar, and if anything, Australian politics may be a little "to the left" of Canadian politics. Well maybe I don't know enough about the history, but I do know today the Australian political consensus appears to be significantly to the right that in Canada. Australia joined the war, Canada didn't. Australia recently re-elected the Prime Minister who took them to war, by if I'm not mistaken, an even larger margin than the USians re-elected their own "war leader." Australia doesn't have SSM, Canada does. Australia has a very strong anti-immigrant tendency, in Canada we are much more open to immigration.

Does anyone have any thoughts on what might explain this?


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 04 February 2005 05:26 PM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just a sidebar. Do you think Canada's immigrant levels are generous?
From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 04 February 2005 05:42 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't know enough to say whether Canada's immigration levels are objectively "generous." It depends on what you mean by "generous."

But relatively speaking, I was under the impression that Canada allows more immigrants proportionate to our overall population than either the U.S. or Australia, and I think that people's attitudes in Canada, on average, are more positively disposed to the value that immigration brings to the country than either the US or Australians. These are just general impressions of mine, though, and if someone has evidence to prove otherwise I am open to hear it.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 04 February 2005 05:53 PM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
r-d, there's a current post from an Australian, with picture of "immigrant camp", where he sheepishly [sorry] comments on John Howard's fiefdom. Maybe it's under intro's.

I hope our levels increase, I think "a rising tide floats all boats".


From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 04 February 2005 06:05 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, that's the same thread I think I was reading about SSM. My question is: why do so many Australians vote for Howard? Are the Australians who vote for Howard the same kind of people as the Americans who vote for Bush and the Canadians who vote for Harper? If so, why are there more Australians who are willing to vote for Howard than there are Canadians who are willing to vote for Harper?
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
IanPurdie
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8127

posted 04 February 2005 11:13 PM      Profile for IanPurdie        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Robbie,

As an Australian, what I know of Canadian politics would fit on the head of a pin.

As for Howard's recent political success, I would put it down to the usual *big lie*. First you bring in the fear factor.

"A change of government would imperil economic prosperity - that means interest rates on your mortgage will skyrocket".

Secondly you re-inforce the fear factor by bringing in other extraneous issues. Ramp up a fear factor by over emphasising the old favourite "war on terror" and so it went on and on. Fear, more fear, a compliant media....

Immigration? We have lately a shameful record in dealing with refugees living in "concentration camps".

Pure straightforward Immigration? Do we need a larger population? Can we support a bigger population?

Sydney is bursting at the seams, they all want to come here. The infrastructure is under great pressure, water and electricity services in danger of implosion, plenty of resentment over property re-development and, property prices escalating beyong the reach of your children and grand-children.

Ordinary immigration simply seems to add greater pressure. Australia is one of the driest continents on the planet. Most areas are under water restrictions.


From: Budgewoi, N.S.W. Australia | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 04 February 2005 11:34 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Was the Iraq war an issue at all in the election, Ian? I just can't understand how any sane country would want to have any part of George's mess. (Although I am originally Canadian I live in the US, and I think every day about just how insane is the situation we're in.)

[ 04 February 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 04 February 2005 11:59 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not really a frequently asked rabble question I'll move it to "the rest of the world"
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 05 February 2005 12:11 AM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'll add a few things to this discussion, although I'm neither Australian nor unbiased.

While Australia may have been the most left-wing country in the English-speaking world at one point, I'd easily give that title to New Zealand nowadays (in which the centre-left Labour party is supported by more radical and ecologist parties as a result of a recent transition from FPTP to, imho, the best electoral system there is, MMPR...And I don't see the right rising again in New Zealand any time soon...) and wouldn't put it much further to the left than the U.S. is nowadays.

Australia's Labour is divided between Labour Right, which is ideologically similar to the Bill Clinton wing of the DNC, and socialist left, which is probably around the leftish wing of our Liberals or the Third Way Romanow types within the NDP. Labour Right currently dominates the party, and I believe there are smaller factions that are not particularly in play.

The Liberals are more or less akin, imho, to our Tories, minus the looney tunes Stockwell Day wing (which votes Christian Democrat, Family First, or One Nation...Family First is currently the most powerful party of the far-right in Australia...Although all have had their place in the sun, with One Nation being as important as Family First is at its peak.) or the Stronach/Clark types (which have voted for the socially liberal and economically moderate Aussie Democrats, another party that has bled support to the rising Green Party and to the few social liberals within the Liberal Party due to its backing off on a pledge to stop the Liberals from passing the controversial GST in the Senate)

Contrary to popular belief the National Party, the Liberal Party's junior partner in the ruling coalition is not a far-right party, and mainly differ from the Liberals by not being as friendly to free-trade (they were originally the most protectionist of Australia's major parties, but have more or less given the Liberals a free pass on trade issues and have only forced minor concessions in trade deals), being slightly more socially conservative (although closer to the comparably moderate Liberals than to Family First), and primarily emphasising rural issues, as they are strong in rural Australia whereas the Liberals are strong in well-off suburbs.

I've briefly mentioned the minor parties and will private more details now. But first, it's important to understand Australia's bizarre electoral system.

The House of Commons (I may have the name wrong here) is elected via Instant Runoff Voting. People rank the parties, and as the party with the fewest first-place votes is eliminated in ballot counting, their first-place votes are transferred to the second choice of that voter. This system continues until at least one party, almost invariably Labour or Coalition, surpasses the 50% mark. Since the institution of IRV, only one 3rd party candiate, a Green who won a byelection in some Sydney riding in 2002, has ever been elected. The House is elected every 3 years, and the Prime Minister is chosen as in Canada, GG and all.

The Senate is an even stranger beast! While the House is elected by IRV, the Senate uses a strang form of proportional representation. Each state is given a number of Senators in proportion to its population, half of which are elected every 3 years, making a term 6 years. As Antony Green of the ABC can explain the Senate far better than I can, I'll save you from a plethora of painful paragraphs by directing you to his excellent guide:

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/senatevotingsystem.htm

Be warned though, it's still a confusing beast, and my least favourite electoral system outside of Hong Kong.

With that out of the way, I'll give my view of the minor parties.

The most important minor party in Australia is the Green Party, by far the most leftist of the world's prominent ecologist parties. The Greens are very socially liberal, take some fairly radical economic positions (sometimes wandering close to Bev Meslo territory), and are staunch opponents of the Twin Evils of Chinese and American Imperialism (my buzzwords, but the Greens of Australia have ties to Greenleft Magazine, which in turn has ties to Leung Kwowk-hung and is a strong proponent of Hong Kong's radical left and its fight for civil liberties, social and democatic reform, human rights, press freedom, and an independent investigation into the atrocities of Tiananmen Square and George H. W. Bush's complicit reaction to this massacre), leading to Green Senators being expelled for booing both George W. Bush and Hu Jintao respective Senate committees.

The Greens have largely replaced the Aussie Democrats, a socially liberal and economically moderate party that was enjoyed moderate popularity in Australia and massive support from Adelaide's rich and well-educated intellectuals, as a party with which radicals vote in protest. The Aussie Democrats, which rose from the embers of the Liberal Party's dying leftish-wing in the 1970s, are ideologically a cross between the leftish-wing of our Liberals and Clarkish Red Tories. The party has more or less collapsed in popular support due to its breaking a promise to not back Howard's GST and to leadership conflicts.

Aside from the Greens, the most important of the fringe parties is the Family First party, which consists largely of Tom Coburn and Jesse Helms types...Tied to an extremely popular fundamentalist church in Australia, Family First presents itself as a socially conservative secular party that parses its policy initiatives through the lens of protecting and enhancing the Australian family. The reality, however, is quite different and far worse, with party members suggesting that Lesbians are witches that should be burned at the stake and egging Green party supporters. Most prominently, a Senate candidate in Victoria, Danny Nalliah, urged supporters to pray for the destruction of non-Christian places of worship, which he called "Satan's Strongholds", in his campaign literature. Lamentably, fellow Victoria candidate Steve Fielding was elected to the Senate over a Green candidate who won 4 times more votes before preferences were factored in. Controversially, Labourt distributed its preferences to Fielding over any of the Green candidates in exchange for Family First preferencing a socially conservative Labour candidate, who won a tight Senate race because of these preferences. It is my opinion that this behaviour is unforgivable, and that progressive individuals must never support the Labour Party of Australia due to that and to its opposition to equal mmarriage. Interestingly, Family First has shifted preferences to heterosexual or homophobic Labour candidates over homosexual or equality-supporting Liberal candidates while still preferencing Liberal adulterers who oppose Equal Marriage.

Other fringe parties include the moribund anti-immigrant party Pauline Hanson's One Nation (a very important party in its heyday), the Christian Democratic Party (which never caught fire the way Fascism First did because, while being less extreme, it's never bothered to present a secular front), and the Socialist Alliance, a far-left party made somewhat redundant by the Greens in spite of being more appealing to the even-more-leftists out there.

(Whoa. This may be the longest thinng I've ever written in a single Internet sitting.)


From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 05 February 2005 12:47 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well that was quite informative. Thank you for taking the time to write this piece, NDPNewb.

So now I have a better understanding of who the major parties and factions are and how they get elected. But I am still not really clear on where they get their support from. Why do people who vote Labor, vote Labor, why do people who vote Liberal, vote Liberal, etc. If there has been a trend towards more people supporting the right-wing parties than there used to be, what is the reason for it?


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 05 February 2005 03:36 AM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
NDP Newbie wrote:
quote:
People rank the parties, and as the party with the fewest first-place votes is eliminated in ballot counting, their first-place votes are transferred to the second choice of that voter.

According to a post on "Marxmail" around the time of the Australian elections last fall,voters may chose to vote for a party and then allow the party to chose where the vote goes if it gets eliminated. Most Labour Party voters support the Green Party as their second choice. Yet the Labour Party has a virulent hatred for the Greens. Thus, when voters allowed the Labour Party to allocate surplus votes, the Labour Party selected Families First. This resulted in many lefties voting for the Labour Party but actually helping to elect Familes First members of the senate. Absolutely riddiculous.

[Marxism] The Labor and Green Parties in Australia


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 05 February 2005 01:39 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
We even both have currently governing poltical parties called the "Liberals," both of which trace their origins to Arthur Gladstone and the 19th C. British parliament.

If i remember rightly, the Australian Liberal Party was formed in the 1940s as a united force to defeat Labour -- so it's equivalent to our BC Liberals, a big-tent right-wing coalition in a mostly two-party system, not to our federal Liberals.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 05 February 2005 06:13 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wouldn't Australia's legacy of racism and its proximity to Asia (the same yellow peril or brown tide that white Australians have been made to fear for its entire history) be the key factors here? Howard can't win so overwhelmingly if these weren't such potent forces moving the electorate. This along with Rupert Murdoch's stranglehold on the media and you have a powerful right-wing machine that dominates almost all Anglo countries, including Canada without Quebec.
From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 05 February 2005 07:41 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Rupert Murdoch doesn't have Canadian Media holdings.
From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 05 February 2005 07:45 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well we had Conrad Black and now the Asper Dynasty to fill that role.
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 February 2005 02:05 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by verbatim:
Well we had Conrad Black and now the Asper Dynasty to fill that role.

Ya, a real capitalist-parasitic setup. Black laid off half his news staff. His rags were printing Canadian news stories written by Rueters journalists.

[ 06 February 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
IanPurdie
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8127

posted 06 February 2005 10:07 AM      Profile for IanPurdie        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Be warned though, it's still a confusing beast, and my least favourite electoral system outside of Hong Kong.

Ah! NDP Newbie, as an Australian, may I say, you appear to be a very confused person, the facts are:

1. Around 95% of Australians eligible to vote - do so. What other country can boast that record?

2. Our envious parliamentary system, as far as practicable, ensures equal representation across Australia in our House of Representatives. It works...

3. Our Senate, to preserve the system of Federalism, has an equal number of Senators [12] for each State, two each for the Territories. That is to ensure populous States such as mine cannot dominate the little States.

4. Yes, we have preferential voting. If I don't like candidate "D", then my vote might go to "C", then maybe "B" and perhaps finally "A".

For all our faults, we're the greatest living democracy on this planet.

I didn't like the last election result one bit - BUT IT WAS KOSHER, DEMOCRATIC AND, A REFELECTION OF AUSTRALIA ON THE DAY.

As a loser, I accept that without question - what other country, given those statistics?

[ 06 February 2005: Message edited by: IanPurdie ]


From: Budgewoi, N.S.W. Australia | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
IanPurdie
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8127

posted 06 February 2005 10:18 AM      Profile for IanPurdie        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yet the Labour Party has a virulent hatred for the Greens. Thus, when voters allowed the Labour Party to allocate surplus votes, the Labour Party selected Families First. This resulted in many lefties voting for the Labour Party but actually helping to elect Familes First members of the senate. Absolutely riddiculous.

Largely factually incorrect. Many would suggest the "Greens" represent the "Left" faction of our Labor Party [note spelling].

The "Familes First" may have had some deal with Senate preferences politically, but idealogically?

Yep, we got a lot of folks in our party who associate with those values, many Catholic - and to be fair they are largely decent family values.

BUT

Personally I think they are part of an "over the top" world wide trend. Actually, the "cure" is worse than the "problem".

But, I'm probably prejudiced.


From: Budgewoi, N.S.W. Australia | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 06 February 2005 11:43 AM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
New Zealand, Germany, and Scotland have the world's best electoral systems by far.

MMPR ensures that all voters matter, all parties are fairly represented, and nobody can exploit the electoral system to subvert the will of the people. (IRV makes it nearly impossible for 3rd parties to win, Australia's Senate elections are so complicated that results nearly always boil down to deals between parties rather than actual popular support, and FPTP used in Canada and the UK allow majorities-without-mandate...Call me a pessimist if you want, but with opposition to SSM between 40 and 45%, Harper must be very optimistic about his election chances in an election fought over that, given that 40% = easy majority in Canada.)


From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
IanPurdie
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8127

posted 06 February 2005 05:45 PM      Profile for IanPurdie        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Was the Iraq war an issue at all in the election, Ian?

Sorry Robbie, I forgot to reply to that. No it wasn't an election issue to my ever lasting regret and shame.

The entire election was fought over who would spend more on health and education with the over riding issue of "who do you trust with the economy" and interest rates on your sizable mortgage.

As a consequence, the election result by default, became a rubber stamp of the government's policy over Iraq.


From: Budgewoi, N.S.W. Australia | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Walker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7819

posted 06 February 2005 07:28 PM      Profile for Walker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Whew! Sorry I wasn't here to get in on this. Hope it's not too late.

Umm, what Ian said. I was appalled at the result of the last election and for the fact that we have and the most deceiving, racist, reactionary and divisive government for the last however-many years, and it has made me wonder at who my fellow Australians really are. But at the end of the day, our system works. Even though it seems and is complex, people have their say. Proof of it is that any ruling government has rarely had an absolute majority in both the House of Representatives (not the House of Commons) and the Senate, which means that the govt. doesn't have a free rein to pass Bills through both Houses without some serious negotiation, particularly in the past 20 or so years with a 3rd moderate party (The Democrats) with the balance of power in the Senate.

I believe this is a good safety valve for more extreme pieces of legislation, and I also believe it is no accident that the Senate numbers have always been pretty evenly divided bw. the main parties AND a viable third Party. I think somehow the people have deliberately voted this way bc. they want that safety valve.

In the most recent election, that has changed with the Liberals (bitter irony in naming rights there) gaining an absolute majority of 1, but it's still very close. And the good thing is that with the demise of The Democrats in the Senate (self-immolation, long story) the Greens are now a major mainstream force.

This is despite the pitiful attempts by both Liberals and Labor to paint them as dope smoking loonies. Unfortunately, they are our only hope, with both parties basically agreeing on the Iraq War, detention of asylum seekers (Labor actually started it!), homeland security (both AKA scare-mongering) and global economic liberalisation (ie. the rich get richer, the poor get the picture).

SO, your question was why did the Libs get voted back in? Fucked if I know. I gave in to despair long ago.


From: Not Canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Walker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7819

posted 06 February 2005 08:19 PM      Profile for Walker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Well that was quite informative. Thank you for taking the time to write this piece, NDPNewb.

So now I have a better understanding of who the major parties and factions are and how they get elected. But I am still not really clear on where they get their support from. Why do people who vote Labor, vote Labor, why do people who vote Liberal, vote Liberal, etc. If there has been a trend towards more people supporting the right-wing parties than there used to be, what is the reason for it?


Maybe I can partially answer this: for all the weaseling ways of our inglorious leader John Howard, he is a master of manipulating the public's emotions and hitting the hip pocket nerves. The inhumane and arguably illegal imprisonment of asylum seekers for years on end becomes a matter of 'homeland security' not human rights, as the centres are in lockdown and the govt. works extremely hard to prevent these people from being humanised by having names, faces and lives that are valued.
And remember, many of these people are children.

Not to give all credit to Howard though, the economy is doing really well at the moment, and the public has a strong hip-pocket nerve and a big selfish streak.

ps. If you ask her, my three-year old will tell you that John Howard eats babies. She will go far.


From: Not Canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 07 February 2005 08:36 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I finally found the old Rabble column comparing Australia with Canada. Quite interesting.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 07 February 2005 12:01 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's a fascinating article, Mike. Thanks for tracking it down. I wonder what some of our new Australian friends here think about it?

I am wondering if the situation in Australia may be that they are a bit "economically" to the left of Canada because of the stronger unions, but "socially" to the right of Canada because of cultural differences and racial tensions? Thoughts?


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 07 February 2005 12:52 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One interesting side bar to the Canada-Australia comparison.

In Canada, the NDP has never come close to national power and we have had only Liberal/Conservative rule. In Australia, the Labour Party which is officially analogous to the NDP and is basically like the NDP in Manitoba or Sask., has been in and out of power ever since 1904 and YET, Canada has more advanced social programs than Australia!! We have a single tier public health system. They have a two tier health care system with huge inequities in the access to health care depending on whether you are rich or poor.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 07 February 2005 01:05 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hmm, that would seem to belie my "economically" left hypothesis. Could you or does anyone else have more information about how the Australian health care system came about to be the way it is?
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
IanPurdie
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8127

posted 07 February 2005 07:19 PM      Profile for IanPurdie        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Could you or does anyone else have more information about how the Australian health care system came about to be the way it is?

Well, in my lifetime [in the early days in my state] you had a public health system financially supported by lotteries. There also existed [1960's] two mutual health funds to which people could subscribe. MBF and HCF.

In the early 1970's the then Labor government instituted the universal Medicare system. This means every citizen regardless of financial position, is entitled to free medical care. Even Rupert Murdoch was issued with a card.

Subsequent Conservative governments try to dismantle or nobble it in favour of mutual health funds, subsequent Labor governments try to re-invigorate it. So it goes on...

Mutual Health Funds oppose it because they have an obvious vested interest. Some medical practicioners oppose it because it limits their prospective incomes.

On the whole I'm a firm believer in the system. I've seen families totally devastated financially [even with full insurance] before its introduction.


From: Budgewoi, N.S.W. Australia | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
IanPurdie
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8127

posted 07 February 2005 08:24 PM      Profile for IanPurdie        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One important aspect of Australian politics I would like to clarify. These comments might well apply to other democratic countries as well.

The man in the street seems to see politics in absolute terms of "black and white". Left versus Right. In fact this is really not the case at all.

Old time computer users might remember the term "greyscale" where we have not only black and white but 254 shades of grey in between, such is the reality of politics. I have been involved in politics in Australia for most of my life and can say the political spectrum does indeed cover all 256 shades.

Not often appreciated, is that all politicians and indeed party membership and supporters as well, hold differing views on differing topics. It is not unusual to find a Conservative politician holding left leaning views on say health care, while another Labor politician might be to the right of that view.

Expressing an entirely personal view, it is my belief that on the whole, the current Labor government of my state, N.S.W., is overall somewhat to the right of the Conservative Opposition.

As a card carrying member of the Labor party I am at times totally appalled by policy decisions of the government. Their love affair and championing of the cause of wealthy property developers is shameful in my opinion. So much so that relations between myself and my state member of parliament can best be described as "strained". What we convey in private is a "free and frank exchange of views". For mine, he really should be in the opposition party for many of his views but that's a biased personal opinion. My federal member of parliament holds views far closer to mine but numerically we are a minority in our party.

Anyone who tells you the Australian Labor Party is a socialist party is around about 60 years behind the times.

So - things are never absolute black and white as most people would imagine. Another thing, for the most part I respect and admire the majority of our politicians. That is based on a near lifetime experience of being acquainted with them from both sides of politics.

Earlier in this thread I said the last election was fought largely over fear of interest rate rises. It seems the Reserve Bank of Australia [RBA] is about to raise those interest rates. Rupert Murdoch's personal creation, "The Australian" newspaper ran this cartoon today

The little fellow is PM John Howard, the other is Treasurer Peter Costello and they're going into the RBA to complain about the rise. Hope it's not too subtle. I think it's hilarious and the "free" media will cane them.


From: Budgewoi, N.S.W. Australia | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Walker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7819

posted 08 February 2005 01:05 AM      Profile for Walker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
We have a single tier public health system. They have a two tier health care system with huge inequities in the access to health care depending on whether you are rich or poor.

I'm not sure that's right, depending on what you mean by 'two-tier'. I definitely wouldn't say there are huge inequities in health care - that sounds like the US. In fact, for years there has been a steady decline in the number of people in private health care, because it's so expensive and because (ironically) the public system - Medicare - is still pretty good. The current govt. is trying real hard to run it down though, but it's skating on thin ice bc it's probably the one thing most Australians agree on the need for, and they regularly say in polls they are willing to pay more taxes to retain.

There are waiting lists for non-urgent procedures, like knee replacements, which is not good of course, but for basic health care and emergency care, it's still pretty good.


From: Not Canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca