|
Archive-name: australian-faq/part3
Last-modified: 2 April 1996 Version: 3.10 See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge PART I (separate posting) 1.About soc.culture.australian 2.How to find Australians, Australian Information 2.1 on the net 2.1.1 Public access sites 2.1.2 Gopher and WWW 2.1.3 Weather 2.1.4 Finding people 2.1.5 Other 2.2 elsewhere 3.Citizenship/Visas/Immigration 3.1 Australian citizenship 3.2 Dual Citizenship of other countries 3.3 Visas 3.3.1 For Foreigners in Australia 3.3.2 For Australians in other Countries 3.4 Immigration 3.4.1 Addresses 3.4.2 Criteria and Points System 3.4.3 Spouse/fiance(e) immigration 3.4.4 Employers sponsoring foreign employees 3.5 Emigrants ----------------------------------------------------------------- PART II (separate posting) 4.Coming to Australia 4.1 Quarantine 4.2 Standards 4.3 Cars 4.3.1 Car Insurance 4.4 Shipping Information 4.5 Miscellaneous 4.6 Australians returning Home 5.Studying in Australia 5.1 Overview of Australian Higher Education 5.2 Postgraduate Study 5.3 Miscellaneous Questions 5.4 "Classification" of Australian Universities 5.5 Academic Addresses 5.6 Australian Medical Schools 6.For Australians Overseas 6.1 Radio Australia 6.2 Newspapers: 6.3 Australiana in the USA 6.4 Video Conversion 6.5 Expatriate organisation 6.6 Oz News ----------------------------------------------------------------- PART III (this posting) 7.History 7.1 Pre-Europeans 7.2 European Discovery 7.3 European settlement 7.3.1 Penal Colony 7.3.2 Gold Rush 7.3.3 Post WWI Immigration 7.3.4 Miscellaneous (includes Tasmanian Aborigines) 7.4 Political History 7.4.1 Independence 7.4.2 Aboriginal Voting 7.5 Wars 7.5.1 Boer War 7.5.2 World War I 7.5.3 World War II 7.5.4 Korea, Vietnam and others 7.6 National heroes/Notable Australians 7.7 Miscellaneous 8.Politics 8.1 Political System 8.2 Voting System 8.3 Current governments 8.4 Taxation 8.5 The Independence Debate 8.6 Mabo 8.7 Health Care 8.7.1 Medicare 8.7.2 Medicare Levy 8.7.3 Doctors 8.7.4 Fees 8.7.5 Public Hospitals 8.7.6 Private Hospitals 8.7.7 Aged Care 8.7.8 Skin Cancer 8.8 Economic Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- PART IV (separate posting) 9.Geography, Natural History 9.1 Geographic information 9.1 Cities and Population 9.2 National Holidays 9.3 Weather 9.4 Flora 9.4.1 Extinct Species 9.5 Fauna 9.5.1 Monotremes 9.5.2 Marsupials 9.5.3 Tasmanian devils and Tasmanian Tigers 9.5.4 Venomous Fauna 9.5.5 Extinct and Endangered Species 9.5.6 Koalas 9.6 National Symbols 9.6.1 Flag 9.6.2 Coat of arms 10.Australian Life 10.1 Housing 10.2 Schooling 10.3 Public Transport 10.4 Roads 10.5 Prices 10.6 Shopping Hours 10.7 Crime 10.8 Sport ----------------------------------------------------------------- PART V (separate posting) 11.Travel 11.1 Money 11.2 Jet-lag 11.3 Responses to 3 questions 11.4 Travel Reports and Recommendations 11.4.1 A Trip description 11.4.2 Uluru (Ayers Rock) 11.4.3 Places of interest in Tasmania 11.4.4 Accommodation tips to the low budget motorhome traveller (BB) 11.4.5 Adelaide and SA 11.4.6 Touring Australia by Motorcycle [C] 11.4.7 Cheap travel agent [RM] 11.4.8 Places of Interest in Melbourne 11.4.9 Australia from south to north [JO] 11.5 Advice for Australians in .... 11.5.1 United Kingdom 11.5.2 United States 11.5.3 Canada 12.Language 12.1 Australian pronounciation 12.2 Australian spelling 12.3 Australian slang, word origins 12.4 Australian word usage (misc) ----------------------------------------------------------------- PART VI (separate posting) 13.Culture 13.1 Recipes and food 13.1.1 Vegemite 13.1.2 Sweets recipes: anzac biscuits, pavlova, lamingtons, chocolate crackles 13.1.3 Meat Pies, Damper, Galah, pumpkin soup 13.1.4 Misc 13.2 Songs 13.2.1 "Waltzing Matilda", by Banjo Paterson (3 versions :-) 13.2.2 "Advance Australia Fair", National Anthem 13.2.3 "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda", Eric Bogle 13.2.4 "Tie me kangaroo down" (Rolf Harris) 13.3 Literature 13.3.1 Fiction 13.3.2 Poetry - "My Country" by Dorothea McKellar - "The Man From Snowy River" by A.B. (Banjo) Paterson 13.3.3 Children's Literature 13.3.4 Non-Fiction 13.4 Films 13.5 Music 13.5.1 Classical 13.5.2 Pop 13.5.3 Jazz 13.5.4 Other 13.6 Opera 13.7 Ballet 13.8 Theatre 14. Contributors ----------------------------------------------------------------- A major reorganisation has been done (June 1994) and some sections are incomplete. Contributions welcome - send to Stephen Wales, stephenw@mincom.com. PART III 7.HISTORY [Any volunteers for writing some history sections? I don't have access to reference books. AN] 7.1 Pre-Europeans 7.2 European Discovery 7.3 European settlement 7.3.1 Penal Colony 7.3.2 Gold Rush 7.3.3 Post WWI Immigration 7.3.4 Miscellaneous * Tasmanian Aborigines and Trugannini The "tradition" view [AD]: The last hundred survivors of the Tasmanian aborigines were rounded up in an operation known as the "black line" about the 1850s. They were all moved to a settlement on Flinders Island at a place called Wybalenna. They were forced to adopt "christian" society clothing/behaviour.. They gradually died out from the european diseases until, when there were only about 30 left they were moved to Oyster Cove in southern Tasmania. They gradually died out. The last male survivor was William Lanney. He was murdered during a boat trip across a river. He was thrown from the boat and his hands cut off as he tried to return to the boat. After he was buried grave robbers removed his head to sell to British Scientists. The last female survivor was Trucaninni (or Truganinni) who was also known as Lallah Rookh. She died in about 1878. There are unconfirmed reports of two elderly ladies living on Kangaroo Island (i think) South Australia until about the 1890s. There are NO full blood aborigines alive today. A fair few aborigines live on Cape Barren Island, just south of Flinders Island (in Bass strait between Tasmania and Victoria). Racism on the islands is rife IMHO. White sealers often stole aboriginal women for their sex slaves, and half-castes were generally descended from these situations. The women were known as " gins" and were roughly treated. An interesting facet of this story is that in 1984, the Tasmanian Museum discovered an Edison Cylindrical Phonograph record in it's coffers which had recordings of a half-caste lady (who claimed she was full blooded). She was singing traditional aboriginal songs. The recording was made in 1902. A very stirring feeling listening to this 90 year old recording of a vanished culture and it makes me feel very ashamed to be a white Tasmanian. [XXX Can someone write a paragraph about how there really are Tasmanian aboriginals left? AN] 7.4 Political History 7.4.1 History of Australian "Independence" * Outline [ZS] 1-Jan-1901 - Federation: After many years of debate the six British colonies have finally agreed to unite, and on this date become a federation of six states under an Act of the British parliament. In many respects the new federation is an independent country. It has its own constitution, its own parliament and is responsible for its own laws, police, defence, currency, immigration and so on. However, legal, economic and social ties to Britain remain very strong. The British monarchy has a formal role in the Australian government. Some court cases can be appealed to British courts. Furthermore, at least in theory, Britain could overrule Australian laws or even change the constitution. As a practical matter, Australians see themselves as a loyal part of the British Empire. [RS] [MJ] I disagree that Australia was in any great sense an independent country at this point. It was self-governing, yes, but it had no foreign policy of its own (the lack of a provision for this in the constitution has caused problems in recent years; largely it has been made up by the high court, no terribly satisfactory in my opinion) and the British government had an absolute right of veto over Australian law (see section 59 of the constitution: in its original form when the constitution gives powers to the 'Queen', the Queen is acting on the advice of her British government: when the power is given to the 'Governor-General' the G-G is acting on the advice of the Australian government. 1931 - The UK passes the Statute of Westminster act. This grants independence to Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa; it also authorises the Australian Parliament to declare independence whenever it feels like it. However, the Australian States are specifically excluded from the act. [MJ] IMO, this is the best date from which to say Australia was independent. This is open to debate of course. It was a gradual process. 3-Sep-1939 - WWII breaks out; nothing directly significant to independence happens, but this date will become significant later. 1942 - Australia passes the Statute of Westminster Acceptance Act, thus declaring independence; the Act is backdated to 3-Sep-1939. However, as mentioned before, the States remained colonies. From 3-Sep-1939, the Commonwealth of Australia is an independent country made up of a federation of six British colonies! The UK no longer has the power to make laws, give orders, or in any other way interfere with the Commonwealth of Australia; but it can, and occasionally does, interfere with the States. 1986 - Australia, the UK, and all six States pass the Australia Act, and the Queen comes out here to sign it. Among other things, this act finally grants independence to the States. [MJ] And this ends appeals to British courts from state courts. At the federal level, this right had been given up several decades earlier. 1992. The Australian Republican Movement is launched as a "non-political" organisation. (See Section 8.5 below). * Comments [JB] I think that Zev was just a teensy bit sweeping in describing the new Commonwealth as a colony. While its status fell a long way short of the independence we "enjoy" today, it was in no ways the same as a common or garden colony. Let me gives some examples. During WWI the British army passed a routine request to the Aus, Canadian, NZ, SA, etc. governments that their troops be dealt with under the usual military law. While all the other Dominions agreed, Australia refused (memories of Morant, etc. being still rather bitter). The Brits muttered, complained, but could not override. Consequently although New Zealanders and Canadians are among the 500 odd troops shot for "cowardice" in France, there are no Australians. I do not think this was the outcome we would have seen if Australia had just been a colony. When Queensland "colonized" Papua in 189x(?), the Poms kicked up a stink and took it (reluctantly) for themselves, saying that colonies could not have colonies of their own (unlike fleas.) Papua was handed to Australia in 1906, so in that respect, at least, the Commonwealth was not regarded as a colony. The battle by Hughes, et al. for separate representation at Versailles was also an interesting commentary on attitudes to colonies. While the UK obviously did not regard us as a colony, they *did* regard as as being part of their Empire. So did the Yanks, and in fact Wilson was quite opposed to separate representation. All these points are a bit subtle though, and I think Zev's original statement is closer to the truth than the usual guff about us becoming a "new nation" at federation. I also agree that our *real* independence began in 1986, although I don't think it will be absolute until we are rid of the monarchy, the Act of Settlement, etc. etc. 7.4.2 Aboriginal Voting [JM] * 1900 The original constitution *guarantees* the Federal vote to anyone who has it at State level (refer Section 41). Because aboriginals had the vote in all states except Queensland and Western Australia, they were able to vote in Federal elections in those states (and have always been able to do so.) There was also no *specific* exclusion of aboriginals from voting at Federal Elections in Queensland and WA, and some actually did. The major hurdle, however, was that state officials maintained both state and federal rolls and in most cases illegally blocked attempts by aboriginals in those states to enroll for Federal elections. The effect of section 30 (to which you refer) is to ensure that those aboriginals who *did* have the vote, also got counted when determining the size of electorates thereby skirting the provision of section 127 which said they weren't to be counted. (Confused? Well, so am I, but they spent 10 years in the 1890's writing this thing.) * 1918 In 1918, the Electoral Act formalised voting procedures for Federal elections. This however was a setback for aboriginals in Queensland and WA because it contained provisions that brought State and Federal rolls into line. This meant they could *not* vote in Federal Elections unless they also had the vote in State elections. Another apparently innocent provision of the Electoral Act was used for many years in the Northern Territory to deny the vote to large numbers of aboriginals. Although aborigines were compelled to enroll like all other voters, local officials often had them declared wards of the state. Wards of the state were prohibited from voting at that time, possibly because wards were usually the mentally ill. * 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights passed and ratified by Australia in 1949. At this point, the Federal Government had perfect moral grounds for reenfranchising aborigines in WA and QLD, but failed to do so. * 1957 ILO Convention on the Rights of Indigenous People passed and ratified by Australia the following year. This was another lost opportunity to reenfranchise aboriginals in WA and QLD. * 1958 However, a parliamentary committee was convened which was to recommend changes to the Electoral Act, repeal of Section 127 of the Constitution and transfer of responsibility for aborigines from the States to Canberra (basically because QLD and WA weren't to be trusted). This is basically the agenda of the 1963 Electoral Act amendments and the 1967 referendum (see below). Throughout the 1950's members from both sides of Parliament made attempts to amend the Electoral Act. These included Gough Whitlam who made several speech and introduced amendments on several occasions, and Malcolm Fraser who centered his first speech on apartheid and touched on Australia's treatment of its own people. * 1963 The Federal Government amended the Electoral Act to enfranchise aborigines in WA and QLD at Federal Elections. However they were still unable to vote in State elections. Some of the background to this event was only revealed recently when the cabinet papers were released under the 30 year rule. It appears that the Attorney General Garfield Barwick recommended that the constitution *also* be amended at this time. The PM Robert Menzies overruled his cabinet and rejected this, accepting only the Electoral Act changes. Garfield Barwick had apparently also tried the previous year to get these changes through. * 1966 Robert Menzies retires, and legislation is passed for the 1967 referendum under the new PM Harold Holt. * 1967 Referendum is passed overwhelmingly: Highest result: 95% yes in Victoria Lowest result: 71% yes in WA It was defeated in only *one* of over 1200 electoral subdistricts. No referendum has ever been more convincingly passed. As a result of this referendum aboriginals: (1) gain the vote in WA and QLD *State* elections, and (2) become citizens. Also power for their welfare passes to the Federal government which is able to initiate spending on health, education and housing programs (and later land rights). Summary. 1. Aborigines had the Federal vote in 1900 in all states and territories (bar the shenanigans of local officials), but could not vote in WA and QLD State elections. They have always had the vote in all other States and Territories at both State and Federal level. 2. They lost the Federal vote in 1918 in WA and QLD 3. They regained it in WA and QLD in 1963 4. They became citizens in 1967, and gained the right to vote in WA and QLD state elections. The transfer of responsibility for aborigines to Canberra also allowed Canberra to implement the UN Declaration of Human Rights and initiate improvements in living conditions. It is apparent that the long post WWII delay was due to the attitude of Robert Menzies. Despite broad, cross party support for aboriginal enfranchisement and improvement of their plight, *no* action was taken during most of the Menzies era (from 1949 to 1966). The sole action of granting the vote in 1963 was undertaken against his wishes and only after much prodding. Before 1967, the effect of Section 51 (xxvi) was to *prevent* the Federal Government from spending *any* money on aboriginal programs. Post 1967, it has allowed the Federal Government to undertake these programs (remember that the Australian Federal Government is constitutionally able to undertake *only* those activities specifically allocated to it.) The section does not really allow apartheid either. The Mabo decision specifically excludes the use of this section to override the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act (which itself implements obligations placed on us by the UN Declaration of Human Rights via the External Affairs power.) Given that the Mabo decision firmly establishes a non-racial basis to Australian common law, it is very unlikely they would turn around and undo things. (It is also useful to remember that Mabo is not a "bolt from the blue", but simply a relatively minor consequential decision based on many others over the previous 30 years.) A lot of anti-Mabo argument runs the line that all special legislation is racist by definition, however: - the Racial Discrimination Act allows positive discrimination, - the High Court was invited to consider a racist interpretation namely that while Eddie Mabo et al. where entitled to native title, that mainland aboriginals were "more primitive" and therefore could not benefit from the same entitlements. The court specifically rejected this conclusion as "obnoxious". - the ILO and UN conventions outline *minimum* standards, and specifically state that they cannot be used to reduce or eliminate existing rights which exceed their requirements. This in itself would make racist laws unconstitutional. 7.5 Wars 7.5.1 Boer War 7.5.2 World War I 7.5.3 World War II [I have included this as it was originally posted by Kym. I am aware of flame ware that went on over some of the figures here, but please don't go flaming me over it. If someone wants to send me an opposing view, I'll include it for completeness, but don't argue with me over the content without providing your own figures - I'll ignore it - SW] [KH] The following are notes gleaned from here and there regarding Australia's part in WWII. Typically I have tried to stick to "facts" with no note taken of political events or historical opinion albeit the former are of primary importance. Where politics or personal bias have entered I make no apology. ;-) A brief history of WWII from the Australian perspective ------------------------------------------------------- Sep 3 39. GB declares war on Germany and Menzies says "so is Australia". Australia provides 1 div initially but public pressure eventually means 4 are sent. Feb 40. The 6th div 2 AIF reaches Palestine to reinforce the 8th Brit Army. The 7th div is dispatched to Syria, the 8th to Malaya and the 9th to N Africa. 19 Mar 40. RG Casey goes to Washington as a "provider of Australian opinion on world-wide events". 27 May 40. Menzies supports appeal by Britain to US for aid. 14 Jun 40. Menzies writes to Roosevelt: "At this moment the eyes of the whole liberty-loving world are turned to you and your great people. I believe that even now, if the United States, by a magnificent and immortal gesture, could make available to the Allies the whole of her financial and material resources, Germany could be defeated. The effect on the spirit of France would be trasfiguring, and the whole of the English-speaking peoples of the world would, by one stroke, be welded into a brotherhood of world salvation. On behalf of the people of Australia and the future of this land, I appeal to you for the fullest measure of co-operation and help". In response to requests from Britain Roosevelt sent materiel to aid GB. It also geared up its own armed forces in response to Japanese expansion in the Pacific. 19 Jul 40. Sydney sinks the Bartolomeo Colleoni in the Mediterranean. Feb 41. One Australian brigade is sent to Singapore. Jan 41. 6th div attacks Italian positions in N Africa and captures Tobruk and Benghazi. 10 Italian divs effectively cease to exist by March. 18 Feb 41. 8th div lands at Singapore. Mar 41. 6th div goes to Greece to protect against German invasion. They are eventually forced to Crete and captured on June 2 after surviving attack from May 20 by German paratroops and gliders. 3000 Australians from 6th and 7th div become POWs. June 41. The SU joins the Allies against Germany after German Operation Barbarosa invades the SU after Germany's previously "non aggression pact". 19 Nov 41. Sydney sunk off WA by German commerce raider. 7 Dec 41. Japan attacks Pearl Harbour in an attempt to sink US Pac fleet. US declares war on Japan. At this time Australian troops are fighting in Malaya to prevent the Japanese advance. As historians have said before the attack by the Japanese achieved what the allies had failed to do -- force the US into an active role in the war. Roosevelt declared war on both Japan and Germany and prepared to defend the US interests in the Pacific. Dec 8 41. HK and Singapore are bombed and the Philippines is attacked. Of greater concern to Curtin than Pearl was the Japanese attack on the Malayan coast and Singapore. As a result of the attacks on British territory Australia was at war with Japan. 10 Dec 41. The British battleships Repulse and Prince of Wales are sunk off Malaya. With this went Australia's hopes the British navy could keep Australia safe. Britain also said it was unable to aid Australia because of the war in Europe and Australia began to look more to the US for aid against the Japanese. 25 Dec 41. Honk Kong falls. 27 Dec 41. PM John Curtin calls on the US to help Australia against the Japanese. Subsequently, the Australian and US govts disagreed about the direction of the war. The US ignored British and Australian requests for an independent Pacific after the war and resisted their attempts at making decisions regarding the future of Japan. In Australia large numbers of US servicemen caused a variety of responses. Initial curiosity gave way to resentment as local service industries such as pubs and hotels catered for US tastes much to the dismay of local patrons. Tensions came to a head on more than one occasion. The "Brisbane riots" -- a street battle between Aussie and US servicemen -- left an unknown number dead and wounded. Little news of such events was released during the war. 22 Jan 42. Rabaul falls in Australian New Guinea. 23K Australian troops become Japanese POWs by March 42 with the subsequent losses of Timor and Ambiona. 15 Feb 42. Singapore falls. 17K more Australians become POWs. Australian troops are recalled from the Middle East and N Africa. 19 Feb 42. Japan attacks Australian mainland with air-raids comparable to those at Pearl. Headlines of the time read "Invaders now 650 miles from Darwin". According to the now "authorative" figure the number killed during the 2 air-raid attacks on Darwin was 243. However, this doesn't include the numbers killed on foreign vessels in the harbour at the time of the raids. Official reports at the time put the dead at 9. Apparently the number of Japanese aircraft used in the first raid exceeded even in absolute terms the attack on Pearl Harbour. Pearl was a city and Darwin a village. Some exaggerated reports in 1921 put the population of Darwin at around 1,400. Mar 42. MacArthur arrives in Darwin after his defeat in the Philippines. He demands and is given control of Australian forces. In April he is made Allied Supreme Commander in the Pacific. He has final say over what information is given to the press and there is some carping from that quarter regarding same. May 4-8 42. Battle of the Coral Sea involving US and Aus navies. Prevents Japan from taking Pt Moresby. 1 Jun 42. Japan attacks Sydney with minisubs. A number of casualties and boats sunk. The "authorative" figure put the Aussie dead at 19. All subs were sunk. 23 June 42. The Japanese land at Gonu and advance to Pt Moresby. Aug 42. US marines in the Solomons. But until June 43 they were not in sufficient strength to prevail over Japanese forces. 26 Aug 42. Japan attempts to land at Milne Bay in NG. An earlier Aussie landing prevents its success. The ensuing battle is a severe defeat for Japan. 29 Sep 42. Australians advance and capture Ioribaiwa Ridge. After this victory the Australian forces are not defeated by the Japanese in NG or elsewhere. Subsequent combined US and Australian ops on E coast of NG bypass Gona and Buna mop up other Japanese forces. 15 Jan 43. The US navy involved at Guadal canal. 25 Jan 43. Japanese troops surrender to Australians ending the Kakoda Trail Campaign. 3 Mar 43. Battle of Bismark Sea involves USAF and RAAF. Nov 43. Japanese raids are no longer a threat to Australia. After this time MacArthur develops the "island-hopping strategy" whereby islands are bypassed where they present no advantage to the allies. This tactic avoids un-necessary losses at the time, but the bypassed islands must later be mopped up. The US now plans to move to the Philippines and makes clear there is no place for Australia in this campaign. Australian troops are therefore sent to "mop up". Australian casualties were heavy during this phase and Aussie commanders were frequently critical about the value of such battles. Oct 44. US reaches Leyte Is in the Philippines. But the Is is not under US control until mid Sep 45. May 45. Australian troops operating in N Borneo. 2 May 45. Australian attack Tarakan. 9 May 45. Australians capture Tarakan. Elsewhere it's VE day. 10 June 45. Brunei and Labuan attacked by Australian troops. 1 July 45. Australians attack Balikpapan meeting stiff resistance. Japanese suffer significant casualties. While significant, Australian casualties are not as high. 6 Aug 45. Atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima. 9 Aug 45. Atom bomb dropped on Nagasaki. 15 Aug 45. Japan surrenders. VJ day. Aug 45. Bypassed islands must be mopped up. Some of this dirty work is left to the Australians. --- Australian casualties. War population round 7.6 mn. 30K were killed in WWII, 95K wounded. Together this reps 1.7% of the population. Altogether there were 1 mn Australians serving in the forces including 66K servicewomen. 23K Australians were captured and were POWs. The number of Australians to face Japanese forces exceeded the numbers of Americans. According to exact figures from "Australian Political Facts" by McAllister et al: served killed wounded WWII 1939-45 993,000 26,951 23,214 US casualties. Wartime population round 145 mn. Around 15 mn served, 11.5 mn went overseas, 1/4 mn faced Japanese troops. A total of 1 mn casualties including 304K killed representing 0.7% of the population. 7.5.4 Korea, Vietnam and others 7.6 National heroes/Notable Australians [AN: Contributions solicited! Possible candidates: Phar Lap, Ned Kelly, Harry (The Breaker) Morant, Private John Simpson & his donkey, Edward (Weary) Dunlop, Dawn Fraser, Charles Kingsford-Smith, Kay Cottee, Dick Smith, Mary McKillop, Caroline Chisolm, Nellie Melba, Joan Sutherland, Rolf Harris, Barry Humphries ... Winged keel??? [RS]] [JL] Ned Kelly's skull and Phar Lap's heart (you beaut) Lie enshrined in Canberra's Institute. But a truer statement of the statesman's art Would be Phar Lap's skull & Mr Kelly's heart. * Don Bradman [RS] Bradman, Sir Donald George (1908- ), cricket world's most famous batsman. Born at Cootamundra NSW. Made his first century playing for Bowral High School at age 12. His career in the Australian domestic competition, the Sheffield Shield, spanned 22 years playing for NSW (1927-1934) and South Australia (1935-1949). He made a total of 8926 runs at an average of 110 at this level of cricket. Most famous are his Test Match batting exploits against England for the prized "Ashes" (the symbol of cricket supremacy between Australia and England). So successful was he in the 1929 England tour that by the time of the reciprocal 1932/33 English tour, the England captain, Douglas Jardine, devised a bowling strategy around limiting Bradman's prodigious scoring talents. England's fast bowlers would direct the ball at a batsman's rib cage or throat hoping that the ball would be parried to one of a number of close-in fieldsmen. The infamous "Bodyline" tactic was not only applied to Bradman but also to the less able batsmen which raised howls of outrage from the Australian public. Bodyline was subsequently outlawed. Apart from one Test match in the 1932-33 series, Bradman played in every Australia-England Test match between 1928 and his retirement at the end of the 1948 season. As a test captain from 1936-48, he did not lose an Ashes series and the 1948 tour did not result in a single defeat. An achievement unequalled by any touring Australian team before or since. He also played Test cricket against the West Indies (1930-31), South Africa (1931-32) and India (1947-48). In all, Don Bradman played 52 Test matches, scored an aggregate 6996 runs at an average of 99.94. Where Test Match batting averages of around 50 or 60 earns a player the label of a "great", the Don's greatness as a batsman is more than just an exaggerated legend. * Ned Kelly [SR] Ned Kelly was a bushranger, or outlaw who gained notoriety last century with his gang "The Kelly Gang". They were responsible for many holdups of travellers. His "trademark" was an iron helmet and breastplate which he fashioned from an old plough late in his "career". He was finally captured in a bloody shootout at a place called Glenrowan, where the gang was besieged by troopers. I think the gang was all killed, except for Kelly who stood off the troopers in his armour until his wounds overcame him. He was promptly hung a short time later, his last words being "Such is life". It should not be too difficult to find more information in any book of Australian folklore, as he has attained the fame in Australia that outlaws in America have similarly received. * Frank Hardy [JS] Feb 4, 1994. Frank Hardy died last weekend. He was found in his reading chair, holding a racing form. Many people have said that that's the way he'd have wanted to go. Frank Hardy was a novelist, communist and sometime anarchist. Although I deplore his politics, especially his earlier support of Stalinism, I cannot but admire someone so committed to justice. He was most famous for his novel _Power Without Glory_ (see Section 14.3.1); the fictional story of an imaginary racketeer named John West who rose to power in Melbourne through his involvement in illegal gambling. Hardy was sued for libel by businessman John Wren on behalf of Wren's wife for the many admitted similarities in their lives stories. With the death of Frank Hardy we have lost another hold on our past. In his larrakin contempt for the establishment and his sometimes rowdy support for the working class was represented the true Labor hero, before champagne and high society dinners were acceptable. More than Labor's loss, the Conservatives have lost a worthy foe. All of Australia is the poorer for Frank Hardy's passing. [AT] While Power Without Glory was his most famous work in some circles since it ended up as a TV series. Probably his best novel was "But The Dead Are Many". He also produced several novels with a humorous bent, based on glorifying class struggle. Off hand, I can remember _The Outcasts Of Foolgarah_. Also, he was not initially sued for libel. He was charged with criminal libel. This is a rarely invoked law which is a criminal rather than civil offence. That is, they arrest you and lock you away. Wasn't there a foreward to Power Without Glory which described his arrest ? [JL] It depends which edition you have :-). The full story of the attack on Power is contained in Frank's book "The Hard Way". My parents knew Frank and Roslyn well. Mum's favourite recollection of Frank is a non political one. Occasionally he used to ring her for a lift home when "under the weather". Due to this state, whenever they hit a corner on her motorbike, he would lean against the turn, trying to stay upright. If you have ever tried to cope with this you will know why she remembers it. I understand a lot of the binding of the (illegal) second edition was done in my grandmother's best (never used) bedroom, and that the wardrobe was used to store them. BTW the author on the early copies of Power was Ross Franklyn - a near anagram of Frank and Roslyn. [JL] Frank made many contributions to political life in Australia. His support for aboriginal land rights, and the Gurindji in particular, exemplified this. I don't suppose there would be many ex-servicemen who remember him from the Northern Territory and WWII on the net :-) I used to have a copy of "Journey into the Future" somewhere, which was Frank's book extolling the virtues of the Soviet bloc during the fifties. I always remember talking to Dorothy Healy, a socialist from the New American Movement, about the seemingly uncritical support of the Soviet Union by older comrades. Her reply was to the effect that when it was the only country moving towards socialism, and under attack from all sides, such support was understandable. In the 1970's (when this discussion took place) this was not tenable, as there were many countries trying many different alternative forms of government, and unconditional support for any one country was not logical. Frank was a product of his era, his shortcoming should be measured against that era, and his achievements remembered. I wonder, when they went across for a drink after the eulogy, whether they left a glass on the bar? Frank would have liked that. 7.7 Miscellaneous 8.POLITICS 8.1 Political System Australia is an independent commonwealth of 6 states, 2 territories and a number of island and territorial dependencies. It is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, United Nations, ANZUS, OECD. The form of government is a constitutional monarchy. The Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain is also Queen of Australia, and Head of State. Her representative in Australia is the Governor-General, Bill Hayden since 1989. The Commonwealth of Australia uses the Westminster system of government. The head of State is the Queen, represented here by the Governor-General. The G-G is advised by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Normally the convention says that the G-G "does what they tell him", but he has considerable "reserve powers". These powers are not necessarily spelled out by the Constitution. The federal parliamentary system consists of two houses of Parliament. The lower house is the House of Representatives. The party which has the most representatives in the lower house forms a government. The leader of that party becomes Prime Minister, and he (no women PMs as yet) forms a Cabinet. The usual term of office is 3 years, although the PM may call an election early. The Upper House is the Senate, the "State House", like the US Senate. It consists of of 12 senators from each state and 2 from each territory. They have 6 year terms and half face re-election every 3 years. The upper house is generally a house of review. The Senate stands for a fixed term give or take a couple of months, but the House of Representatives can be dissolved and an election called by the cabinet. Elections only stay in sync by the House of Representatives running full term, or the government engineering a double dissolution. [Begin MJ] It is slightly (!) more complicated than this. From a reading of the constitution, I came up with the following summary of the rules as to when elections can be held for the two houses. An election for the House of Representatives must be held within three years after the first sitting of the previous parliament. This parliament must sit within one month of the return of the writs for the election. (Practically, this means that the gap between elections can be as long as three years and three months.) Normally, only half of the senate is elected at one time, An election for half of the senate must be held not less than five years and not more than six years after the first of July FOLLOWING the last election for that half of the senate. In special circumstances (if the House of Representatives passes a bill and the Senate rejects it, and the Representatives passes it again and the Senate rejects it again three months later) a double dissolution may be called, providing that term of the House of Representatives has more than six months to run. In this case, an election for half the senate must be called more than two but less than three years after the first of July PRECEDING the election following the double dissolution, and an election for the other half of the senate must be called more than five but less than six years after the first of July PRECEDING the election following the double dissolution. For practical reasons, it is standard practice to hold elections for both houses on the same day, either by having a double dissolution or by choosing an election day in which it is constitutionally possible to hold both an election for the representatives and a half senate election. Thus, if the Prime Minister wishes to hold an election, he has the following constraints in choosing the day. (1) In any situation, he can hold a double dissolution, provided that he has a hostile senate (or can contrive something) provided that his term of the Representatives has at least six months to run and provided that he has prepared for himself to do this three months earlier. (2) If neither of the two previous elections have been double dissolutions, he must hold the election within three and a bit years of the last election and between five and six years after the first of July following the election before last (3) If the last election was not a double dissolution, but the election before last was a double dissolution, he must hold the election within three and a bit years of the last election and between five and six years after the first of July preceding the election before last. (4) If the last election was a double dissolution, he must hold the election between two and three years after the first of July preceding the last election. Interestingly enough, this means that in certain circumstances, the term for which a government is elected is significantly shorter than the already short three years. For instance, Labor was elected (after a double dissolution) in March 1983, and had to go to the polls again by July 1985 (and actually went in late 1984). The combination of these rules often leads to a government having vary little latitude in when it can hold an election, despite the fact that we technically don't have a fixed term of parliament. The other advantage a government gets by holding a double dissolution is that if the senate blocks its legislation twice at three month intervals, and then after having a double dissolution and election the senate still blocks its legislation, the government can then convene a joint sitting of both houses that can pass the legislation by an absolute majority. Due to the fact that the Representatives is much larger in size, the government nearly always has a majority in a joint sitting. Essentially, the purpose of a double dissolution is to allow a government to steamroll its electoral program through a hostile senate if it can get a reasonably strong electoral mandate to do so for a specific (and predefined) program of legislation. The penalty paid (besides the risk of losing the election) is that the term of office after a double dissolution is shorter than for other elections. (considering the present state of the Senate and the recovering state of the Australian economy, it would be prepared to wager a small sum of money that the next federal election will take place between July and December 1995). [end MJ] Much of the Westminster system relies on convention and not written rules, so often reading the Constitution is of no help if you are not a Constitutional lawyer - its doesn't always say quite what it means or mean quite what it says, if you are unbriefed in the vagaries of these things. It was modelled on several other nations' constitutions (incl. the US). There is no Bill of Rights or other "amendments" to the constitution as Americans are familiar with the concept - it merely defines the way the governments works. [begin MJ] Also Canada and Switzerland in particular. The 'conventions' were largely inherited from the British. I disagree that reading the constitution is of 'no help': a lot of it is quite clear. Of course one should pay attention to legal opinion as well. However, laws have been getting more and more complicated in recent years. Compared with virtually any recent act of parliament, the constitution makes very easy reading. There are some 'rights' guaranteed in the constitution: for instance the right to trial by jury and the right to fair compensation if your property is taken over by the government. Unfortunately, these apply only to the doings of the federal government. State governments (to the extent limited by their own constitutions) can still lock you up for no reason or turn your land into a freeway without compensating you. [end MJ] For an illustration of the "convention" problem, for instance, the Prime Minister, who is the effective Head of Government, is hardly (if at all) mentioned in the Constitution. The Prime Minister is elected by the House of Representatives. The PM then appoints the Cabinet. [begin MJ] The PM is not mentioned at all in the constitutions. The authors of the constitution were not sure that there would even be a PM. They certainly thought that British style 'responsible government' was possible, but decided to allow the structure of the executive to evolve by itself. The sections of the constitution describing the executive government are thus deliberately vague. [end MJ] The power of the Commonwealth is defined in the Constitution, i.e. the things it has control of are explicitly laid out there - everything else is left to the states. Usually when the Commonwealth wants to take over some function from the states it usually uses its "external affairs" powers. This gives it considerable leeway. If the Commonwealth has signed an "external treaty", for instance a UN agreement to protect "world heritage wilderness" it can then force the States to comply (that's how the Commonwealth forces states to stop the Franklin Dam, for instance, where Land Management is left to the states). The main parties are the Labor Party, the Liberal Party (who are actually conservatives) and the National Party (formerly the Country party) who represent mainly rural electorates and are also conservative. The Liberal and National parties usually form some sort of coalition. Each state has a House of Representatives (the lower house) and all except Qld have an upper house. The leader of each State government is called the Premier, and is the leader of the party with a majority in the lower house. [MJ] The lower house in a state is usually called the Legislative Assembly (not HoR). The upper house is generally called the Legislative Council. I think the titles may be different in South Australia (?) [FC] The constitution, along with a lot of other info about Australia, is available on WWW at: http://life.anu.edu.au/education/australia.html 8.2 Voting System * How to Vote Each Australian citizen should be registered on the electoral rolls at the age of 18. Voting in Australia is compulsory. In practice, this means that you have to go to a voting station, receive voting papers and get your name ticked off. You do not have to cast a valid vote. Typically "informal" votes range from 5-10% of the vote. People who were granted permanent resident status and were enrolled to vote before 1984 may continue to do so. Those who neglected to enroll to vote before 1984 cannot vote regardless of when they're permanent residency was granted, unless they become citizens. Votes usually cast their vote at a local polling station in their electorate. If you are not in your electorate on the day of the vote, you can go to any polling station and cast an "absentee" vote. If you do not think you will be able to go to a polling station on the day, you can cast a postal vote earlier. To cast a postal vote overseas, write to the nearest embassy or consulate, or call them. They will send you a form to fill in (which has to be witnessed by an Australian citizen). They then send you the postal vote slip, which you have to return by a date usually before the election. [SW] You can have yourself removed from the electoral rolls if you intend to leave the country for in excess of 3 years. * Electoral Structure and Voting System. [I got several good summaries, so I've included them all for the moment. The next FAQ maintainer might like to compress them. AN] [PD, AN] Australia is divided into 147 federal electorates. Each electorates elects a member to the House of Representatives. The voting system is compulsory preferential voting. "Preferential Voting System" is used in all Lower Houses in Australia except Tasmania. Also used in the Upper House (Legislative Council I think) in Victoria (whose upper house is made of "super- electorates") Historically, it was brought in (there is a little supposition here) because at the time of Federation, Conservative politic was divided into two Parties; Free Traders and Protectionists while the Left was only the Labour Party. The Conservatives didn't want what occurs to the left in England now to affect them; namely with a First past the post system, Labour could have won office with, say, 40% of the vote. Anyway, the philosophy behind it is that the most preferred candidate is elected. (Or more precisely the least preferred candidate is not elected!) When voting the elector must number all candidates from most preferred to least preferred (ie say 1-4 for four candidates), i.e. not put a cross next the name in a first past the post system. Primary votes are counted, i.e. who got no 1. If there is not an absolute majority of votes for some candidate (winner outright), then candidate with least votes has their preferences distributed. To do this votes of least popular candidate ONLY, are given in full to voters' 2nd preference. If there is still not an absolute majority then 2nd least popular candidate's next preferences are redistributed. In the worst case, no candidate will get over 50% until there are only 2 candidates remaining, by which stage there must be a winner. If there is a draw between 2 candidates at the end (50% each) the winner is drawn "out of the hat." Example: round 1 (first preferences) (100 votes) Fred 35 <- less than 50% Must distribute preferences Jane 30 Paul 25 Bronie 10 <- least votes; eliminated; goto no 2's on on ballot; Paul 7; Fred 2; Jane 1 Round 2 Fred 35+2 = 37 Jane 30+1 = 31 <- eliminated because of fewest votes Paul 25+7 = 32 preferences (note if someone had Jane 1, Bronie 2, then you would look at who they had 3!) Fred 12; Paul 19 Round 3 Fred 35+2+12=49 Paul 25+7+19=51 <- Paul elected (This example shows why how the preferences are distributed and why the political parties have scrutineers watching the vote counting (ie to count how many preferences)) Most states have optional preferential voting, which is the same as compulsory preferential except that if preferences are not marked then those votes are eliminated from the count. The federal Senate is elected with a proportional representation (PR) voting system. Until the mid 80s, on the Senate ballot paper, the electors had to fill out all boxes (usually of the order of 50 in Victoria). Of course this led to a high incidence of invalid votes. Since then, they changed the law so that the names of the political affiliations of the candidates could be placed on all ballots papers. (Previously, once you entered the polling booth, if you didn't know who represented what, you had to guess.) This law enabled a simplification of the Senate Ballot. Now, you have a choice; filling in all 50+ boxes; or filling in one (and only one) box which signifies a particular party (and not candidate). Then the preferences are distributed as predetermined by the party. (They must inform voters before the election how they will distribute their preferences!) The idea of the proportional representation system is that the candidates represent an equal cross-section of both the community and the country (hence 6 Senators in each state per election no matter what the population is; this was a compromise made to the smaller states at Federation as they feared (probably quite rightly) that they'd be "crushed" by Victoria and New South Wales.) Anyway the system means that there is a "quota" of votes required to elect a candidate. This quota is determined by the following formula Total number of Votes/(no of positions +1) +1 = Quota. ---- (and rounded down) Eg 100 votes, 6 seats -> 100/(6+1) + 1 = 15.3 Quota 15 votes. (Note that if 6 candidates get 15 votes, a seventh candidate can only get 10. (It works better with bigger numbers) Now the counting of votes works in part as with the preferential system (ie lowest candidate eliminated and preferences distributed), but there is a twist. If a candidate gets above the quota (ie quota 20; Jane get 25 votes, then her preferences are ALL distributed at a reduced values (to the total of 5 votes) according to the formula (Candidate Votes-Quota)/Candidate votes = Value of preferences (25-20)/25 = 0.2 As you can see this makes for a hell of a lot of difficulty and is why while HofR results are known quickly, Senate votes take of the order of a month or more to be determined! * State Systems All the states except for Tassie use single member electorates for the lower houses. Tasmania has 6 multimember electorates, same system as the senate. The upper houses in the States (except for Qld which doesn't have one) are mainly single member electorates, universal sufferage, but it had been property franchise up to 60's or 70's in some states. Upper house electorates in some states still vary in number of electors by huge margins in some states notably WA. Conservative upper house gerrymander is very severe. There are as many systems in detail as states. There is part of the house based on electorates and part on PR in NSW [confirm? AN]. Australia's Different Voting Systems [JL] ==================================== What is preferential voting? ---------------------------- The aim of a representative electoral system is to elect people who represent their constituency. It is simple, intuitive almost, to see that where you are trying to elect one person, that person should have the support of over 50% of their constituents before they can claim to reflect the views of their constituency. There are two practical problems which this creates. Firstly, how do you guarantee one person will end up with over 50% of the votes if more than two people are standing? Secondly, is it fair, that in a worst case scenario, with a close vote, that nearly 50% of constituents will be unrepresented. Answer 1 - Exhaustive Preferential Voting ----------------------------------------- OK, we have one person to be elected, and more than two candidates. The quota (the number of votes needed to be elected) is 1/2 plus 1, ie 50% plus one. This quota is commonly called a majority. In exhaustive preferential voting, squares are placed next to the names of each candidate. Constituents number these squares in order of their choice. "1" goes against the person you most want, "2" against the next person, and so on down the ballot paper. After voting, all the ballot papers are sorted according to the number "1" votes, and the papers are counted. If no-one has a majority (ie has attained the quota) then the person who has the lowest number of papers is removed from the ballot, and that person's papers a distributed to the candidate of next choice (at this stage the number "2" votes) and the results are tallied again. This process of deleting the lowest, continues until a candidate finally gains a majority. That candidate is then declared elected. In this way is is ensured that there will always be one candidate with a majority. Answer 2 - Proportional Representation -------------------------------------- There are different forms of proportional representation around. The most rigorous (and therefore most accurate in terms of reflecting the constituents) is Hare-Clark, which is used in Tasmania, ACT, (and, I think Eire?). Another name for PR is Quota Preferential. The differences between these forms are minor in procedure, but major in effect. First, let's look at this conceptually. Remember that what we are trying to do is select people who can represent their constituents, ie the chamber of parliament being elected should reflect the diversity of views in the constituencies. In a single member system, the worst case is that 1/2 - 1 voters did not want the elected person. Remember, 1/2 + 1 to get elected. If two people were to be elected we can't have a quota of 1/2 + 1 to get elected, because there aren't enough votes; if there are two to be elected then they should represent at least a third of the constituents. That is, the quota becomes 1/3 + 1. Similarly, if three are to be elected, the quota is 1/4 + 1. The interesting thing, and this is why there are multi member constituencies, is that the more members you have representing a constituency, the fewer people are un represented. This is easier to see in a table. Remember this is a worst case scenario No elected quota total people electing total unrepresented 1 1/2 + 1 1/2 + 1 1/2 - 1 2 1/3 + 1 2/3 + 2 1/3 - 2 3 1/4 + 1 3/4 + 3 1/4 - 3 4 1/5 + 1 4/5 + 4 1/5 - 4 So that deals with the "why" of multi member constituencies. The next thing to deal with is the "how". Single user constituencies are easy. Enter your choices, and only one person can get a quota. In a multi member constituency, what if one candidate gets, for example, two quotas? If we had a "real time" voting scenario, then people could simply punch in their choice, and when that person got to the quota, they would be taken off the list of available choices. For various reasons, including ensuring a secret ballot, that is impractical, so the following algorithm is used. 1 Sort and count the papers according to first choice. 2a If one or more persons is elected, take the one with the highest vote, distribute their surplus (see below). Go to 2a. 2b If no one is elected, cut up the papers for the lowest count candidate at full value and distribute according to next available choice. Go to 2a. 3 Finish. What, I hear you cry, is a surplus? The surplus is the number of votes in excess of a quota, so if the quota is 300, and a candidate has 500, their surplus is 200. Now, it's here that Hare-Clark differs from the senate. In the senate, they will select 200 of the 500 papers, at random, and distribute them to the remaining candidates according to the next available choice after the candidate being cut up. In Hare-Clark, each paper is given a transfer value according to the surplus - in our example we have 500 papers worth a surplus of 200, therefore each paper is given a value of 200/500 or .4 of a vote and all papers are distributed to the remaining candidates according to the next available choice after the candidate being cut up. It's just two different approaches to the distribution of the surplus. They are both statistical manipulations, but I personally believe that it only requires a moment's thought to see that Hare-Clark has more reproducable results. It is not an empty claim by Hare-Clark proponents, that Hare-Clark changes "one person, one vote" into "one person, one effective vote". Proportional Representation and Political Parties ------------------------------------------------- I am from Tasmania, the home of Hare-Clark. In addition to having arguably the fairest method of counting, several different ballot papers are printed, with the candidate's names rotated on the ballot papers, so that the "donkey" vote does not work in favour of any one party or individual. Candidates can be grouped on the ballot paper by party. One of the more interesting things which I have seen over the years while scrutineering at various elections and analysing results has been the effect of multimember constituencies on political parties. If you think about it, it is possible to have a major spill of elected politicians, without changing the party which is in power. This has happened more than once. Recently, the person who precipitated a change of leadership within a particular political party was not elected, even though the party was came to power. It has also spelt the end of imposed candidates. Political parties have a harder time, in fact an almost impossible task, to win all seats in a multimember constituency. They are forced to present a range of candidates, to maximise their vote. It is not always their number one choice who is elected. Political parties see this as voters being capricious, but, hopefully, they are comparing realities. The how-to-vote card is dead. They do not work. The only way this survives in any form is in the senate vote-by-party option. A final interesting note. One candidate I knew, campaigned on the basis of asking for the number 2 vote. His line was, look I'm not going to insult your intelligence by telling you not to vote for the person you want to, but consider me for number 2. Umm, he did not get elected, but if he'd not been carrying some personal handicaps, I think it would have been a very effective pitch. [JS] SENATE VOTING SYSTEM ==================== The Australian Senate is Australia's Upper House, which serves a similar function to Britain's House of Lords. Senators are elected by Australian citizens on a State-by-State basis; that is, each State can be considered as a separate electorate returning separate candidates. The Northern and Australian Capital Territories each return two senators, while the States return senators in proportion to their population. The ballot cast by voters is in two sections. One section allows voters to vote preferentially for their choice of candidate - that is, to place a 1 next to the name of the candidate whom they most prefer; a 2 next to the name of the candidate they rank second; and so forth. The other section lets them tick the name of a political party, in which case their preferences are allocate according to the wishes of that party. This is easier, and most people do this. The method of voting is as follows: Each vote is given a starting value of 1. The number of votes cast is divided by the number of candidates to be returned plus one, and one is added to the dividend. This is called the *quota*. Example: if there are 100 voters and 3 positions to fill, the quota would be (100 / (3 + 1)) + 1 = 26. If you think about it, if three candidates have each received 26 out of 100 votes they will certainly have more votes than any other candidate. If no candidates have received enough votes to fill a quota, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated from the election and his or her votes redistributed to the next person on the ballot papers - that is, to the person the voter has nominated as his or her second choice. This continues until at least one candidate has achieved a quota. When at least one candidate has achieved the quota, we calculate the number of votes that the most successful candidate has received in excess of the quota. This number, divided by the quota, is the *transferrable value* of that vote, and all votes cast for the candidate are redistributed with that value to the next person on the ballot papers. Example: Mr Smith receives 39 first preference votes. As above, he only needed 26 to be elected. He is declared elected, and the votes cast for him are redistributed to other candidates with a value of (39 - 26) / 39 = 1/3. That is, two-thirds of their "power" has been used up in electing Mr Smith. We now see if any other candidates have achieved the quota. If so, they are elected and their votes transferred as above. If not, we eliminate candidates until one has achieved a quota and continue as above. It's complicated to explain, but simple (albeit slow) in operation. It is tends to result in a Senate evenly divided between the two major parties, with a few Independents and minor party senators holding the balance of power. As such, it more nearly reflects the voting pattern of the populace than any system of which I know. 8.3 Current governments The current Prime Minister is John Howard, and we have a Liberal government. They have been in power since March 4, 1996 The current leader of the Labor party is Mr Beezley who replaced Paul Keating after Labor lost the election.. The current leader of the National Party is Tim Fischer. The most recent federal election was held on March 2nd, 1996. The Labor Party, lead by Paul Keating were beaten by the John Howard led Liberals. State Governments (Length of Term 4 years, except Qld 3 years)) State Party Premier Election due by Vic. Lib/Nat Jeff Kennett Mar 2000 NSW labor Bob Carr 27 March 1999 ** Qld Labor Wayne Goss Mid 1998 SA Lib/Nat Dean Brown late 1997 WA Lib/Nat Richard Court Feb 1996 Tas. Lib Ray Groom late 1995 NT Cnt/Lib Marshall Perron June 1998 **NSW now has fixed 4 year parliamentary terms, with elections to be held on the last Saturday in March every four years from 1995. An election my be held earlier if a motion of no confidence is passed in a Government and no new Government can be formed on the floor of the Parliament. 8.4 Taxation * Total taxation Comparison of all forms of taxation, with source December 1993 issue of the Economist. [TvR] USA 27% Switzerland 32% Germany 39% Italy 31% Australia 27% highest Sweden 50% lowest Bahamas 5% * Personal income tax Here is a table of the most recent figures for Australia's personal income tax rates. Part of Your Income Tax ($) (cents in the dollar) ------------------------------------------ 0 to 5400 0 5401 to 20700 20 20701 to 38000 34 38001 to 50000 43 50001 & over 47 (plus 1.4 cents in the dollar for MediCare levy) Tax is taken out of each pay-packet you receive by your employer. (You are called a PAYE taxpayer - Pay As You Earn). Example: Suppose that you earn $44,000 a year. Income tax + medicare levy is (20700-5401)*0.2 + (38000-20701)*.34 + (44000-38001)*.43 + 44000*.014 = 3059.8 + 5881.66 + 2579.57 + 616 = 11520.83 + 616 = $12136.83. [AN: Need to check that medicare is over the whole amount] * Corporate taxation [JB] Corporate tax is 33%. Australia has an almost unique system whereby company income is *NOT* taxed again if it is passed on the shareholders as dividends. The system, known as "dividend imputation" works roughly like this: If you get a dividend cheque from a company for $1,000, it will often be accompanied by a notice saying that it is "fully franked" or "partially franked" and that it has "imputation credits" of, say, $500. This means that your "share" of the company's profits were $1,500, on which $500 company tax has already been paid. When you do your personal tax return, you declare income from this source of $1,500, and the tax credit of $500. If your marginal tax rate is less than the company tax rate, you will, in effect, get some of the $500 back. If your marginal rate is higher, you will have to pay some more to make up the difference, This system, which was introduced in 1985, did away with the previous system wherein company profits were taxed twice. This "double taxation" was a sore point with business for decades. Dividend imputation was brought in by that arch-fiend, Paul Keating, which is conveniently forgotten by people who want to paint him as a socialist enemy_of_business. * Indirect taxes [DlC] Compared to many western countries, particularly those with general Goods and Services Taxes (GSTs or VATs), Australia does not have much sales tax. The biggest source of government revenue is Income Tax. Australia and the US share the place for having the lowest taxation as a percentage of GDP of any major Western economies (27%). Yet despite this we have one of the highest rates of personal income tax. The main reason is the low rate (overall) of sales tax and "shock horror" customs duties. But unlike many western countries the rates that sales tax is charged, in Australia, varies substantially. Less than 50% of all goods and services (in dollar values) do not have any sales tax at all. For example food, health, rent, education, power, water, are all exempt. Ie those items deemed essential. Where tax is levied, it is levied, at least officially, by the Federal Government (I'll return to this). Most goods (no services are taxed) are taxed at 21%. I've read that the figure is something like 80% of goods which are taxed are taxed at this rate. Some goods are taxed at higher rates for a range of reasons. For example the taxes on cigarettes are very high, supposedly for health reasons. I don't know what the rate is, but I suspect it is much higher than 37%. Some items which are taxed at levels higher than 21% include luxury cars (cars whose purchase price exceeds $A45,000), expensive liquors, and beer (wine is only 15% but it will move to 25% - was that the eventual compromise?), petrol, luxury boats. In each case there is an official motive, eg it is considered a good idea by many to make petrol expensive, to encourage people to use public transport. Can anyone explain to me why wine should be taxed less than beer, is it because the middle class (ie Democrat, Liberal and Green voters) drink the former and the working class drink the latter? [How's that for flame bait?] The number of items that have sales tax is always growing, and there has been a slow consolidation of the various rates into a general rate of 21%. In the early 80s our current prime minister was treasurer and he attempted to introduce an across the board goods(not services)tax. Many people have quipped that over the last 10 years the Prime Minister has achieved his original aim by stealth. This attempt was unsuccessful. The opposition, who recently proposed, unsuccessfully, a GST, rolled the governments original proposal by bringing out a legion of people to say, "You mean my cornflakes will go up by $0.50.....". Needless to say the same tactics were then employed by the current government to roll the opposition. Quid pro quo? [JB] Vary widely, ranging from about 70% on petrol to 0% on most foodstuffs, books, clothing, etc. Averages about 5% across all purchases. * State taxes There are no state income taxes. The States receive the bulk of their revenue from distribution of general federal revenue according to a "formula". [What is this formula?]. Traditionally NSW and Vic have received less per capita than the other states. State governments are limited in what they can do to raise state taxes: cigarette and alcohol, payroll tax, death duties, ???. Charges for state services and fees such as gas and electricity, motor registration. Victoria currently has a $100 tax levied per "rate-able property", excluding property used for primary production. The State governments provide primary and secondary education. The Federal Government pays totally for tertiary education, using a technique known as "tied grants" to the states. The money appears briefly in the State budgets, but cannot be put to any other use.[JB] The State government has no role in the provision of non-hospital health services. This is done independently by doctors. The State governments do provide the "public" hospital services, but also under a complicated funding system with the Federal government. [JB] * Local taxes Local city councils or shire councils in the country, raise money through rates, basically property taxes on houses/land. 8.5 The Independence Debate 1992. The Australian Republican Movement is a non-political organisation committed to achieving independence by 2001, our centenary. Ordinary membership is $40. Student/concession membership is $12 per year and family membership is $60 per year. They can be contacted at: Australian Republican Movement GPO Box 5150 Sydney, NSW 2001 (02) 234 4726 Fax (02) 223 5180 Freecall membership line 1800 80 2000. The Australian Republican Movement has an official World Wide Web site at: http://www.republic.org.au This site provides detailed information about the ARM, analysis of issues in the republic debate, and draft republican constitutions. "The Reluctant Republic" by Malcolm Turnbull, with an introduction by Robert Hughes Publisher: William Heinemann Australia 22 Salmon Street Port Melbourne VIC 3207 Australia ISBN 0 85561 372 6 Year: 1993 Malcolm Turnbull is Chairman of the Australian Republican Movement and was Chairman of the Prime Minister's Republic Advisory Committee. [MJ] I think we have already received independence, although you can't put a date on it. I'd rather call it a 'republican' debate. 8.6 Mabo The High Court, in the "Mabo" decision, eliminated the previous terra nullius principle of land ownership in Australia, and stated that there was a Common Law ownership by the indigenous people, unless that title had been extinguished by a valid Act of the imperial. colonial, state, commonwealth or territorial parliaments. They also said that common law ownership depended on a demonstrated continues link between the people and that land. [JB] Native title is NOT freehold title, for instance, the land cannot be sold, but according to commonwealth law, can be converted into freehold title if the owners so desire. [Scot] 8.7 Health Care [JM] 8.7.1 Medicare Medicare is a universal medical insurance scheme run by the Federal Government covering all Australian citizens and permanent residents. The Medicare scheme covers all Australian citizens and permanent residents, and provides "basic" medical cover. This comprises: - 85% of the "Schedule Fee" for services provided by GP's and medical specialists. - Treatment in a public hospital in a "public" standard ward. Those who are eligible have a Medicare Card with a name and number on it. Foreign visitors are also covered if there is a reciprocal arrangement between Australia and their country. This is most likely to exist where the other country also has a public health system akin to Medicare. For example, an agreement exists with the UK (which has the National Health) but not the USA. Overall, the level of care provided by Medicare is excellent. Aboriginal health in rural areas is sometimes, however, quite shocking. The Govt looks like it will finally do something about this (Sen. Richardson, the Health Minister, is on a crusade, which was surprising provoked by the new AMA head). [Scot] 8.7.2 Medicare Levy The Medicare Levy is a payment levied on all Australian taxpayers in order to pay for the Medicare scheme. The levy is currently 1.4% of taxable income. 8.7.3 Doctors Doctors in Australia are generally private practitioners and charge a fee for each service they provide, or medical procedure performed. In Australia students choose to study medicine when they leave high school. Medicine is one of the most competitive courses to get into. The first 3 years are pre-clinical course work undertaken at the university (i.e. chemistry, physics, biochemistry, anatomy, pharmacology, etc). The 4th to 6th years are clinical training. Typically students are attached to one hospital, and do rotations through the major medical disciplines. In their final year students can choose to spend time at another institution (which may be overseas) in any specialty they like. At the end of their 6 years, they take their final exams. After that, they have to do at least a year's residency before they are qualified to practice. More residencies and qualifications are needed for any specialty, and further qualifications are needed even to become a GP. [AN] * Overseas doctors working in Australia [PW] To practice medicine in oz you need to be registered with the state medical council (whatever it's called). You can do this in a number of ways: (1) Do (and pass :-) a medical course in an ozzie or kiwi uni, (2) Do medicine at a recognised+ overseas uni and then pass the medical council's exam (about equivalent to ozzie finals), (3) Have a degree from one of these medical schools, have obtained fellowship of one of the specialist medical colleges and have >3 years specialist experience (ie, be the equivalent of an ozzie consultant). You might also have to do an english exam if it isn't your first language. + a list of recognised universities and appropriate qualifications will be supplied by the medical council, I think they include most UK, Ireland and main USA medical schools. If you didn't go to one of these places then see method (1). Note: Until 18 months ago the different states had different requirements for registration of foreign medics; NSW was as described above. However, they then standardised to the NSW system to make the states consistently strict (with the previous system, you could register in Queensland and a transfer to NSW). 8.7.4 Fees (What you Pay at the Doctor) Generally, patients are charged by doctors on the basis of the "Schedule Fee". This refers to a schedule of standard fees for medical procedures and services. The Schedule Fee was originally a standard fee set by the doctors professional organisation (the Australian Medical Association - AMA) however in recent years (particularly as the influence of the AMA has declined) it has come to be set by agreement amongst the State and Federal Government. The exact amount a particular patient will be charged is based on the Schedule Fee, but could be modified by one or more of the following factors: - Does the doctor "bulk bill" In this case, the patient pays nothing. Since the introduction of Medicare in 1975, many doctors have moved to "bulk billing". This is a procedure where the doctor bills the Medicare scheme directly rather than the patient. The downside (for the doctor) is that they only get the Medicare payment of 85% of the schedule fee. The term "bulk" is used because the doctor can simply issue a single invoice at the end of the month, rather than separately billing every patient. If the doctor *doesn't* bulk bill, the patient would pay the bill and then seek reimbursement from Medicare. - Is the patient privately insured In this case the patient will generally pay according to his or her insurance cover. This differs from policy to policy but is usually nothing, unless the doctor charges more than the schedule fee (see below). However, the *doctor* in this case, gets paid the full Schedule Fee, and a bill is issued to the patient. The patient would then pay the bill and seek reimbursement for 85% of the fee from Medicare and the rest from the insurer. (Although most insurers have a deal with Medicare so their clients need only make a claim through them rather than stand in two queues.) - Does the doctor charge *more* than the schedule fee? Some doctors (whether through ability, reputation, or greed) charge more than the schedule fee. In this case, all patients pay the doctor direct and seek reimbursement from Medicare or their insurer. Typically, the patient is out of pocket to the extent to which the doctor charges above the schedule fee. Summary: - patients without private insurance usually go to bulk billing doctors and pay nothing. - patients with private insurance pay up front and get the money back (but often not all of it) from their insurer. (An aside. The scheme above has placed economic pressure on doctors over the last 20 years, and many doctors now work in modern 24 hour/7 day clinics which bulk bill and treat both insured and uninsured patients. Such clinics have proved to be very profitable and efficient and now appear in even the "best" suburbs.) 8.7.5 Public Hospitals The Australian hospital system has two sectors, the first is public and is run by the State governments, the second is private (see below). The public system treats the whole range of conditions including trauma and serious, (unlike the private system). Funding for public hospitals is provided by State Governments. Some public hospitals run private "annexes" for services such as maternity. These are profit making enterprises attached to the larger public hospital. From the patients point of view, you can attend a public hospital in one of four ways: - Outpatient - Public ward Generally about 8 beds to a ward - Intermediate ward Between 4 and 6 beds to a ward - Private ward Generally 2 beds to a ward, but sometimes only 1. (Private insurance is required for treatment in an Intermediate or Private ward.) Patients are generally treated by registrars and salaried doctors in the public system, however, many private practitioners serve for several hours a week in public hospitals. (For this work, they are paid according to the Schedule Fee, so there is usually no financial loss. However, some good specialists who are generally able to charge in excess of the Schedule Fee *do* end up losing somewhat.) There is an important issue concerning private health insurance and emergency hospital admission. If you are admitted to a public hospital in an emergency and have private health insurance, you will be admitted as a private patient and end up with a surprising bill. It happens because, the so-called "public" patient is bulk-billed and therefore accrues debts at 85% of the Schedule Fee. Since Medicare covers all of this, there is nothing left to pay. However, "private" patients are charged 100% of the Schedule Fee, but private insurance typically only matches medicare by providing 85% coverage. The patient pays the balance. [JM] 8.7.6 Private Hospitals Private hospitals are profit making entities (typically owned by a syndicate of doctors, but sometimes by civic organisations or insurance companies.) They provide a range of routine surgical and convalescent care, generally leaving more serious conditions to the public hospitals in order to reduce their need for expensive capital equipment. (Although, there are exceptions to this. For example, many private hospitals have found CAT and MRI scanning to be very profitable.) From a patients point of view, private hospitals provide only Intermediate and Private ward care. 8.7.7 Aged Care (to be completed) 8.7.8 Skin Cancer [MJ] To provide some (useful) information. The Antarctic ozone hole does not in general affect Australia, we are too close to the equator. Last summer (1992/93?) a small part of the outer edge did pass over Tasmania and Victoria but lasted only for a couple of days and did not cause particularly high levels of uv radiation at the ground. Australians have the highest rates of skin cancer in the world probably due to the combination of culture and having summer when the earth is closest to the sun. Bring a hat, sunscreen and shirt. Don't "bake" at all, but if you insist on being brown, authorities suggest avoiding the strongest sunlight between 1100 and 1500 (summer time). There was a big campaign against skin cancer: "Slip slop slap". It had a cute little cartoon animal as the star of the commercial, a seagull, whose "s's" were came out as a kind of cross between Donald Duck and Sylvester the Cat. The jingle went: "Slip! Slop! Slap! Slip on a shirt slop on sunscreen and slap on a hat! Slip! Slop! Slap! (da-da) In the sun this summer say, 'Slip-slop-slap!'" There is an Ozone FAQ on sci.environment which is more likely to be correct than what gets periodically posted on s.c.a.! 8.7.9 Miscellaneous 8.8 Economic Information * Comparative GDP etc [TvR] Some time ago there was a debate on s.c.a about GDP at purchasing power per head expressed in US $ ... the Economist has compiled a list in its christmas issue . to set the records straight a lot of countries that would be high on the list Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium are not included in the sample.. here are some of the data. GDP per Pollution Cars Second Doctors Murders head at CO2 per per school per per $PPP head 1000 rate % 100.000 100.000 1991 USA 22300 19.7 589 92 238 13.3 Switzerland 21780 5.9 447 85 159 1.4 Germany 19770 10.5 490 97 270 1.0 Japan 19390 8.5 285 96 164 0.7 Canada 19320 17.3 473 99 222 2.5 Hong-Kong 18520 7.0 29 90 93 1.7 France 18430 6.4 418 99 286 1.3 Sweden 17490 7.0 419 91 270 1.7 Italy 17040 6.8 459 79 476 3.6 Australia 16680 15.5 435 83 229 2.7 Britain 16340 9.9 403 84 164 1.0 New Zealand 13970 7.8 455 89 174 3.4 Spain 12670 5.2 308 90 357 1.2 * Exports [KH] Total exports: Oz US bn USD 42.2 422 primary/ total in USD 62% 9% primary as % GDP 22.3 11.2 Primary production: Product Amount (M tonnes) Major world markets (decreasing & producer ranking order by purchases in USD) Coal 206(7) 944(2) China,US,ex-SU,Ger Wheat 10.7(9) 53.9(5) China,ex-SU,EC,Ind Sugar 3.2(10) 6.6(7) EC,ex-SU,Ind,US Aluminium 1.22(4) 4.12(1) US,Jap,Ger,ex-SU Wool 0.88(1) - China,ex-SU,Italy,Jap Cotton 0.50(8) 3.84(2) China,US,Ind,ex-SU Nickel 0.69(4) - Jap,US,ex-SU,Ger Lead 0.58(1) 0.48(2) US,ex-SU,Jap,Ger Copper 0.32(8) 1.63(2) US,Jap,Ger,ex-SU Gold 0.24(3) 0.29(2) Mex,US,Peru,Canada ======================================================================== Figures are for 1992 according to various tables found in "The Economist". * Wages, poverty level, homelessness [KH] I recently claimed the "basic wage" in Oz was $16 per hour. (This, of course, applies to the counter staff here at LaTrobe.) This is not exactly correct. With recent changes (five years or so) to industrial relations there is no real set minimum for full-time employees. However, the following figures are authoritative (ABS and ATO for end 1992) if a little old: Of the 7.8 million taxpayers known to the ATO ;-) Number taxable income 1992 or pct. 1200 >500K 1% 80-100K 6.3% 50-80K 46.1% 21-50K 46.6% <21K The weighted average of these is 27.1K ($14.89 per hour); the approximate median is 23.5K ($12.91 per hour). These figures may or may not be accurate. According to the ABS only 5.05m people in Australia claim NOT to be in the workforce (i.e. 71% of the population). The claimed average work hours are 35.3 per week; for full-time workers 41.1 hours per week; for part-time workers 15.3 per week. From this we can calculate the approximate fraction of the workforce in full-time employment is 75%. More recent figures from the start of this year put the perceived cost of living at about $460 per week for an average family ($13 per hour) and the average salary at $660 per week ($18.85 per hour). According to the DSS the poverty level in Australia was set at about $255 per week ($7.28 per hour) at end of 1992 (this is CPI indexed). An average family with no other means of support is eligible for a total weekly payment of $352.85 ($10 per hour). Pensions for single persons are less. At the end of 1991 the DSS had a total number of 8065 persons registered for the "Homeless Benefit". During 1992 all but 1902 were (mostly) re-classified under "Job Search/New Start". The 1902 were thereafter allocated a "Special Benefit Allowance" that is intended for "those people unable to support themselves or their dependents & who are otherwise not entitled to a pension or other benefit". Many of these recipients also receive additional rent or child support payments. It was estimated a further 1000 persons during 1993 had no support whatever (although they are legally entitled to it) and were living on the streets. The legal minimum wage in the US at end of 1992 was $3.50 US per hour for full-time employees. There was no set minimum (in my understanding) for part-time or casual work. The estimated number of homeless persons in year 1993 in the US (i.e. without work and no form of official benefit) was about 1.6 million. -- | | | | | | Stephen Wales | Internet: stephenw@mincom.com |M|I|N|C|O|M Denver, Colorado, U.S.A. | No employer opinion included User Contributions:Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: |
https://joycasino-3dtx.ru
New Slots
https://vulkancasino-nj2o.ru