For those that fear coming to Australia!

[St Enodoc]

37 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

Among very many other potentially confusing names is that for the Federal Seat of Dunkley in which we used to reside.  

 

Even a lot of local residents didn't understand why it was not named "Frankston" or something else geographically suitable.  Instead it is named for Louisa Dunkley, a trade unionist and campaigner for equal pay for women but who had no direct connection with the Frankston area.  "Dunkley Place" in Canberra is also named for her.  

 

More recently the Federal Member for Dunkley, Ms. Peta Murphy (a Frankston resident with involvement in many local organisations) died in office last year from breast cancer.  In February this year the Peta Murphy Breast Imaging Suite was opened and named in her honour at Frankston Hospital.  A rather more respectful and worthy naming.  

As we know, many Federal electorates are named for people rather than places. There must be a reason why but I don't know what it is.

 

39 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

Peta Murphy Breast Imaging Suite

I thought that sort of thing was rather frowned upon these days (ooer missus)?

[St Enodoc]

23 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Anyway her inquiry results were hidden away for ages, because the conclusion was to ban gambling ads during sport on TV.

So now the push is on to water down those bans, because FTA TV is allegedly in dire trouble and supposedly needs that revenue. The government also is addicted to the tax from them.

Perhaps a first step would be to put the gambling ads in "plain packaging", so to speak, like the fag packets.

[kevinlms]

2 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Perhaps a first step would be to put the gambling ads in "plain packaging", so to speak, like the fag packets.

You mean these useless slogans, that are deliberately read out fast?

 

https://www.vgccc.vic.gov.au/news/‘chances-are-you’re-about-lose’-new-gambling-advertising-taglines

[St Enodoc]

1 minute ago, kevinlms said:

You mean these useless slogans, that are deliberately read out fast?

 

https://www.vgccc.vic.gov.au/news/‘chances-are-you’re-about-lose’-new-gambling-advertising-taglines

Just a plain, single-colour screen with the bookie's name was what I had in mind.

[Tumut]

Hello All, 1 / Australian Electorates are named after people due to geographic names becoming misleading due to redistribution boundary changes, this being evident in the UK where boundary changes frequently cause renaming that has some geographic sense to it.

Whilst there is a widespread view that MPs should reside within their Electorate, Dr Andrew Theophaous, Federal Labour MP (1980-2001) for Calwell (seat named after forme rFederal Labour leader, Arthur Calwell) spent as much time living out of the electorates he did in it, without moving house !

2 / prior to the Australian States establishing their own TAB / Totalizer  Agency Board, gambling on the races was done either at the track by Licensed Bookmakers, or by non licensed SP / Starting Price Bookies, who were frequently (not always, there were some honest ones !) shady characters, or sometimes outright criminals, hence the reason for State Governments establishing Government owned TAB monopolies.

NSW licensed Poker Machines / Pokies in 1956, Tasmania established a Casino in 1973, and over the next two decades, both Casinos and Pokies spread around the country, and TABs were privatised.

So, in effect, we have privatised an addictive pursuit, which has been a boon to crime syndicates, both local and overseas, and despite claims to the contrary, these establishments inevitably help launder ill gotten gains, have no real intention of not benefiting from such transactions (despite protests to the contrary), have no real intention to prevent fraud (one addicted pokies user was widely known as the Bank Teller ), nor any intention of banning problem gamblers, though they are very intent on draining as much money as they can from their patrons.

In my view, these are effectively fraudsters, and unprosecuted criminal organisations. In my view, all gambling ads need to be banned, their hours of operations restricted ( I would prefer to close them all, but I realise that is unlikely to happen), they are a cancer on our society, they deliberately prey on the weak, the poor, and the fraudsters. Our society would be better off without them, rant over. Regards to all, Tumut

[Gwiwer]

One fundamental difference between the UK and Aussie pub is that the former is still very often "The local" with the accent on sales of alcoholic and often solid refreshment.  Gaming rooms are unknown.  It's a long time since I saw any form of "one-armed bandit" in any British pub; they were never common.  

 

The Aussie pub is fundamentally a gambling den and a getting-drunk-fast hall.  There just isn't the culture of somewhere comfortable and safe to go for a quiet drink or a chat with friends over a pint.  There might be loud music; not always.  There is often a gaming room or at the very least prominently-sited pokie machines.  It is all about take, take, take and the Government or owner takes all.  Aussie drinking culture tends to support the "drink-fast-drink-more" ethos.  There are legal measures for sale of alcohol but they are not as strictly controlled (and in many cases are not controlled; states vary) as their UK counterparts.  "A beer" is typically served in a glass (other names exist and again vary by state) which is, or is close to, a half-pint but doesn't have to be stamped, marked with a line / brim-measure quantity nor does a pint have to hold exactly a pint.  

 

Around Melbourne and Victoria I would normally ask for a pint because I simply can't be faffed going back to the bar every few minutes to refill a "half"; not all pubs offered pint glasses.  With friends you often order a jug.  A jug holds a variable amount but typically fills four or five glasses / two and a bit pints.  Spirits need to be measured and one difference to the British scene is probably a plus for Australia; the stainless / plastic measure is not legal; it must be clear so that the customer can see they have a full measure.  Not that anyone pays any attention.  Wine is served by the "glass" which is different to the beer "glass" but as in the UK can be of any size.  But UK service must stipulate the quantity offered; Australian bars are not obliged to do so.  

 

So pop into the local here which varies widely from the busy city pubs / pack-em-in and sell-it-cheap Wetherspoons to the still widely-found village local with perhaps a handful of folk around the bar or seated with a drink and a crossword and you are a world apart from the Aussie model.  No pressurised gambling.  No blatant revenue-raising (OK the tax on alcoholic beverages anywhere is blatant revenue-raising of a sort) and the biggest problem you are likely to find is the largely-harmless village drunk who might be a little talkative and for some of us a little too friendly but certainly isn't going to drag you outside and punch on because you don't support (barrack for) the right sports team.  And most pubs close at midnight at the latest.  Some Aussie cities enforce a lockout (Melbourne's was 1am when I was last there) meaning no admission after that time but if already inside you could drink until they closed - often well into the next morning like 6 or 7am.  Or until they slung you out for being obnoxious - which might have been a bit sooner in some cases.  The difference between city pub and night-club is blurred down under.  In the UK it is still rather more distinctly defined.  

[St Enodoc]

4 hours ago, Tumut said:

Australian Electorates are named after people due to geographic names becoming misleading due to redistribution boundary changes

But not all, hence my question (our electorate is named for one of about a dozen suburbs in it, by no means the largest).

 

 

[Ozexpatriate]

4 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

"A beer" is typically served in a glass (other names exist and again vary by state) which is, or is close to, a half-pint but doesn't have to be stamped, marked with a line / brim-measure quantity nor does a pint have to hold exactly a pint.  

Couldn't say whether that is accurate or not these days. A relative did own or have some sort of interest in a 'traditional' Australian pub - before any sort of (legal) gambling. Growing up there were a number of items of Queensland pub glassware in the pre-1974 old measures at home that had been handed down. They definitely had a printed line and there were different sizes. They were smaller than an English pint.

 

There was a tradition of distinct sizes that varied by state laws. In Queensland it was usually the 'pot' and in NSW the Schooner etc.

[Ozexpatriate]

15 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

We are inundated with gambling ads here in the UK.

In the US as well - despite them being prohibited for many years. When offshore online casinos were banned in the US a loophole was written into the legislation to permit fantasy football leagues of the informal office pool sort. Restrictions on sports betting in legal casinos (like you will find in Nevada and on native land) were deprecated as well.

 

It turned out to be a big enough loophole to dive a metaphorical truck through. Somehow 'friendly' fantasy leagues have morphed into full sports betting with Australian-scale gambling advertising during sporting events.

[Tumut]

5 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

But not all, hence my question (our electorate is named for one of about a dozen suburbs in it, by no means the largest).

 

 

Dear Ozexpatriate and others, 1 / I stand corrected, Australian Electorates are generally named after people, though there are some exceptions, and new electorates are named after persons.

2 / The Commonwealth Constitution Section 24 requires the (lower) House of Representatives to have, as near as practicable, double the number of Senators, with the proviso that the smallest population original State ( which has always been Tasmania) shall have a minimum of five members, so, in effect, Tasmania's population sets the quota for the House of Representatives. The current number of HofR seats (which includes Territory* representation) is 151. The current New Parliament HofR has provision for 172 members, but can ultimately be expanded to 240 if need be. 

3 / Each original State must have equal Senate (upper house) representation, and originally each original State had six Senators, the current number is twelve Senators for each original State. There is a nexus between the Senate, and House of Representatives in Section 24, and a Referendum to break that nexus, and fix the number of Senate representation was defeated in a 1987 Referendum.

4 / therefore Tasmania currently has 12 Senators, and 5 House of Representative MPs.

5 / * both the Northern Territory, and the ACT, have stand alone representation, whilst other Territories are attached to an existing Lower House seat, usually in the State closest to them. 

Edited August 28 by Tumut
alter territory to Territory, bold original and add *5

[Ozexpatriate]

1 hour ago, Tumut said:

Dear Ozexpatriate and others ...

I didn't weigh in on electorate names. The electorate representing my old stomping grounds is named for a famous senator, now deceased.

 

A couple of nearby electorates are named for British peers (well, the local geographic names are) and one is named for an explorer.

 

Edited August 28 by Ozexpatriate

[monkeysarefun]

At least they aren't named in our usual "bleeding obvious"  fashion - "Great Sandy Desert", "Brown Snake", "Red back Spider" etc or we'd have electorates called stuff like "First toilet stop on way to Melbourne", "Nothing But Sheep", "Third Best Harbour Views" and so on

Edited August 28 by monkeysarefun

[St Enodoc]

19 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

At least they aren't named in our usual "bleeding obvious"  fashion - "Great Sandy Desert", "Brown Snake", "Red back Spider" etc or we'd have electorates called stuff like "First toilet stop on way to Melbourne", "Nothing But Sheep", "Third Best Harbour Views" and so on

Obviously not. Otherwise you'd end up with at least 30 electorates called Nothing but Sheep.

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

Obviously not. Otherwise you'd end up with at least 30 electorates called Nothing but Sheep.

Be fair - half of those would be called Nothing but Cattle!

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, Tumut said:

and a Referendum to break that nexus, and fix the number of Senate representation was defeated in a 1987 Referendum.

 

That there is a significant problem - it is very difficult to get anything passed in a referendum. All that is needed, is for the No side to put up an argument, along the lines of 'If you don't understand, vote no'.

That will always work and has been proven to.

[PhilJ W]

3 hours ago, kevinlms said:

That there is a significant problem - it is very difficult to get anything passed in a referendum. All that is needed, is for the No side to put up an argument, along the lines of 'If you don't understand, vote no'.

That will always work and has been proven to.

That didn't work with the Brexit vote.

[monkeysarefun]

32 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

That didn't work with the Brexit vote.

That's because the  question was too straight forward. If a Government wants a particular outcome they word the question to suit.  For instance in the 1999 referendum on whether we should become a republic, the question wasn't "Would yous all  like us to become a Republic?"

 

 

It was - 

 

"to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament."

 

 

Many who wanted a Republic didn't want the Parliament to decide who it was going to be and so on, so it got the thumbs down as the Government knew it would  and therefore Chuckles  3 is still reigning over us all happy and glorious.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 28 by monkeysarefun

[St Enodoc]

30 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

That didn't work with the Brexit vote.

...which was based on a simple majority, not the complex rules for Australian Constitutional referenda.

[kevinlms]

38 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

That didn't work with the Brexit vote.

You haven't looked at the recent (60 or so) years of referendums in Australia. Only in 1977 and 1967 were referendums successful in that time.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Australia#Results_of_referendums

 

I don't know that the 1967 one would pass, if it were held today.

[kevinlms]

21 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

Many who wanted a Republic didn't want the Parliament to decide who it was going to be and so on, so it got the thumbs down as the Government knew it would  and therefore Chuckles  3 is still reigning over us all happy and glorious.

 

I think the events of the past 8 years, have proven that the idea of directly electing Presidents (or whatever term you want to use), definitely has draw backs.

We currently determine the Governor-General, by the current PM deciding and recommending to the monarch.

 

MOST have done a pretty good job, with a small number being highly controversial, John Kerr and Peter Hollingworth (was it really 20 years ago!) coming to mind. Some of the best have been republican's. If they do their job properly, you should barely know who they are!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Australia#Timeline_of_governors-general

 

I suspect a high proportion of MP's (at least 2/3rds - thus meaning the opposition must have input) determining who, would work well.

[Tumut]

Hello All, 1 / in regard to the above, the Liberal-National Coalition Opposition has publicly stated, by Tony Abbott (fmr head of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy), for many years now, that only senior Military people shall be recommended for Governor-General, presumably not wishing to repeat John Howard's choice of a CoE Bishop, Peter Hollingsworth , whom I felt made a Soloman's Choice, of which the only two options available could be categorised as "damned if you do, and damned if you do not" , and damned he was !

2 / the ARM/Australian Republican Movement's current proposal is that each State Parliament recommend two candidates for consideration to the Federal Commonwealth Parliament, and the Federal Government will also nominate at least two candidates, and elect one, and the Commonwealth Parliament will then elect a shortlist to be presented to the nation to select their choice.

3 / In my view, providing all the State and Commonwealth  Parliament's votes for the recommended shortlist were by preferential secret ballot, this maybe a worthwhile approach. A simpler alternative, as used by Eire, is for a minimum of 20 MPs to nominate a candidate, all nominated candidates are then placed on a ballot for the Electorate to choose, which to me seems a simpler, and easier to understand process.

4 / the other problem, as previously expounded by the late Andrew Peacock, when Leader of the LNP Coalition Opposition, said that the only Referendum's the Coalition would support are those the Coalition proposed whilst in Government, and whist the Referendum Ballot was held whilst the Coalition were in Government. This appears to still be the case, and on the basis of the last lost Referendum regarding a Constitutionally guaranteed Aboriginal & Torres Strait Advisory body (Voice to Parliament) to Government*, which was supposedly a bipartisan Policy, the Coalition in Opposition successfully ran the argument of if you do not understand it, vote no. In Opposition, the Coalition continuously argued there was a lack of detail around the proposal , despite the fact that two large (as in a combined page count exceeding 100 pages ! ), and very detailed Reports were tabled to Cabinet by the responsible Minister (and later accessible on the web) setting out the structure and remit of the Voice to Parliament. It later turned out that neither Report was discussed by Cabinet. The defeat of the Referendum Proposal has resulted in the Coalition now publicly walking away from any formal recognition of, or discussion with, Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander representative bodies.

5 / *Voice to Parliament was a proposal to have a formal, elected, representative body of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to advise both Government, and Parliament, of their concerns. This is because every representative body that ever been established by legislation, or administrative action, to consult with Government has been abolished.

Regards to all, Tumut.

[Ozexpatriate]

18 hours ago, kevinlms said:

I suspect a high proportion of MP's (at least 2/3rds - thus meaning the opposition must have input) determining who, would work well.

So long as you want nothing to happen - and preserve the status quo.

 

National political super-majorities are rare. To be truly bipartisan (substantially more than one opposition member crossing the floor) has to be really popular and obvious.

[Ozexpatriate]

18 hours ago, kevinlms said:

I think the events of the past 8 years, have proven that the idea of directly electing Presidents (or whatever term you want to use), definitely has draw backs.

My emphasis.

 

Remember that there is no direct election of a President in the US. The system here uses a relic of slavery and the three-fifths compromise in the form of the Electoral College - which technically elects the President - which is the whole January 6 thing.

 

A direct vote would have had a completely different outcome and would (in my opinion) to be far superior. This would require a Constitutional Amendment - and ratification by two-thirds of the state legislatures - meaning it won't happen anytime soon. See above.

 

It took around 50 years for two thirds of the states to agree that women should have equal rights as men - but the consensus is that it took too long and that proposed amendment is dead.

[DavidB-AU]

It's also worth remembering that the United States is a presidential republic where the President is both head of state and head of government. The proposal in Australia was to replace the Governor-General representing the Monarch with a President as head of state. The Prime Minister would still be head of government.

 

If you look at other parliamentary republics with a separate President as head of state and Prime Minister as head of government, directly electing Presidents isn't a bad thing. Especially when the head of state is largely ceremonial. For example, the President of Germany.

[Ozexpatriate]

19 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

It was - 

 

"to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament."

18 hours ago, kevinlms said:

We currently determine the Governor-General, by the current PM deciding and recommending to the monarch.

Political appointments are fundamentally undemocratic - whether by an individual executive (PM, Governor, Premier etc), legislature, or other "electors". All of them are "indirect" and all them have the potential if not the propensity not to represent the will of the people. 

 

US Senators were originally elected by state legislatures. This perpetuates political machines - legislatures 'promote' their own to higher office.  The Seventeenth Amendment (1913) changed this to direct election by the people in each state.