<< "WE ARE BUSINESSMEN" ~ MAIN ~ LAPTOP FOUND >>
COSTELLO CLAMS UP
Looks like the Great Drive for Power might be over:
Treasurer Peter Costello has finally decided to stop talking about the leadership - refusing to answer questions about it at a press conference in Melbourne today.
Two days after telling John Howard to stand aside by Christmas, Mr Costello said he had answered all questions fully over the past three days and had nothing more to add.
He’s been silenced! In other political news, Veterans Affairs Minister Bruce Billson counsels against using Hogan’s Heroes as a guide to framing compensation for prisoners of war.
In other political news, Veterans Affairs Minister Bruce Billson counsels against using Hogan’s Heroes as a guide to framing compensation for prisoners of war.
Yeah… read that at lunch today. One of the more random and bizarre stories going around.
Anyone read crikey today?
Costello had no bigger media backer than Melbourne-based Crikey in our first three years, but then the notorious glass jaw emerged and we’ve been banned from the last two budget lock-ups.
Peter Costello has been a good Treasurer, he’s straighter than most politicians and he’s the best performer in the Federal Parliament. He should be in The Lodge by now but what chance does he have if he can’t even shore up his power base in Victoria? Even close supporters complain that he surrounds himself with sycophants and only really has James Packer as a close business confidant.
Surely there is more loving out there for Peter Costello?
My father—a prisoner of war in WWII, briefly—watched Hogan’s Heros all the time. He loved it.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 13 at 01:19 AM • permalinkThank goodness the appropriately described dummy spitting kid has shut up. Howard Nelson and Downer have got much more important issues to deal with currently. With the bombing in India and the Hezbollah escalation of the Israel/Palestine nightmare and how the international community deals with possibly Iran winding it up, a whinging Costello is an appalling distraction.
Haaretz reports that Nasrallah has rolled Meshal and is laying out his conditions.
Sandmonkey reports that Nasrallah has made a speech in which along with his other threats and demands he says“And to the international community that calls for the return of the 2 soldiers, i don’t care if Lebanon has to suffer “
Poor Lebanon.What can Australia do to help stop what is happening. Indyk proposed last night that because there were no Generals as PM or Defence Minister the Israelis are more frightened. Offer them support perhaps.
Get with the team Costello.
I gather Turnbull believes that Howard should be Leader for the next election.
25k? One-off payment?
About half what I pay per annum in taxes.
What a bunch of tight asses—these guys (and gals) deserve that much per annum to the day they die for services rendered to their country.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 07 13 at 01:51 AM • permalink#6 I don’t think there’s any reason for a cabinet reshuffle at the moment, short of sacking Costello, and I don’t particularly like Turnbull, but if Turnbull were to be promoted now it would put Costello’s born-to-rule leadership in perspective. I think he thinks he could see off the Abbots and Nelsons, who are only in play because of his petulance, but to have the natural born treasurer in the room would keep him straight until the next election.
I think Billson is on to somethere here. The chap’s a genius. I always ‘Ello ‘Ello was an accurate depiction of the occupation of France but it’s possible I’m mistaken. Good moaning…
Posted by walterplinge on 2006 07 13 at 03:06 AM • permalinkGilligan’s Island - Highly offensive to those on the Titanic.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 07 13 at 03:11 AM • permalinkMaybe it is time to for a new PoW based comedy
Anyone for Hamdan’s Heroes
Posted by The (WHMECDM) President on 2006 07 13 at 03:21 AM • permalinkWell I think Costello would have been a less divisive option to the rodent, however, his unfortunate demeanor really would only see him maintain the job until the next election, at which time he would be punted - This is not lost on Howard.
Abbott is shaping as the odds on favourite, which is really sad. He’s a religious nut who answers to his god rather than his constituency. This is an situation that all Australians should be concerned about, regardless of political persuasion.
Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 07 13 at 05:05 AM • permalink#8 MentalFloss
25k? One-off payment?
About half what I pay per annum in taxes.
What a bunch of tight asses—these guys (and gals) deserve that much per annum to the day they die for services rendered to their country.
I couldn’t agree more. My late father-in-law was a POW of the Japanese being captured at Singapore and one of a handful from his regiment who made it out from Ambon at war’s end three and a half years later. He was never bitter about his captivity though his experience certainly shortened his life.
As for compensation from government, he got nothing because he didn’t live long enough. But governments deplorably drag these things out to avoid paying out anything in the hope and certain knowledge that the longer they string things along, more possible claimants will just die resulting in an overall reduction in any liability. The current saga over asbestos compensation is a case in point.
Peter Costello
Couldn’t get in my head why he was banging away at Howard…well duh, outside of feeling that blood pulsing through his system to various parts of his body, lusting for power. Christ probably a better ‘rush’, so to speak, then he got from his Viagra.
Those who follow American news will get the connect with mentioning ‘rush’ and Viagra together in the same sentence.
War Vets and survivors of, deserve everything they can get. One, they shouldn’t have to ask/beg/scream/demand.
Two, the existing generation should be more then happy to throw money at them, for without those before them doing what they did, enduring what they had to, the existing generation would not be, existing.
Howard has been PM for 10.5 years. He is 67. Hubris and compacency set in. The current love in of Liberal MP’s is evidence of that. get real guys. Howard is not going to be PM forever (oh, they didn’t tell you that?) - and continually electoral success depends on orderly sucession.
A French WW2 veteran tells me that he enjoys “Ello Ello” - particularly Rene’s effortsd to make sure that his business and harem survive whatever adminstration is in power.
I was amused when in France once top see this show dubbed into French. My accents are not so keen that I could detect how they dealt with the humour that the different accents provided in the English version.
Costello is actually providing leadership in forcing the Liberal party, to face up to the reality of the need for an orderly succession. Howards self indulgent, I may let the people know by December what I will do (courtesy of his former Chief of Staff) is actually quite arrogant and dismissive of the interests of we the people in what happens at the next election.
My favourite TV includes House and Doc Martin - two grumpy non PC doctors. ATony Abbot may get my vote if he were in my electorate and if he were to promote the graduation of more such non PC doctors.
Excuse me Andrew R, I did not deride Abbott as a “religious nut”. I share Tony Abbott’s religious views.
And I would vote for him if he worked to graduate more doctor’s like House and Doc Martin. I am a contemporqary Uni of Sydney graduate of his (and Turnbull) so I know them well.
Otherwise I support Costello.
Howard is at a high and should go now. It can only be downhill from here. His hubris is evidence of this.
Dr Bob - Andrew R was having a go at Gustov Deleft, an occasional troll, who referred to Tony Abbott as a religious nut.
Gusty - go fuck yourself.
Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 07 13 at 07:25 AM • permalink“Like diapers, politicians should be changed regularly, and for pretty much the same reason.”
I’ll admit, I don’t know a whole lot about the Australian system of government. I’m under the impression, though, that the AU Parliament is like the US Congress, only with broader powers that pretty much overshadow the AU President.
The US Congress doesn’t have any term limits, but the President does. There has been a lot of debate, on our side of the ocean, over whether Congress should also have term limits, but none have ever been imposed (mostly because Congress would have to vote for them).
Still, it’s a pretty good subject for debate. Should Congress / Parliament be immune to term limits, simply by virtue of the democratic nature of their members’ elections? Or should the most powerful branches of our governments be the ones subject to those limits (President in the US, Parliament in AU), regardless of how they are elected?
Also, why do I have to log in three to five times to post each comment? My browser has cookies enabled, but the ones from this site seem to expire in ten seconds.
Posted by Tatterdemalian on 2006 07 13 at 08:16 AM • permalinkWell said oafish and infantile! You beautifully articulate the intellectual depth of the wingnut!! Bravo.
Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 07 13 at 08:34 AM • permalinkO/T - I caught the last ten minutes of “Dirty War” on SBS. A lot on the Shoalwater bay training area in Qld and how our joint training and live fire exercises with the US are environmentally devastating the area. I couldn’t even start to describe what drivel it was - depleted uranium, UXB’s 30 feet underground ruining the groundwater, gaseous poisons from XB’s wafting through the local atmosphere etc. All coupled with a snide and sarcy commentary.
Went over to their online comments area. If the doc was crap you really should go over and have a look at the comments. They are really something else.
eg “The duplicity of the USA strewn for all to see. BUT… what about our defence bases and surrounds? Thses should also be put under the microscope” Er.., Shoalwater Bay is an Australian Defence area dummy and has been for decades. And ..
“Will their aircraft be carrying tactical nukes on any occasions? (probably Yes, not that we’d be told the truth - accidents do happen”. What can you say? A few brave souls are having a go, but it’s really beyond me.Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 07 13 at 08:37 AM • permalinkJust because Costello has remained tight lipped doesn’t mean he has put his aspirations to bed. The damage is done and it’s a given that this issue will raise it’s ugly head again.
drbob is right. The party does need to look to a successor to Howard. Howard’s refusal to accept that he is not immortal will probably come back to haunt him as it did Hawk after Keating was relegated to the back bench.
All this means is that Costello will just make sure he’s better prepared next time and have the numbers to make a hostile challenge.
How long do you reckon before the first bleat appears demanding likewise compo for our current POW banged up in the ‘Gitmo Gulag?
After all, he was nabbed while bravely fighting for his country and his beliefs- pity they happened to be Talibanistan and the eradication of all Jews, Gentiles, Hindus, Buddhists, Scientologists and Secular Humanists, but nobody’s perfect.
John Howard has good grasp of Liberal Party history after thirty-two years in Parliament. Aside from the political damage it would cause to the Government, there is another very good reason why Prime Minister John Howard cannot dismiss Treasurer Peter Costello. All the aphorisms about the position of Party Leader ultimately being a decision for the Parliamentary Party also hold true for the position of Deputy Leader. The Prime Minister can’t really dismiss the Treasurer without also removing him from his position as Deputy Leader. That would require convening a meeting of the Parliamentary Party and finding a credible alternative candidate for the Deputy Leader position.
Back in 1985 then Liberal Leader Andrew Peacock attempted just such an exercise against then Deputy Leader John Howard. The initial outcome was that Howard was re-elected as Deputy Leader. Peacock then decided that the Party was not supporting him, announced that he couldn’t work with Howard as his Deputy and immediately resigned as Leader. It was through that process that John Howard emerged from the Party Room as Leader.
Most of the commentariat appear to have forgotten the events of 1985, but you can be absolutely certain that John Howard hasn’t.
“In other political news, Veterans Affairs Minister Bruce Billson counsels against using Hogan’s Heroes as a guide to framing compensation for prisoners of war.”
I say, no relation, I suppose?
Veterans Affairs Minister Bruce Billson said men in German and Italian prison camps in World War II were wrongly perceived by many people as having had a fairly easy time, thanks to Hollywood.
Everything I needed to know about the world I learned from Hollywood sitcoms.
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2006 07 13 at 09:50 AM • permalink“I know Nuh-zing!”
That much I’ll readily admit. Google isn’t helpful; all the searches I’ve done return junk like “Australia is a parliamentary democracy founded on liberal traditions of democracy, freedom, and peace,” with no explanation of just how the government actually works.
I could go to Wikipedia (aka Schroedinger’s Reference… “accurate information both exists and doesn’t exist, depending on who edited the article last”), but I’d rather make a fool of myself on a board run by an actual Australian, and hopefully get corrected when everyone is done laughing.
Posted by Tatterdemalian on 2006 07 13 at 09:50 AM • permalinkI don’t know anything about the nuts and bolts of Australian political mechanisms either but it seems to me from reading the comments above (and other places) that those advocating an “orderly transition” are those that really didn’t want Howard in the first place. In other words, I get the impression that a lot of the seeming “concern” is self-serving and manipulative. Just look at the people voicing that concern.
On another point, I confess I don’t “understand” this whole forced transition concept anyway. I’m sure much of it has to do with the system we have in the US where we elect people much more than parties. But it is a good point to make (as gustov alludes to) that Mr. Howard ran and got elected to the office, whereas Mr. Costello never has and there’s no telling, if given the opportunity, he ever will. To me the argument sounds like he’s saying he has some divine right to rule. Why?
“In other words, I get the impression that a lot of the seeming “concern” is self-serving and manipulative.”
In this case, it probably is. Lots of people claim the purest of motives, when their actions prove they really have anything but (c.f. Hitler’s “Lebensraum” speeches, Mao’s “Great Step Forward,” anything issuing from the UN or the Muslim world).
Still, it doesn’t mean forced transition is a bad thing. We developed the concept after FDR nearly dissolved Congress and the Supreme Court after a record sixteen years in office and plans to run for a fifth term. He was the US’s first, and hopefully last, President-For-Life, and if he hadn’t ended his term the way he did, the US would today be the same sort of basket case as everything south of the Rio Grande.
Posted by Tatterdemalian on 2006 07 13 at 12:31 PM • permalinkkcom & Tatterdemalian
I’m afraid, as you imply/say you don’t understand the Australian political system - which is foregivable, given the amount of coverage of Oz politics you get over there.
But it is a good point to make (as gustov alludes to) that Mr. Howard ran and got elected to the office, whereas Mr. Costello never has ...
This is absolutely not the case, and another reason why gutsy deft is a twerp & should be ignored.Here’s a very simplified primer.
There are 2 Houses in our Parliament - House of Representatives (the Lower house) of about 125 ‘seats’ with each seat of ‘roughly’ the same number of electors. That is, highly populated NSW state has many more House of Reps members than Tasmania. Then there’s the Senate (Upper House) of 76 Senators - 12 each from each State and 2 each from the 2 Territories.
‘Government’ is formed by the Party or coalition of Parties that can command a majority in the House of Representatives, where Acts of Parliament (Bills) are introduced by the Government. The Senate also needs to approve all Bills for them to become law (or amend them, or reject them). It is historically unusual for the Government to have a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Howard does currently, which shows his electoral appeal (even after 4 terms!).
All Members of the House of Reps and Senate enter Parliament ‘equally’ - as elected representatives of their local constituency. That is, ‘the people’ didn’t elect Howard as Prime Minister, but the electors of the Seat of Bennelong elect him as their local member.
After an election, the elected representatives of each party elects their leader, deputy leader etc from within. A winning party will naturally retain the same person as leader before and after the election. The losing party will often change leaders after losing the election.
The leader of the party with the majority in the House of Reps becomes Prime Minister (ie Howard). He then appoints his Cabinet from the other elected representatives from the House of Reps or the Senate.
Thus if the leader of the government party happens to get dumped as leader mid term, he/she is no longer Prime Minister (this is what happened to Margaret Thatcher in Britain and also to Bob Hawke, a past Labor prime Minister in Australia). This happens when the elected members get nervous and don’t think the leader can win the next election for them. Although each member is elected individually, it is the leader of each party that is the driving force and ‘face’ of the party. We say that the elections here have become a bit ‘Presedential’, with the party leaders one of the key ingrediants of campaigns.
Howard, on the other hand still has very strong appeal to the public and there is no doubt that he has the suppoprt of the vast majority of his elected members. The current debate is whether Howard will retire while in office and therefore create a vacancy for Prime Minister. This is very unusual (happened only once before). Although about 66, Howard is still a very fit man, is obviously enjoying himself and is still popular so the idea of him retiring is mostly a construct of the lefty press and the Opposition parties.
“Orderly transition” means that Howard retires with a successor already virtually agreed and with time for he/she to ‘make their mark’ before the next election. Usually what happens is that a government party loses an election (or becomes un-electable) and there’s a shit-fight as to who gets elected as the new leader. So ‘orderly transition’ while still in government is a fairly novel concept.
So Costello’s (Howard’s deputy and up to now, heir-apparent) latest push is just plain dumb. He can agitate for Howard to retire before the next election, but the new Leader (and therefore Prime Minister) would then be elected by the Parliamentary members. Costello, although previously seen as the natural successor has probably damaged his standing enough for his winning the election as Leader of the Liberal (that’s Conservative here) Party.
Hope that helps a bit. Our system is much like Britain and Canada’a, but our Senate is fully elected.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 07 13 at 02:51 PM • permalinkThanks SCD! Does Australia have an executive branch or President, or is Parliament all the government there is? I could have sworn I saw a reference to an Australian President (not the Prime Minister) a while ago, but Google is turning up nothing now.
Posted by Tatterdemalian on 2006 07 13 at 06:06 PM • permalinkTatterdemalian - No, we have Westminster style government. The Prime Minister is the Top Man and he appoints all the Ministers (equiv of your Secretaries) to head the various government Departments. The ‘Executive’ as you call it is the Cabinet as I described.
‘Executive’ decisions are made by the Cabinet as a whole but in practice the Cabinet follow what is already party policy if its a matter of policy; ‘the party room view’ (elected members) if not and over-riding all is what the Prime Minister wants. The Prime Minister can be ‘rolled’ (ie what he wants doesn’t get up) but this is rare. Howard I don’t think has been rolled as such but he has had to compromise on a couple of contencious matters when a number of his members have gotten squeemish.
There are occasional concious votes allowed (ie no Party Policy).
In short Australian Members of Parliament have less freedom to vote as they choose than in the US. Liberals (remember, that’s Conservatives like Howard) CAN vote against their party’s Bills in Parliament (happens from time to time) and they only get dirty looks from the others. If a Labor party MP votes against a Labor Party Bill, he gets kicked out of the Party.
No Republic, no President -thank you very much! Australia (and Canada, NZ etc) are Constitutional Monarchies. The Queen, represented in Australia by our Governor General in theory has top-most power but in 99.99999999% of cases acts only on advice from her Prime Minister (one main celebrated exception - very complicated; another time).
We had a referendum a few years back on whether to become a Republic (Irish type model - retain Prime Minister with exec power; President a figure-head who would replace the Governor General) or retain the status quo - Constitutional Monarchy.
Left, progressives (and some in the Liberal = Conservative Party.. eg Peter Costello!!!) campaigned hard for Republic. John Howard not surprisingly championed the status quo.
The status quo (Constitutional Monarchy) won every state and territory except I think one territory. We re-elected the Queen.
Don’t worry about the Queen bit - yanks never understand.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 07 13 at 07:10 PM • permalinkSCD - good summations (although House of Reps has 150 members)
To Americans who want an understanding. Australia’s system is often described as a Washminster system - a mixture of the Westminster system of ministerial responsibility and the american system.
Whereas you guys have a separation of judicial, legislative and executive powers, in Australia the executive (ministers and the Prime Minister) come from the legislative branch (ie parliament).
Unfortunately, our Senate voting system of proportional representation means wankers from Tasmania elected with less than 17,000 votes have the power to block legislation approved by NSW senators who have been elected with hundreds of thousands of votes.
Posted by The (WHMECDM) President on 2006 07 13 at 08:19 PM • permalinkAndrew Bolt sorts through the rubbish being written about Costello and Howard.
Howard continues to get it right - see his comments on Lebanon and Israel this morning. Costello’s not within cooee of Howard’s statesmanship. Remember his dummy spit at Malcolm Turnbull’s proposed tax changes.
Nicely put drift, but you have no understanding of what I wrote.
I agree that should Costello become leader sometime during the current term he would remain Prime Minister, that’s just the way it works. My point (which you missed) is that Costello is disliked and would therefore lose the next election. Howard knows this which why he isn’t giving in.
Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 07 13 at 10:58 PM • permalinkAren’t there now 150 members of the House of Reps?
Wot, are they breeding? Get the RatSack into ‘em!
gustov_deleft wrote: Nicely put drift, but you have no understanding of what I wrote.
And I write; Thank you for both comments; its a pleasure.
The (...) President:
Unfortunately, our Senate voting system of proportional representation means wankers from Tasmania elected with less than 17,000 votes have the power to block legislation approved by NSW senators who have been elected with hundreds of thousands of voteshehehe. The cost of federation, baby! And keep that massive GST transfer coming, I have a certain standard of living I want to maintain, courtesy of the NSW and Victorian tax payers. Hey you! Peel me another grape.
But seriously, can you believe here in Canada where I’m currently, they have appointed senators!
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 07 13 at 11:09 PM • permalinkSo the media over there run ‘early appointment’ stories in a dull week SCD?
Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2006 07 14 at 12:41 AM • permalinkSwinish, I’m in Canada at the moment so have missed most of the action but I gather it was a bit more than a media beat-up in a dull week (although no doubt the media went into a mouth-frothing over-kill…. as usual).
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 07 14 at 12:47 AM • permalinkI’m in Canada at the moment oops, I said that didn’t I? Sorry. Must get off this thread.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 07 14 at 12:49 AM • permalinkI do appreciate the exposition on the Australian government, SCD. It was perhaps a “teachable moment” in the true sense since it dealt with actual facts. That’s not to say I didn’t know any of that before, just not all the particulars. One thing, for instance, I was entirely unclear on was how the Senate fit in with everything else. It does indeed sound like a Washminster system. (And speaking of the Senate, one thing that puzzled me after the last election was why it was going to take months for the Senate to change hands. I never did figure out the an answer to that one.)
On another point, I know Howard was technically not elected directly as prime minister but I also know it was entirely clear as people were voting who would be prime minister if the Liberals won. So in that sense he put his name and reputation on the line and proved himself worthy. Peter Costello has never done that so no one can say for certain whether he would be nearly as successful. So my puzzlement came from trying to figure out why a very successful prime minister, who had proved his electoral chops, whose support among voters and his peers was very strong, should give up his job to someone who had never proven anything directly. And based on what argument? I think the Andrew Bolt column linked above crystallized everything I was thinking. Where is the argument of why Costello should be leader beyond the simplistic “it’s my turn” argument?. Isn’t it necessary to make some kind of argument that he would be better for the Australian people (or, at a minimum, the Liberal Party)? Aren’t they, or shouldn’t they be (meaning the Australian people), what it’s really all about? It just seems like he assumes he should be leader based on the fact that he wants to be. That’s a pretty weak argument.
One last point - I was amused that you have 12 senators per state and we have only 2. (Keep in mind that California, with 33 million people has two, as does Wyoming with 490,000 people.) I guess your senate is a bit less exclusive club than ours.
kcom your middle paragraph very worthy and sorry if I under-estimated your knowledge.
The only reason Howard’s possible retirement comes up is his age AND the fact that many of his supporters would like to see him be able to retire while he’s on top. Its easy to fall from grace in politics very quickly and the longer Howard stays, the more rapid that fall might be (ie if mortgage rates go up a few more points, or global economy takes a dive). PLUS he did actually say a few years back that he’ll consider his position when he was 64 (or was it 65). That gave credance to the ” he’ll go early” theory and was in retrospect a mistake. Gave the excuse for every moronic journalist to keep asking “are you thinking about retiring…”
Senate. unlike the House of Reps, the Australian Senate has fixed, 4 year terms but it is split into 2 groups, each with terms over-lapping by 2 years. Thus at most elections only half the Senate goes to the people but the newly elected people don’t take up their seats until the old fixed term expires. Maybe 6 months after the election. Thus last election, although Howard won a majority of the Senate (the first time in 30 years or so), he didn’t have the actual numbers until 6 months later. Dunno how this came about.
The House of reps (house that forms Government) has a nominal term of 3 years but not fixed. A Prime Minister can call an election any time he or she chooses. Usually between 2 and 3 years, whenever the PM thinks he (always been a he) can win. This mitigates against good governemnt, as after 1 year the govt looks is cautions for the second year and in the third year is looking to the election. Another virtue of JoHo is that he’s served out just about the full 3 years each time.
12 Senators per state? It used to be 10, but they decided they needed more!! Again I dunno how 10 came about originally, but I guess with Australia only having 6 states, they thought they needed some critical mass of people to populate the senate.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 07 14 at 04:03 PM • permalink#49 StopCD
12 Senators per state? It used to be 10, but they decided they needed more!! Again I dunno how 10 came about originally, but I guess with Australia only having 6 states, they thought they needed some critical mass of people to populate the senate.
The Australian constitution requires the size of the Senate to be twice that of the House of Representatives (or as nearly as is practically possible). There have been a number of attempts to change the nexus at referenda over the years all without success, so with a need [it always begs the question, doesn’t it?] to increase the number of lower house federal MPs has come the need to increase the size of the Senate. Hence the move to 12 senators. I think one aspect of the relative size and numbers involves some juggling to try to ensure that a clear majority can result from the numbers of parliamentarians. So we went from 10 to 12 Senators allowing an additional 24 lower house MPs or thereabouts.
I’d guess the original size of the Australian parliament was based on what was feasible to staisfy the States at that time and provide ‘reasonable’ parliamentary representation across this vast continent. Perhaps it was one of the first examples of Australian ‘federalism at work’.
Information is all available here, particularly the Role of the Senate and finally the nexus, if anyone wants some reading material.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Ahhh, Hogan’s Heroes. I used to watch that all the time when I was a kid. Even then I thought it was hilarious how they would occasionally send the African-American guy out dressed as a Nazi. What was funnier was that none of the Nazis ever seemed to notice….