Honestly I think it says a lot about the australian education system that I legitimately learned and understood more about the australian government because of this video that I ever did in school, so mad thanks for making content like this
Jumbledbyrd .. go read the original Constitution 1901, which still offers the ONLY freedom you can have through our inheritance of the Common Law that lays under the Constitution in our Legal System. The constitution that cannot be changed without referendum. Changes to title of monarch and great seal, without referendum. The changes to our Legal System through the Australia Act 1986, that attempts to remove the centuries of Common Law we inherited - again done without consent of The People... any debate about it which is shut down by those who colluded.
This guy was actually accurate in literally everything. I was planning on correcting some small details, such as the Labour party being centre and *not* left, but this guy even got that correct. As an Australian who's been here for a while, I give this my stamp of approval! 5 stars!
Hello Anshu 🥀🌹🥀 How are you doing today I hope you are enjoying this wonderful day as the mothers day, an how is your friends and family doing I hope everyone are doing great.
I'm in my third year at uni and about to do a politics course for the first time, so this was so helpful! Thank you! It was very clear and easy to follow, very well structured, and not patronising or anything like that.
The Monarch 1:04 The Governor general 1:50 (Royal assent 2:05) The Prime Minister 2:36 The Deputy Prime Minister 3:41 (The Parties 5:35) (Partisan/Bipartisan 6:03) The Leader of the Opposition 6:11 Ministers 6:38 The Backbench 7:32 The Shadow Ministers 8:00 (Parties 8:36) (Hung Parliament 9:16) Elections 10:38 (Electoral help 11:11) (Senate and house of rep 12:26) Voting 15:14 Senators and members 19:57 The Crossbench 21:34
dude this video was very epic, i like how you explained everything very clearly with good signposting and structure but also made it humorous??? much more interesting than hass class and i'll be watching this on repeat before my exam on monday
As someone living in the Philippines, this was an amazing informational video and parliaments around the world, like the one in Australia, still inspire me very much to push for a parliamentary system in the Philippines. --- I wish there were a bit more still images to go along with the text but it was still very informative. Thank you for this!
When helping clean out my grandparents house, I found a suitcase filled with my dad's school books and one was for a 'current affairs' class and on the first page my dad wrote 'today, Malcolm Fraser became prime minister' dated 1975, my dad was 12 at the time
The house of 'lords' was called the upper house and the house of the 'commons' (voted by the common populous) was called the lower house. Btw, thank you for your video. I'm an Indian and new to Australian politics and this video helped greatly.
this is really cool and informative, and i definitely understand our political system more than i used to! if anything though i think some visual aids or diagrams would be beneficial to some of the more complex stuff and also to break up the shots a bit. i am so glad someone is making auspol content on youtube!!!!!!!!
Hello Doejess 🥀🌹🥀 How are you doing today I hope you are enjoying this wonderful day as the mothers day, an how is your friends and family doing I hope everyone are doing great.
@@tenor1190 I belive it's undemocratic to force people to vote and is an infringement of liberty. The "ignorant" and those with little interest in politics are forced to the polls. Large numbers of "donkey votes" (votes for a random candidate by people who feel that they are required to vote by law). Unnessesary numbers of informal votes (ballot papers that are not marked according to the rules for voting). Resources must be allocated to determine whether those who failed to vote have "valid and sufficient" reason I'm extremely grateful to live in a free democracy. I now take an interest, vote aswell a volunteer and contribute to my community. But when I was 22 , i went to the polls purely to avoid the fine. I voted for someone I had never before heard of, simply because a girl who looked cute offered me a free 'Kevin 07' tshirt if I voted Labor as I walked in. I still have that shirt. Lol.
@@Capt182 ehh fair enough! I'm not old enough to vote so of course I'm not old enough to have a valid opinion on this yet, but I see where you're coming from. In my eyes, I see it as a civic duty to vote, not a civic right, but I was also raised in a relatively political family and have always been educted and opinionated on it, so I think it's unfair to expect all others to think that way. Thanks for responding to my comment, by the way!! I think it's important to learn about this sort of stuff before I can vote [:
I've been following your Tumblr for ages and dude props for somehow making an unbiased video about australian politics. This video is super clear and really useful, it's great!
Hello Vicki 🥀🌹🥀 How are you doing today I hope you are enjoying this wonderful day as the mothers day, an how is your friends and family doing I hope everyone are doing great.
Hello fan .I have . Quite of your handful comments on my post I just have to go out of my way to appreciate your unweaving support and good wishes and you know your comment hasn’t gone unnoticed... keep supporting me and never gives up on me @keanureeves
I actually did the same thing with the senate paper this election. Thankfully I was only putting in around 15 numbers, but I realised I had doubled up on '4'. I'd never had to get a replacement ballot before so it was a fun new experience.
Hello fan .I have . Quite of your handful comments on my post I just have to go out of my way to appreciate your unweaving support and good wishes and you know your comment hasn’t gone unnoticed... keep supporting me and never gives up on me @keanureeves
Sorry for the spam of comments here as I am watching a bunch of vids at once, but as (as probs obvious from my screenname) a disabled person I really appreciate you using visual descriptions [Smiley face] I super encourage it in all future videos. It is super rare to come across accessible video stuff so this really makes me happy! I wish this was the norm!
I would edit but more comments I think means more views so - I also really appreciate the subtitles. I struggle following anything without them, and it's just so *chefs kiss* Thank
I'm glad! I actually had a discussion with an access consultant on how to make my videos better for people with disability and one I hadn't thought about was making sure I included descriptions. I hope that my videos can be educational for as many people as possible so I'm glad to get such positive feedback!
Thank you for your informative video. I just find it really fascinating that despite unexpected leadership changes in the past 12years, no chaos followed for each change! That’s unimaginable in other countries 😅
Good stuff. Should be more of it. Most Australians are surprised that the Constitution does not mention the roles of political parties, the Prime Minister, or any other ministers of government. Technically it could run without them; they are mostly just matters of tradition inherited from the British. The other confusion is that many think the federal government can overrule any state about anything. In many cases, they can't. The Constitution lists what things the federal government has control over. Anything else remains under the control of the states. At times, that leads to people asking why the federal government isn't doing something - usually it's because they do not have any legal power to do it (like dealing with natural disasters) unless the states specifically ask them for help. You might find some will dispute that the Liberals are right wing and Labor are centre. Most would probably call them centre right and centre left. While they certainly have their differences, compared with major parties in many countries they are as not as widely divided on many issues. Swinging voters (like myself) usually don't care as much about party ideologies - they just vote for whoever is best matched to hold power in the situation we're facing at the time (or maybe sometimes, which one they think is the least hopeless). Come to think of it, no major party ever wins elections in Australia, more like the other major party loses them.
You're right in that the Constitution doesn't mention the Prime Minister. But Chapter II does mention ministers in general and their role in administering the government departments. The Constitution does also contain a reference to political parties, in that when senators are appointed to fill vacancies, they have to be of the same party. Other than that you're correct thought!
The terms upper house and lower house come from the concept of feudalism. Since the House of Lords contained clergymen, Earls and Counts, they belonged to the upper section of the feudal society. So that house was called Upper house. House of Commons, as the name suggests, had common people, who were in the lower sections of the feudal society in medieval times. So, thus the name upper and lower houses.
I believe the lower house or house of commons consisted of knights and vassals and other workers of the state who collected taxes. The monarch would request funding from the lower house to run autonomous functions of the state.
This is honestly one of the best videos explaining a government. Like, any government. Well done! Looking forward to learning more about Australian politics in the future ^_^ I kinda don't get why it's so extremely desirable to not have a coalition. Sure, it's somewhat more easy and clearcut, but imo discussion and compromise are good things generally. Preferential voting sounds awesome.
this is great ! and a definite lifesaver for me since ive always felt pretty confused about my own govt's politics lol. cant wait to see more from u in the future !
Excellent video. Really clear and informative. Just a couple of points though. The candidates mentioned at 15:24 aren't in a random order, when the nominations close the AEC does a ballot draw to determine where each candidate will be placed. The higher the better to capitalise on the small donkey vote.. In the Senate when voting above the line it is recommended that you number at least 6 boxes but just voting 1 will still be technically a valid under the savings provision.. Also if you need a new ballot paper, you can ask the AEC staff to give you one, the volunteers aren't authorised to issue ballot papers.
The term upper house is because the British system has two houses the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The House of Commons is elected whereas the House of Lords is appointed by the monarch. This is only technically true now, as now they are decided by the prime minister, whereas historically it was by the king and they held a greater and equal power to the commons depending on the time frame. Due to aristocratic condescension it means it was called the upper house as it’s filled with lords barons and bishops it is now much less powerful and is a vestigial organ.
Hi, David. Thanks for your videos. It really helped me a lot about Australian politics. For better understanding, could you please share the copy of this script? Thanks so much 😊
I'm so glad that the visual references helped! Good news: if you're enjoying Auspol Explained I've just started turning it into a podcast so have just uploaded an introduction to Spotify and hopefully will include other services soon as well. I'll be uploading the backlog of episodes in just audio form so you can learn without having to load a whole youtube video if you so wish!
Great video man. I really liked the video editing and there were some great comedic parts. I think the reason our house are called the upper and lower is because in the UK they have a house of Lords and house of commons, so our names relate to the ye olde social class divide of the UK parliament. We did however borrow the name house of reps and senate from the US.
Hey, apologies in advance to be pedantic, our monarch is not the UK monarch 'because we are a part of the commonwealth'. Rather, Australia's legally independent succession laws have determined that Elizabeth II is the queen of Australia. Our succession laws happen to be synchronized to the laws of the UK, but because we are independent, it is legally possible for us to alter our succession laws & have a different monarch. So we could have a different monarch, even if we retained our spot in the Commonwealth.
David can you please explore the following or direct me to the episode: 1. Why did the Governor General dissolve Gough Whitlam's Labor Government and what conditions were present to make this happen? I know it had to do with supply bills. A political hot potatoe, but I know you will give it a go. 2. Why is there so much duplication of services between the Federal and state Government's responsibility in areas such as Health and Education, but not in other areas such as Defence and Trade.. maybe an in-depth dissection of what are State and Federal powers/responsibilities and how they came to be. You are doing an amazing job of explaining complicated issues and facts in an entertaining and informative way. Please keep going. Your cue cards must be very big with all the information you provide, but then there are a lot of edits too, so that must balance out and make it easier. General question without notice: Why doesn't UA-cam allow different spelling of words - potatoe-potato, let's call the whole thing off.
Ok! For the dismissal: don't have an episode yet (I've been reading a lot because I want to do it justice). Basically supply bills are to fund things like government services and the Liberal party was blocking them in the Senate so there was a looming time where if supply wasn't passed, then there'd be disaster. The Liberals didn't start off with a majority, but a senator died, was replaced with an anti-Whitlam one, and Malcolm Fraser as opposition leader refused to have supply passed to force Whitlam to hold an election. Constitutionally, the Governor General (John Kerr) should act on the advice of the Prime Minister, but Kerr didn't like Whitlam and discussed what to do with Fraser and more influentially: Sir Charteris, private secretary to The Queen, who directed him to information on the reserve powers to dismiss a government. Kerr was worried Whitlam would ask the Queen to dismiss him so Kerr had his own looming time limit in his head. There were multiple solutions though. 1) the Liberal party rules allow individual members to cross the floor and there were some members who considered this crisis to have gone on for too long and might have let it pass had this lasted another week thus resolving the issue 2) Fraser gives up and averts a crisis 3) Whitlam advises a half-senate election which would've either gained him enough seats to pass supply, or shown his government was not viable without bipartisan support (supply hadn't previously been blocked even when non-government parties had a majority). Thing is: Whitlam was going to do just that, but Kerr went for it before Whitlam could request one, and installed Fraser as PM. Parliament was dissolved that day before any business could be resolved, an election called, and Fraser won. So basically the exercising of those reserve powers was to resolve a deadlock that prevented the government from functioning. The Senate can't introduce money bills, only agree or disagree, so if the two chambers are equally opposed it's a crisis that could've lead to economic disaster. It wasn't based off the merit of Whitlam policy - the governor general is there to resolve issues to do with parliament's ability to function. It was of course controversial, and has been heavily criticised (especially by Labor - whose members would shun Kerr), but it was a legal resolution to the crisis. It wasn't an expected or smooth one, but it was allowed. For the other instance of reserve powers being used look up the 1932 NSW constitutional crisis with Jack Lang's dismissal. 2) Health and education have shared responsibilities because of the different elements of those topics. So health right, a state government can see what areas need better health outcomes and put funds into certain regions or hospitals, and figure out how delivering things like vaccines work based off those areas. But there are overall duties that require consistency like medical devices or approved drug treatments which is regulated by the TGA, a federal body. So a state understands the needs of its area specific hospital resources, but the medicine you get is federally regulated (and subsidised) so you're not getting a different quality of drug from state to state. Also: the federal government has most of the taxation powers so states, although in charge of hospitals, can't raise nearly as much money as the federal government so mixed responsibilities for funding come in. (My 2nd episode is about the difference between federal, state, and local). Things like defence and trade were state responsibilities before federation, but now that means trade deals/military doesn't need to be coordinated with 8 different governments but just one. WA isn't make trade deals with Wisconsin, but Australia with the US. And if someone attacks Queensland it doesn't need to convince NSW to send its military. So that's a general overview. A lot of the decisions are either around state autonomy to make individual decisions, shared because of need for shared funding or because different parts of it are about delivering local services or buying and regulating things nationally, or because the states found it beneficial to provide responsibilities to the federal government when they collectively agreed to make it and form a constitution that came into effect in 1901.
@@AuspolExplained The Governor-General has the powers to withdraw commission of any (prime) Minister but when doing so for a Double Dissolution cannot allow the opposition to take over Government position and then carry on with supply . What is totally ignored is that the governor-General was at fault, this because to allow for the constitutional processes the Supply bills (Appropriation & Taxation Bills) by right should be put to the Parliament about 6 months before the start of the new financial year, not in May. This as to allow the process to have the process for both Houses to debate the bill and vote and then 3 months later again and to allow for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION to be held if it fails the second time. As such Kerr should have insisted to have the bills put to the Parliament in January that year at the latest. It is still being ignored!
Well, I certainly found your delivery easy to listen to and the explanations were some of the better-explained ones I have ever heard. Well done on this, not an easy topic to tackle. I do however have several questions of my own and they may be beyond your expertise but I hope you have the ability to find out! 1) The AEC, has long been known to operate as an organisation outside of the Australian Constitution, thus making it illegal. The Attorney General (Brandis) was caught by this on a similar fact that Australian High courts and above were in fact also conducted illegally for over twenty years, to which he scoffed until forced to look into it. Needless to say, he was eating his words. 2) The Constitution clearly says one man one vote... so would preferences be breaking this law and allowing you to vote more than once in an election? More to the point, if coalition parties exist, would that be considered as voting for two parties? 3) Voting in itself is not compulsory, but turning up and having your name crossed off the electoral roll is. Nobody can force you to write anything on the paper, or even enter the booth. Although to whinge about who won afterwards would be stupid as you only agree with the winner by not voting. A moot point, but worthy of mention I think which is why 1 is prob illegal. 4) Coalition parties such as the LNP are also unconstitutional, however, they exist or we would only ever have ALP! Not sure how I feel about that truly... yet does not the ALP have to form a common alliance with the Greens to win elections more often than not? Wouldn't this make them a coalition party despite their reluctance to agree with this ideology? In my honest opinion, what you said is true, read up about who you are voting for, understanding about preferences is a big part. I personally think that it is time the coalitions ended, preferences ended and the parties now win on their own merit. I do not care if they are not the majority ruling party, whoever wins the election will have the Prime Minister and the government will run with the assistance of the other parties approvals or disapproval. A federal ICAC has long been needed to police the loose canons and fines are not enough. You represent Australia, if you cosy up and take money from foreign entities, job over, get on the dole queue. No big handouts, be thankful you may not have to pay back what you have had! As for the PM, this position should be just the same as the PM of Singapore, You are where the buck stops. If something goes wrong then you are responsible and you are the one who wears it. It is your job to ensure the country is running in drive and smoothly. JMHO
Hello. Thanks for watching and I'm glad you enjoyed it. To answer your questions: 1) The AEC exists under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, which is an extension of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902 - and the AEC is answerable to Parliament. I don't understand what you mean by it not existing in the constitution, thus making it illegal. There is not a single act of parliament that is mentioned in the constitution, nor does it state the name of any bodies that are part of the administration of parliament (case in point: the Prime Minister isn't mentioned, the remuneration tribunal isn't made via the constitution - but one exists because remuneration AKA paying members is necessary for the function of government). I'm unaware of this mention of George Brandis admitting that the High Court and above (there is nothing above the High Court within Australia) has operated illegally. Could you provide me a news article I could read more about that so I could understand it further? 2) Preferences are not more than one vote, they are a method of determining an efficient way of how best a person wants to spend their one vote. Plural voting was a thing that used to happen in the 1800s in Australia because in some areas the qualification for voting was property ownership of a certain value in an electorate, and so those who owned multiple properties could vote in multiple electorates. Preferential voting is also known as instant run off voting in the US. In the US, as they don't use IRV (except in some specific areas), if there's no majority of any one candidate they have to hold a whole new election to resolve the issue. Preferential voting eliminates this as a concern because it's almost impossible for the preferences of a hundred thousand people to result in a dead tie. If preferences are required to be counted, the elector's ballot ultimately only gives a vote to one candidate, so it's not plural voting at all. 3) The legal wording of The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states: "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election." Therefore it is legally the requirement of each elector to vote and saying that it isn't, you just need to show up, is a technicality in that you are legally protected by anonymity and thus it's impossible to prove any specific elector did not properly fill and submit their ballot if their name is stricken from the roll. It is the law, but it is impossible to prove you broke it without removing the anonymity of the ballot and thus making it informal. The point you've made has been tested in both Supreme courts and the High Court multiple times. It is also the terms of service of UA-cam to not say anything that is legally incorrect about voting or deceive voters, so I once again do have to state I am only saying the letter of the law as it stands. How you act on it is your own choice. 4) Political parties were not mentioned in the constitution until 1977 - so technically every political party was unconstitutional. The Prime Minister isn't in there either. The cabinet isn't in there. But I encourage you to watch my episode on Convention (ua-cam.com/video/DhG-FStd7LI/v-deo.html) where I discuss how a lot of Parliament is built off traditions and rules that aren't written as statues. The Westminster convention is that the Governor/Governor-General/Monarch appoints someone to be Prime Minister/Premier under the condition that they can maintain the confidence of the House. That does not mean they need any party affiliations, and in fact, in the early days of state Parliaments there were Independents who had no specific party structure, but were Premiers. Sir John Forrest in WA comes to mind as an example from 1890-1901. It is however a lot easier to maintain and demonstrate confidence if you have more than half the seats aligned with a specific party structure, or agreement. As we saw under Gillard's time as Prime Minister, and even Morrison's latter half of his first term, this can mean that Independents can provide "confidence and supply" and although they may not agree 100%, they agree to allow the government to function and not call for a motion of no confidence, or block money bills to prevent the government from functioning. Also: a Coalition is a formal agreement to vote as one and requires both (or more) parties to form a collective party line by coming together. The Nationals and Liberals don't always agree, but compromise with each other in meetings to create a collective party platform in Parliament. Labor and Greens on the other hand have on very few occasions formed alliances (Gillard had one Greens member provide confidence and supply in 2010, Greens helped Labor form government in Tasmania also 2010), and the ACT Labor/Greens currently have an alliance where not all Greens sit with the Government, and instead are part of the crossbench and can vote separately to Labor, despite their mutual efforts to compromise together to pass legislation. Nationals and Liberals in WA are also not in a Coalition and can vote separately, but as there are so few in this current state Parliament they've formed an alliance and share the shadow ministry. The two are similar, they both involve parties working together, but a Coalition is a tighter bond with more rules whereas an alliance doesn't hold the same obligations or permanency. To many this is a technical distinction, as either one can be required to form a majority for a government and voters are more interested in who forms that government and what parties, rather than the mechanics of it. As for your comment that ALP would always win without the Coalition - they'd still need more than half the seats, and without the Nationals helping ALP (they almost did once in WA when an election resulted in Nationals being able to choose who formed government), it wouldn't happen often. John Howard once managed to get so many seats he didn't need the Nationals to form government. So it's possible. But generally, yes, Labor (at least federally) is most often the most popular political party by itself. But it doesn't always win more than half the seats. There are of course many other political parties, and so even Labor majority governments need to negotiate with other parties, often conservative, to get legislation passed in the upper house. I encourage people to think of Parliament as a collaborative process where the government that wins steers the ship, but isn't the only one who gets to have a voice in all the directions that ship travels. Anyway, I hope that's been helpful. It is a lot to read but thanks for the questions. I hope you enjoy my channel! And don't forget to ensure your details with the AEC are up to date as there's an election next year and you get to vote for who you think deserves the job.
@@AuspolExplained Thank you for the very detailed and well explained reply. I didn't mean to cause you so much work ;) but my generation does have these beliefs and so I felt I needed some clarification. I do get a tired of the armchair lawyers telling me everything that I wrote down, but I figured the best way was to just say it as I hear it. It actually stems from the generation before mine I think, so we are talking about people born in the 1939/48 period and next generation. A majority of the information was based on very early time within the forming of the Constitution thru to the end of WWII. The periods of time through out tat time frame were very tumultuous politically and as you say, the Constitution is not there for Parliament, but for the people. Probably why they stopped it from being taught in school back in the early 70's. Imagine an educated Australia...politicians nightmares! I am subscribed and I do plan to catch a bit each time as I do not watch free to watch free to air TV, the MSM triggers my PTSD and anything our PM does at the moment only makes me ashamed of our country. As for voting, I never waste a vote and I ensure that I know exactly who I want and in what place. My personal opinion of preferential voting is probably like the rest of my age group though, irrespective of how it is painted. If as you say way back when, they did it to prevent a tie, we could also say the politicians back then paid to be politicians and took no remuneration. Some built roads to service their own farms to a shipping point, others built rail lines for the same reason and the public benefitted from this. Now it seems that the disregarding of the Constitution is normal for all of our political people, they can stall any group of people with a number of excuses, yet at the same time they can dictate which is what seems to happen at times what you will do or have etc because they say so. The people don't want it but are forced to have it. I realise by the date of the video I am late into your work, I am curious though? You seem to be a young fella at the time, maybe 24ish how did you get so involved in AUSPOL as a subject? Do you see yourself getting into politics in the future? If you do, would you aim at joining a party or forming a new one that would have a better ambition to fix the country? I often think I could use one term and concentrate all our energy internally to start making Australia what it should be! I don't need the fat wage, pension or fancy position afterwards, I just want to see every Australian in every State get a fair go and that does not mean increased unemployment for those who have never worked. just a quick FYI...I know a guy who immigrated to Astralia from Europe, he has gotten his citizenship, never held a proper job ever and now he is on a pension for old age. I started work at 15 as an apprentice mechanical engineer, that was taken away from me by the government hanging the regulations ratio, despite the fact that all the others were motor mechanics. My boss said I would be 21 before I could go back onto my apprenticeship and advised me it was my choice if I stay or go (1972) I left and became a train driver, the youngest qualified in SARialways. At 21 I joined the Army and I did 30 years, served overseas and suffer from severe PTSD and other injuries. I couldn't work, my wife couldn't live with me and we divorced, I tried to end my life and Veterans affairs tried to help me do that by refusing me everything at every turn. Mine is but one story and I survived with a lot, a huge LOT of help from other veterans, Drs and Nurses in a place called Ward 17. The point I am getting at is...I am a first Gen White Australian and I was treated like dirt for what I did, yet on the other hand we have a person who comes to Australia as a refugee from one of the then Easern bloc states and he openly tells me how he has made his living by not working anymore than a few hour and collecting government handouts. This is why I asked if you had plansin the future :) somebody has to fix this place, the status quo cannot support the welfare state at the current rate. Yeh, I know a bit off topic, but maybe it will generate some of that clever stuff you have inside that head of yours into a new topic. damned if I know what, but I would sure like to see. Just one other idea, I reckon you should invest in a cheap leather topped desk, S/h a nice high backed chair and set up a background wall of half old half new parliament house behind you. You can look like the PM and talk while not holding the camera then ;) Just keep up the good work, you've convinced me to listen, and your reply was never to long!
No worries, I had time and you had questions so I figured you deserved a detailed response. Also: thank you for thinking I'm younger than I am. I'm about to turn 30 in a few months. I got into politics as many people do: gradually, learning more about what was going on, and then realising how important the decisions in Parliament are for affecting our lives. I made this channel because people kept asking me super basic questions about how voting works, or didn't know we have two chambers, etc, and so that's why this exists - to make an easily searchable resource for people to learn. As for running for politics: no thank you! Parliament sits late into the night, there's SO MANY meetings, and I just don't have the energy to do it all. It's a tiring job with long hours and even if you do it well someone out there still hates you so I admire people's commitment to do the job. Someone has to - I just hope the people who do it know what they're doing and have helpful ideas. If you're super passionate then give it a go! Or encourage someone you know and donate to them/volunteer door knocking to help their campaign. I've done volunteering in the past and it's great fun, but actually running for parliament itself is too much for me. I'd rather be the one letting people know what they need to know before they run and letting them have fun.
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that a the Parliament could select the kind of voting system it desired,voting by preferences is not more than 1 vote. While electors generally are requested to vote for both House of Representatives and the Senate, they are in fact 2 separate elections, just generally held on the same day.
@@AuspolExplained The legal principle embedded in the constitution is "political liberty" and "desire to vote" and this I pursued in the court and very successfully that it couldn't force me to vote or deemed to have voted. “A pretend law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it”. Chief Justice Latham 1942 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.- What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. END QUOTE And HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves. END QUOTE And HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE
I wanna add a note for anyone watching this in the future: you can vote via mail! You can register to vote (I am in VIC but I think it is the same elsewhere) and have your vote mailed to you. Please! Vote!
Greetings from Britain. I love your videos The Upper House I.e The House of Lords Temporal is unelected. used to consist of Bishops and Aristocracy, until 1999 you could inherit your seat. Today, you are appointed due to having special skills or expertise and you have made distinguished contributions to public life (or hefty donations to the Conservative Party). The lower house is called the House of Commons because basically they aren’t aristocracy…. Technically the Lords role is to scrutinise and propose amendments to legislation. They have the power to veto any legislation but if this happens the commons can invoke the parliament act of 1911 to force it through….very rare Someone decided it wasn’t very, you know….democratic to give landed gentry and clergy or a gang of unelected political cronies the power to veto the democratically elected common folk. A majority of the UK electorate support replacing the lords….because it’s absurd and costs A LOT OF MONEY
Everyone should share your video about the referendum - “What is the Indigenous Voice to Parliament?” It’s clear, factual and cuts through all the BS that is getting traction from the scare mongering No faction. It will be very sad if we as a Nation in 2023 say No to a reform that leads to improving Indigenous lives.
Hi David, first of all, I love your videos! Thank you so much for all the information. I'm trying to understand how Australian politics work but I'm a little bit confused at some points. Australia has six states and as one of them, NSW has its own Parliament. The Parliament of NSW which has a lower and an upper house. In this level we find the politicians who are called MP as for example Mss Julia Finn MP. But later as a federal level, we have the Parliament in Canberra where we can find Mr Anthony Albanese. I don't understand it, so the Parliament in Canberra is elected in a general election where the whole country vote and in Sydney the Parliament is just elected by NSW residents. Is that right? Finally, could you recommend some books which could help me and some newspapers/ radio/ tv to get information about what is going on? Thank you so much and sorry for this long question!
I have a video about the difference between Federal and State (and local) governments you should watch. But to answer your question: each state has its own state parliament. MP means Member of Parliament so a state politician can be called MP, or they might be referred to by the house they're in (like MLA - Member of the Legislative Assembly or MLC - Member of Legislative Council, which are the two state houses). So you're right. You'd vote in a state election for the state parliament, and then a separate election called a general or federal election for the federal parliament which is located in Canberra. Also: I don't really know of any books that would help with current politics. The only political books I read are biographies, which are good ways to learn the historic origins of things (like medicare brought in under Bob Hawke) but also sometimes really biased (like Turnbull's memoir says the NBN was an amazing success and he deliberately doesn't mention any of the set backs or controversies with it). That's kinda why I made this channel. As for newspapers though: I really like the ABC, SBS, and the Guardian as the main three that I read. I read the Sydney Morning Herald more years back. I avoid the very obviously right wing biased things like The Australian or The Herald Sun as they as Murdoch owned papers give voice to racist and transphobic viewpoints which is really offputting. But yeah, the ABC is a very good resource, especially during election times and federal budgets.They create fantastic feature articles and infographics explaining quite a lot so start with them and then read other sources as well for a broader understanding of politics. Best of luck!
I'm about to move from the UK to Australia and it turns out the two government systems are basically exactly the same (apart from the stupid house of Lords in the UK, it's so archaic!) Not that surprising I guess! Makes it easier to understand at least. Thanks for the vid :)
I watched this at school and had to take notes Even though I got heaps of info it still was days of taking notes And learning about the government is boring
Hello! It is a bit of an info-dump isn't it? It is my first video so hopefully I can work on making them more interesting in the future. I'm glad you learned something though.
Senators from the NT and ACT are elected differently to the States Senators, and do hold office for six years. The Territories four Senators hold the same term as that of the members of the House of Representatives, that is, for three years, or less, depending on the duration of the House.
Yes. I can't remember all the content in this video but I fear I may not have made that point, though in a later video I have corrected myself. I should probably remake this old video one day with better lighting and more concise explanations.
Hi thank you very much for your video. Can you please explain how when a bill is up for debate how different members may sort of be gently bound to voting in agreement with the party they belong to.. also can you explain examples of 'crossing the floor' and if you can please explain presently the makeup of the upper house in parlament and roughly explain their numbers per group and who they are sort of bound too... sorry I know that's a lot and may not make sense but I'm trying to predict the possible outcome of a certain bill... if you wanted to you could do a video where you objectively discuss a bill (can I suggest the NO COVID VACCINE PASSPORT BILL.. presented by the independent... I think his name is Craig Kelly) how the votes are likely to be divided into groups and how many seats are in these groups? I hope you know what I mean... I'm a total beginner, hense why I'm not making any sense. Good luck interpreting my request and thank you
Hi. Certainly! OK so members are either strongly encouraged to vote in line with the party, or take a pledge to do so. So Labor members almost always consistently as a whole because crossing the floor can have them expelled from the party. It's decisions in the party room and their national conferences that determine how they will collectively vote. The Liberals are not as strict on this, but repeatedly crossing the floor isn't encouraged - especially for the past few years where the Liberal government has not had a strong majority in the House of Reps. This can still lead to being expelled from the party, just that there isn't the same pledge to not do it as Labor has. Crossing the floor is what it says it is: literally crossing the floor, as sometimes a division on a bill means members are on one side of the room or the other to be counted as yes/no. It's a term for voting against the rest of your party. It doesn't happen very often, so you can assume that most of the time a party votes as one group. As for the make up of the Australian Parliament you can easily find that by looking up the House of Representatives/Senate on Wikipedia like so: 1) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_House_of_Representatives and 2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate As you can see: the current government as of this comment is the Liberal/National Coalition who have the bare minimum majority of 76 out of 151. This can still cause them problems (see why in my video about the Speaker of the House being a member of the government, but not being able to vote with the government except in a tie breaker: ua-cam.com/video/yJig8x8K2lk/v-deo.html ) But they don't control the Senate. That's normal. So a Liberal bill often requires support of either Labor, or the crossbench (which is everyone else). Craig Kelly, as an independent, is a member of that crossbench. I don't really do videos on specific bills, at least not current ones, because they can be changed/amended through multiple readings. So pre-emptively commenting on a bill that has not had any/much debate in parliament is perhaps not very helpful. However, Craig Kelly is an example of how a party disciplines members as he was a former Liberal member who - despite voting in line with the party - was ejected for repeatedly pushing misinformation about COVID, medical treatments for the disease, and rejecting the health advice of the government he was part of, so this might not inspire much confidence that the Liberal party will support his latest bill. There is possibly some tension between them as they found him too disruptive to continue being part of their party. He can of course introduce it - any member of parliament can introduce a bill, even multiple members within a party can introduce competing bills - but I cannot really predict how far it will go.
Really interesting vid, now I understand why in my country you can vote for just one candidate & not the preferential thing its really complicated tbh. But I actually would like the preference thing like a tier list of politics 😂
On the question of Upper/ Lower houses... I’m not totally sure but I’ve always thought it has something to do with society in general? The Upper House in British parliament is the House of lords so made up of ‘upper crust’ society way back when, while the House of Commons/ Lower house wasn’t nobility itself? Wikipedia (not the most reliable source but it’s late) seems to agree somewhat? “The division of the Parliament of England into two houses occurred during the reign of Edward III: in 1341 the Commons met separately from the nobility and clergy for the first time, creating in effect an Upper Chamber and a Lower Chamber, with the knights and burgesses sitting in the latter. They formed what became known as the House of Commons, while the clergy and nobility became the House of Lords.”
@@AuspolExplained Brit here. Sorry this is a bit long. Seth Torra is correct.It's a snobbery thing. Also the House of Lords once consisted of hereditary lords, or Peers as the official title is. Under Tony Blair's governorship, the hereditary system was almost entirely abolished. Only a handful of seats are still hereditary. The rest are filled by people chosen by parliament. The ruling party gets to put the most members down but the opposition get to choose some too. The list then goes to the monarch for 'consideration', but that's one of those formalities where they choose and the monarch signs a bit of paper to make it official (what a waste of time when she could be playing with her corgi's 🙂). Then the chosen individuals attend a ceremony a whole day pageantry, along with people receiving more minor titles, and everyone goes home with a fancy badge and certificate. However the opposition party get to put some people in it too. There are partisan peers and non partisan. However unlike the House of commons the partisan peers are not obliged to vote in favour of their party's decisions. That's come in handy a few times. It used to be a rule that if you were a peer you couldn't stand as an MP in the Commons (unless you renounced your title) but that rule was abolished. The legislation goes back and forth between the Houses, as in your Senate. However the Lords aren't allowed to put any bills forward themselves. A peerage is for life, although you can retire from the House of Lords if you want. Obtaining a peerage seems to mean spending a small fortune in personalised stationery, but no longer gets you the best seats at the theatre! One of the few remaining hereditary Peerage seats was held by Lord Lucan (yep, that Lord Lucan. The murderer) although his son now has it after years of fighting to have his father declared dead. Honestly! It's not like the man was using it 😂 If you want to know more about this system, such as why hereditary Peerage was abolished, the religious representation, or anything else please feel free to ask. Your video is awesome! Although I'm probably going to have to watch it a few more times until I get it down because of the differences in our systems but I look forward to watching the rest of your video's. This was brilliant and funny! II'll make it so much fun no matter how many times it takes me to wrap my dense brain around it! 😂. Thanks 😊.
@@annagettings4675 Thank you! That was a handy explanation (and remarkably I have heard of Lord Lucan) and I appreciated reading it. It's weird how the British system can seem so weird to me even though there are so many things Australia inherited from it.
See, I am an American trying to move to Australia, and OMG this is informative. It's also strange to me that the Liberal party is the opposite of what it is here in the States. Though, it makes sense since in the US it used to be the opposite as well. Eh. Thank you for the info!
Thanks! I should get round to that yes. I do want to make sure explaining political parties is very thorough so as to not come off as biased but I will have a break down of each party.
As an American, I enjoyed learning about one of our friends' political systems. I like just learning about various political systems, even tho I'm a leftist
Fun fact: I voted below the line for this year's NSW state election, just so I could put that son of a bitch Mark Latham last. *346 boxes.* I weep for whoever counted it.
Before they instituted the changes to the Senate voting, I used to vote below the line, and I would get distressed about deciding which horrible party would get the wooden spoon, and which horrible party would get a relatively higher place. With the new rules, I theoretically prefer being able to determine which party I hate the most, but with the recent election, for my sanity, I stopped after I had preferenced all the parties I could handle getting a seat, and left the rest in a 'all these parties are awful' metaphorical basket, and left them blank.
With our current political climate I'm curious about Australia. I understand there is a sort of hybrid system based on a parliamentary type of Congressional system that is in my opinion, depends on more than just one president. Of course Australia doesn't have a strong military defense. But I'm retired and wondering .I've lived in az for the last 50 years. Maybe a cabin in the woods would be better. This summer we set a record 115° on one very hot day in August.
Hmm, the prime minister's party or coalition doesn't always have a majority in the House of Representatives. Julia Gillard's party, Labor, didn't after the 2010 federal election.
At 5.42 you stated the Liberal Party is right wing and the Labor Party is central, this is incorrect. Labor is a left leaning party anyway you look at it! The term progressive is often applied to Labor, they stand for greater taxation and greater centralization of power. They also align with the Greens (hard left party) when it suits them to pass/block legislation. The LNP is more conservative or right leaning, the term in bed with big business is often used, they also stand for less taxation, while only a short video you might have pointed out Australia has Progressive Taxation System so this comment had some context. You mentioned the Governor General powers yet failed to mention the 1986 Australia Act, essentially removing UK say in Australian Politics. One major concern is that it would have been helpful to outline the Constitution in relation to the separation of powers between State and Federal Governments. A lot of people seem to think the Federal Government has some kind of power to override the States when in fact it doesn't. This creates a blame game between the Federal and State Governments. One of the commenters below stated they viewed this Video in School, so your opinion is being heard by younger people, therefore IMO you should be presenting a neutral view, some of your comments appeared a bit left leaning, to your credit you did say people should research a party before voting so 10/10 for that.
You're right Labor is centre-left. This is an editorial mistake that I've been frustrated with ever since, though thought at the time that I'd get more flack from progressives complaining that Labor is "basically just like the Liberals" because of the venn diagram and occasional (but not always) bipartisan support and capitulation on issues like tax cuts, etc. That assertion that they're the same is wrong, but it's what happens whenever you make any comment on where political parties lean. I'm actually in the process of rewriting a basics of government series that corrects this mistake (and also has better lighting). I'll break it into parts because I want shorter, simpler, videos that aren't huge info-dumps - which is why you'll find that the 2nd video on my channel goes into that separate of Federal and State governments! I did a whole video about the responsibilities of the different tiers of Federal, State, and Local and have a video where I interview a state politician about his job, and the mayor of Fremantle on the role of local government. As you can see, there's a lot to cover and I don't want to make 50+ minute videos. But any suggestions for videos are appreciated! Thanks for the comment!
Many Australian citizens are not allowed to sit in the federal parliament based on the fact that they also possess overseas citizenships. Fairly soon this group will outnumber those who are permitted to sit in parliament.
If someone reports a crime they shouldn't be ignored! I have been tortured, yet I am ignored! I have had my human rights violated for years, yet I am ignored! Infact by talking I am harassed and intimated! Sick government!
I know your views are pretty left leaning from FB (same bruh, same) and I commend you at not taking some very very easy shots at the LNP during this. Also this was so informative and fun!! My ADHD ass can't sit through most UA-cam videos but I watched all of it and it just cleared things up so nice!! Good job man!! Very excited for more stuff
He a lying left turd , The government profits the most in a social democracy country not The Corporations . Does this fuckwit know the difference to Turnover from sales and Net profit ??? no because he doesnt own a business
Long term resident and new citizen here. Cant wait to have my vote counted alongside my countrymen. 💪👍🔥
Happy to have ya mate!! 💪🦘🍻
Honestly I think it says a lot about the australian education system that I legitimately learned and understood more about the australian government because of this video that I ever did in school, so mad thanks for making content like this
Me too! I thought maybe I just had a bad memory (I do) but it seems it’s not just me!
oath i strongly agree
Jumbledbyrd .. go read the original Constitution 1901, which still offers the ONLY freedom you can have through our inheritance of the Common Law that lays under the Constitution in our Legal System. The constitution that cannot be changed without referendum. Changes to title of monarch and great seal, without referendum. The changes to our Legal System through the Australia Act 1986, that attempts to remove the centuries of Common Law we inherited - again done without consent of The People... any debate about it which is shut down by those who colluded.
It’s not just you. The fact that the last time parliament is mentioned in any detail in NSW is in year 6 doesn’t help either.
Yup, I'm Australian and I was educated in Australia (selective even!) but I still learned more from this video than anywhere else.
I'm 35, and just now learned how the government and voting works thanks to this man.
Yeah, I love it how Australians complain about the gov nonstop. But don't vote.
@@brandon6347
Really? Which ones?
@@Capt182 the donkeys
I was taught in school, but I’m a lot younger than you.
@@samsam21ambSame. Glad they teach SOME of politics in school.
This guy was actually accurate in literally everything. I was planning on correcting some small details, such as the Labour party being centre and *not* left, but this guy even got that correct. As an Australian who's been here for a while, I give this my stamp of approval! 5 stars!
Whew, that future-proofing disclaimer about the monarch was very forward thinking of you, considering it's King Charlie now 😅
As an immigrant, this video was a crash course of Australian politics for me. Filled with information and humour. Can't thank you enough ❤️❤️❤️
Hello Anshu 🥀🌹🥀
How are you doing today I hope you are enjoying this wonderful day as the mothers day, an how is your friends and family doing I hope everyone are doing great.
Anshu Anand that's true the video was a crash course of Australian politics, not only you dear.
I'm in my third year at uni and about to do a politics course for the first time, so this was so helpful! Thank you! It was very clear and easy to follow, very well structured, and not patronising or anything like that.
The Monarch 1:04
The Governor general 1:50
(Royal assent 2:05)
The Prime Minister 2:36
The Deputy Prime Minister 3:41
(The Parties 5:35)
(Partisan/Bipartisan 6:03)
The Leader of the Opposition 6:11
Ministers 6:38
The Backbench 7:32
The Shadow Ministers 8:00
(Parties 8:36)
(Hung Parliament 9:16)
Elections 10:38
(Electoral help 11:11)
(Senate and house of rep 12:26)
Voting 15:14
Senators and members 19:57
The Crossbench 21:34
dude this video was very epic, i like how you explained everything very clearly with good signposting and structure but also made it humorous??? much more interesting than hass class and i'll be watching this on repeat before my exam on monday
Thanks for teaching me more in 1 vid than my teacher did in 1 uni semester
The crazy thing is I was taught this in highschool and it all left my brain
As someone living in the Philippines, this was an amazing informational video and parliaments around the world, like the one in Australia, still inspire me very much to push for a parliamentary system in the Philippines. --- I wish there were a bit more still images to go along with the text but it was still very informative. Thank you for this!
Wow! It's so nice to have everything covered in the one video. Never learnt about how the aus government works in school.
I'm glad it was helpful! I never had any of this explained to me in school either so I hope this gets people learning.
When helping clean out my grandparents house, I found a suitcase filled with my dad's school books and one was for a 'current affairs' class and on the first page my dad wrote 'today, Malcolm Fraser became prime minister' dated 1975, my dad was 12 at the time
The house of 'lords' was called the upper house and the house of the 'commons' (voted by the common populous) was called the lower house.
Btw, thank you for your video. I'm an Indian and new to Australian politics and this video helped greatly.
this is really cool and informative, and i definitely understand our political system more than i used to! if anything though i think some visual aids or diagrams would be beneficial to some of the more complex stuff and also to break up the shots a bit. i am so glad someone is making auspol content on youtube!!!!!!!!
Doejess you are such a pretty and wonderful lady so how are you doing today ? Like to know you are you married or single?
Hello Doejess 🥀🌹🥀
How are you doing today I hope you are enjoying this wonderful day as the mothers day, an how is your friends and family doing I hope everyone are doing great.
I'm 35 and have never voted as I object to compulsory voting. This mans tutorial has convinced me to vote next election.
I'm curious as to why you oppose compulsory voting?
@@tenor1190
I belive it's undemocratic to force people to vote and is an infringement of liberty.
The "ignorant" and those with little interest in politics are forced to the polls.
Large numbers of "donkey votes" (votes for a random candidate by people who feel that they are required to vote by law).
Unnessesary numbers of informal votes (ballot papers that are not marked according to the rules for voting).
Resources must be allocated to determine whether those who failed to vote have "valid and sufficient" reason
I'm extremely grateful to live in a free democracy. I now take an interest, vote aswell a volunteer and contribute to my community. But when I was 22 , i went to the polls purely to avoid the fine. I voted for someone I had never before heard of, simply because a girl who looked cute offered me a free 'Kevin 07' tshirt if I voted Labor as I walked in.
I still have that shirt. Lol.
@@Capt182 ehh fair enough! I'm not old enough to vote so of course I'm not old enough to have a valid opinion on this yet, but I see where you're coming from. In my eyes, I see it as a civic duty to vote, not a civic right, but I was also raised in a relatively political family and have always been educted and opinionated on it, so I think it's unfair to expect all others to think that way.
Thanks for responding to my comment, by the way!! I think it's important to learn about this sort of stuff before I can vote [:
Your vote means nothing! Corrupt
Thanks mate - Very useful. I was born overseas and I find your video very useful to understand the Australian political system better. Cheers!
I am doing a part-time social and public policy MPA alongside work, and this has been extremely helpful. Thank you very much!
Fellow Aussie here! The British call them, ‘The House of Commons’ and ‘The House of Lords’.
Thank you so much for this. May I add you have a very pleasant delivery :) I could listen to you all day.
Yeshna you are such a pretty and wonderful lady so how are you doing today ? Like to know you are you married or single?
I've been following your Tumblr for ages and dude props for somehow making an unbiased video about australian politics. This video is super clear and really useful, it's great!
thank you for a clear and easy to understand presentation. I am looking forward to the rest of your videos.
Vicki you are such a pretty and wonderful lady so how are you doing today ? Like to know you are you married or single?
Hello Vicki 🥀🌹🥀
How are you doing today I hope you are enjoying this wonderful day as the mothers day, an how is your friends and family doing I hope everyone are doing great.
Hello fan .I have . Quite of your handful comments on my post I just have to go out of my way to appreciate your unweaving support and good wishes and you know your comment hasn’t gone unnoticed... keep supporting me and never gives up on me
@keanureeves
Vicki Sutherland that's an interesting video.
as a highschool student, i genuinely learned more in this video than i ever did in school
I actually did the same thing with the senate paper this election. Thankfully I was only putting in around 15 numbers, but I realised I had doubled up on '4'. I'd never had to get a replacement ballot before so it was a fun new experience.
Hey I’m a random American and I saw you on tumblr, this was very helpful because Australia is very confusing, thank you.
Thanks for the video! You helped me with my Civics and Citizenship test. This was extremely helpful, by the way you were an excellent tour guide!
Thanks for explaining this so concisely
Hello fan .I have . Quite of your handful comments on my post I just have to go out of my way to appreciate your unweaving support and good wishes and you know your comment hasn’t gone unnoticed... keep supporting me and never gives up on me
@keanureeves
Amelia failla that's an interesting video.
Sorry for the spam of comments here as I am watching a bunch of vids at once, but as (as probs obvious from my screenname) a disabled person I really appreciate you using visual descriptions [Smiley face]
I super encourage it in all future videos. It is super rare to come across accessible video stuff so this really makes me happy! I wish this was the norm!
I would edit but more comments I think means more views so -
I also really appreciate the subtitles. I struggle following anything without them, and it's just so *chefs kiss*
Thank
I'm glad! I actually had a discussion with an access consultant on how to make my videos better for people with disability and one I hadn't thought about was making sure I included descriptions. I hope that my videos can be educational for as many people as possible so I'm glad to get such positive feedback!
This was extremely helpful,and you explained it all very clearly.
Thank you for your informative video. I just find it really fascinating that despite unexpected leadership changes in the past 12years, no chaos followed for each change! That’s unimaginable in other countries 😅
It’s because most Aussies recognise that one incompetent plonker is much the same as the next when it comes to politicians .
Good stuff. Should be more of it.
Most Australians are surprised that the Constitution does not mention the roles of political parties, the Prime Minister, or any other ministers of government. Technically it could run without them; they are mostly just matters of tradition inherited from the British.
The other confusion is that many think the federal government can overrule any state about anything. In many cases, they can't. The Constitution lists what things the federal government has control over. Anything else remains under the control of the states. At times, that leads to people asking why the federal government isn't doing something - usually it's because they do not have any legal power to do it (like dealing with natural disasters) unless the states specifically ask them for help.
You might find some will dispute that the Liberals are right wing and Labor are centre. Most would probably call them centre right and centre left. While they certainly have their differences, compared with major parties in many countries they are as not as widely divided on many issues.
Swinging voters (like myself) usually don't care as much about party ideologies - they just vote for whoever is best matched to hold power in the situation we're facing at the time (or maybe sometimes, which one they think is the least hopeless). Come to think of it, no major party ever wins elections in Australia, more like the other major party loses them.
You're right in that the Constitution doesn't mention the Prime Minister. But Chapter II does mention ministers in general and their role in administering the government departments. The Constitution does also contain a reference to political parties, in that when senators are appointed to fill vacancies, they have to be of the same party. Other than that you're correct thought!
The terms upper house and lower house come from the concept of feudalism.
Since the House of Lords contained clergymen, Earls and Counts, they belonged to the upper section of the feudal society. So that house was called Upper house.
House of Commons, as the name suggests, had common people, who were in the lower sections of the feudal society in medieval times.
So, thus the name upper and lower houses.
I believe the lower house or house of commons consisted of knights and vassals and other workers of the state who collected taxes. The monarch would request funding from the lower house to run autonomous functions of the state.
This is honestly one of the best videos explaining a government. Like, any government. Well done! Looking forward to learning more about Australian politics in the future ^_^
I kinda don't get why it's so extremely desirable to not have a coalition. Sure, it's somewhat more easy and clearcut, but imo discussion and compromise are good things generally.
Preferential voting sounds awesome.
Hi David, great video, thank you. Very well explained.
Thanks!
this is great ! and a definite lifesaver for me since ive always felt pretty confused about my own govt's politics lol. cant wait to see more from u in the future !
Taylah bolger that's nice
Excellent video. Really clear and informative. Just a couple of points though. The candidates mentioned at 15:24 aren't in a random order, when the nominations close the AEC does a ballot draw to determine where each candidate will be placed. The higher the better to capitalise on the small donkey vote..
In the Senate when voting above the line it is recommended that you number at least 6 boxes but just voting 1 will still be technically a valid under the savings provision.. Also if you need a new ballot paper, you can ask the AEC staff to give you one, the volunteers aren't authorised to issue ballot papers.
I love it! You've explained everything so well! And also I love the way you did it! You were so natural! Thank you :)
The term upper house is because the British system has two houses the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The House of Commons is elected whereas the House of Lords is appointed by the monarch. This is only technically true now, as now they are decided by the prime minister, whereas historically it was by the king and they held a greater and equal power to the commons depending on the time frame. Due to aristocratic condescension it means it was called the upper house as it’s filled with lords barons and bishops it is now much less powerful and is a vestigial organ.
Hi, David. Thanks for your videos. It really helped me a lot about Australian politics. For better understanding, could you please share the copy of this script? Thanks so much 😊
You can read the video transcript in the description.
My brother, when I was in primary/high school the governance of our country was not explained like how you have explained/demonstrated.
thanks for the video!! doing my best to be more informed and this really helped
Thanks for the initial visual references. I’m heavily impaired and listen to videos more than watch as “viewing” is quite painful.
I'm so glad that the visual references helped! Good news: if you're enjoying Auspol Explained I've just started turning it into a podcast so have just uploaded an introduction to Spotify and hopefully will include other services soon as well. I'll be uploading the backlog of episodes in just audio form so you can learn without having to load a whole youtube video if you so wish!
Great video. Really clear.
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it! If you want I can find a way to interview you for a video if you like.
@@AuspolExplained sure - sounds great, if you think it would suit your format. Drop me an email? Terri.Butler.MP at aph.gov.au
Neat! I'll send you through an email soon. I'm sure I can figure out some way to think of a video that works for the channel's theme.
@@AuspolExplained sounds good!
Terri you are such a pretty and wonderful lady so how are you doing today ? Like to know you are you married or single?
Thanks so much for making this! It's nice and easy to understand and I'm excited to see more of your work!
I never comment on any UA-cam videos but your video really helped, thank you ❤
Great video man. I really liked the video editing and there were some great comedic parts.
I think the reason our house are called the upper and lower is because in the UK they have a house of Lords and house of commons, so our names relate to the ye olde social class divide of the UK parliament. We did however borrow the name house of reps and senate from the US.
I learned and I like it.
fantastic overview of the basics, looking forward to seeing more from you! :>
Hey, apologies in advance to be pedantic, our monarch is not the UK monarch 'because we are a part of the commonwealth'.
Rather, Australia's legally independent succession laws have determined that Elizabeth II is the queen of Australia. Our succession laws happen to be synchronized to the laws of the UK, but because we are independent, it is legally possible for us to alter our succession laws & have a different monarch. So we could have a different monarch, even if we retained our spot in the Commonwealth.
So in English, God save the queen
queen alby was the queen over here on the cb radio ch 3 western australia, queen alby was indigenous lady....
David can you please explore the following or direct me to the episode:
1. Why did the Governor General dissolve Gough Whitlam's Labor Government and what conditions were present to make this happen? I know it had to do with supply bills. A political hot potatoe, but I know you will give it a go.
2. Why is there so much duplication of services between the Federal and state Government's responsibility in areas such as Health and Education, but not in other areas such as Defence and Trade.. maybe an in-depth dissection of what are State and Federal powers/responsibilities and how they came to be.
You are doing an amazing job of explaining complicated issues and facts in an entertaining and informative way. Please keep going.
Your cue cards must be very big with all the information you provide, but then there are a lot of edits too, so that must balance out and make it easier.
General question without notice: Why doesn't UA-cam allow different spelling of words - potatoe-potato, let's call the whole thing off.
Ok! For the dismissal: don't have an episode yet (I've been reading a lot because I want to do it justice). Basically supply bills are to fund things like government services and the Liberal party was blocking them in the Senate so there was a looming time where if supply wasn't passed, then there'd be disaster. The Liberals didn't start off with a majority, but a senator died, was replaced with an anti-Whitlam one, and Malcolm Fraser as opposition leader refused to have supply passed to force Whitlam to hold an election. Constitutionally, the Governor General (John Kerr) should act on the advice of the Prime Minister, but Kerr didn't like Whitlam and discussed what to do with Fraser and more influentially: Sir Charteris, private secretary to The Queen, who directed him to information on the reserve powers to dismiss a government.
Kerr was worried Whitlam would ask the Queen to dismiss him so Kerr had his own looming time limit in his head. There were multiple solutions though. 1) the Liberal party rules allow individual members to cross the floor and there were some members who considered this crisis to have gone on for too long and might have let it pass had this lasted another week thus resolving the issue 2) Fraser gives up and averts a crisis 3) Whitlam advises a half-senate election which would've either gained him enough seats to pass supply, or shown his government was not viable without bipartisan support (supply hadn't previously been blocked even when non-government parties had a majority). Thing is: Whitlam was going to do just that, but Kerr went for it before Whitlam could request one, and installed Fraser as PM. Parliament was dissolved that day before any business could be resolved, an election called, and Fraser won.
So basically the exercising of those reserve powers was to resolve a deadlock that prevented the government from functioning. The Senate can't introduce money bills, only agree or disagree, so if the two chambers are equally opposed it's a crisis that could've lead to economic disaster. It wasn't based off the merit of Whitlam policy - the governor general is there to resolve issues to do with parliament's ability to function. It was of course controversial, and has been heavily criticised (especially by Labor - whose members would shun Kerr), but it was a legal resolution to the crisis. It wasn't an expected or smooth one, but it was allowed. For the other instance of reserve powers being used look up the 1932 NSW constitutional crisis with Jack Lang's dismissal.
2) Health and education have shared responsibilities because of the different elements of those topics. So health right, a state government can see what areas need better health outcomes and put funds into certain regions or hospitals, and figure out how delivering things like vaccines work based off those areas. But there are overall duties that require consistency like medical devices or approved drug treatments which is regulated by the TGA, a federal body. So a state understands the needs of its area specific hospital resources, but the medicine you get is federally regulated (and subsidised) so you're not getting a different quality of drug from state to state. Also: the federal government has most of the taxation powers so states, although in charge of hospitals, can't raise nearly as much money as the federal government so mixed responsibilities for funding come in. (My 2nd episode is about the difference between federal, state, and local). Things like defence and trade were state responsibilities before federation, but now that means trade deals/military doesn't need to be coordinated with 8 different governments but just one. WA isn't make trade deals with Wisconsin, but Australia with the US. And if someone attacks Queensland it doesn't need to convince NSW to send its military.
So that's a general overview. A lot of the decisions are either around state autonomy to make individual decisions, shared because of need for shared funding or because different parts of it are about delivering local services or buying and regulating things nationally, or because the states found it beneficial to provide responsibilities to the federal government when they collectively agreed to make it and form a constitution that came into effect in 1901.
@@AuspolExplained The Governor-General has the powers to withdraw commission of any (prime) Minister but when doing so for a Double Dissolution cannot allow the opposition to take over Government position and then carry on with supply . What is totally ignored is that the governor-General was at fault, this because to allow for the constitutional processes the Supply bills (Appropriation & Taxation Bills) by right should be put to the Parliament about 6 months before the start of the new financial year, not in May. This as to allow the process to have the process for both Houses to debate the bill and vote and then 3 months later again and to allow for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION to be held if it fails the second time. As such Kerr should have insisted to have the bills put to the Parliament in January that year at the latest. It is still being ignored!
Finally found you on you tube. Lovd your content
Well, I certainly found your delivery easy to listen to and the explanations were some of the better-explained ones I have ever heard. Well done on this, not an easy topic to tackle. I do however have several questions of my own and they may be beyond your expertise but I hope you have the ability to find out!
1) The AEC, has long been known to operate as an organisation outside of the Australian Constitution, thus making it illegal. The Attorney General (Brandis) was caught by this on a similar fact that Australian High courts and above were in fact also conducted illegally for over twenty years, to which he scoffed until forced to look into it. Needless to say, he was eating his words. 2) The Constitution clearly says one man one vote... so would preferences be breaking this law and allowing you to vote more than once in an election? More to the point, if coalition parties exist, would that be considered as voting for two parties?
3) Voting in itself is not compulsory, but turning up and having your name crossed off the electoral roll is. Nobody can force you to write anything on the paper, or even enter the booth. Although to whinge about who won afterwards would be stupid as you only agree with the winner by not voting. A moot point, but worthy of mention I think which is why 1 is prob illegal.
4) Coalition parties such as the LNP are also unconstitutional, however, they exist or we would only ever have ALP! Not sure how I feel about that truly... yet does not the ALP have to form a common alliance with the Greens to win elections more often than not? Wouldn't this make them a coalition party despite their reluctance to agree with this ideology?
In my honest opinion, what you said is true, read up about who you are voting for, understanding about preferences is a big part. I personally think that it is time the coalitions ended, preferences ended and the parties now win on their own merit. I do not care if they are not the majority ruling party, whoever wins the election will have the Prime Minister and the government will run with the assistance of the other parties approvals or disapproval. A federal ICAC has long been needed to police the loose canons and fines are not enough. You represent Australia, if you cosy up and take money from foreign entities, job over, get on the dole queue. No big handouts, be thankful you may not have to pay back what you have had! As for the PM, this position should be just the same as the PM of Singapore, You are where the buck stops. If something goes wrong then you are responsible and you are the one who wears it. It is your job to ensure the country is running in drive and smoothly. JMHO
Hello. Thanks for watching and I'm glad you enjoyed it. To answer your questions:
1) The AEC exists under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, which is an extension of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902 - and the AEC is answerable to Parliament. I don't understand what you mean by it not existing in the constitution, thus making it illegal. There is not a single act of parliament that is mentioned in the constitution, nor does it state the name of any bodies that are part of the administration of parliament (case in point: the Prime Minister isn't mentioned, the remuneration tribunal isn't made via the constitution - but one exists because remuneration AKA paying members is necessary for the function of government). I'm unaware of this mention of George Brandis admitting that the High Court and above (there is nothing above the High Court within Australia) has operated illegally. Could you provide me a news article I could read more about that so I could understand it further?
2) Preferences are not more than one vote, they are a method of determining an efficient way of how best a person wants to spend their one vote. Plural voting was a thing that used to happen in the 1800s in Australia because in some areas the qualification for voting was property ownership of a certain value in an electorate, and so those who owned multiple properties could vote in multiple electorates. Preferential voting is also known as instant run off voting in the US. In the US, as they don't use IRV (except in some specific areas), if there's no majority of any one candidate they have to hold a whole new election to resolve the issue. Preferential voting eliminates this as a concern because it's almost impossible for the preferences of a hundred thousand people to result in a dead tie. If preferences are required to be counted, the elector's ballot ultimately only gives a vote to one candidate, so it's not plural voting at all.
3) The legal wording of The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states: "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election." Therefore it is legally the requirement of each elector to vote and saying that it isn't, you just need to show up, is a technicality in that you are legally protected by anonymity and thus it's impossible to prove any specific elector did not properly fill and submit their ballot if their name is stricken from the roll. It is the law, but it is impossible to prove you broke it without removing the anonymity of the ballot and thus making it informal. The point you've made has been tested in both Supreme courts and the High Court multiple times. It is also the terms of service of UA-cam to not say anything that is legally incorrect about voting or deceive voters, so I once again do have to state I am only saying the letter of the law as it stands. How you act on it is your own choice.
4) Political parties were not mentioned in the constitution until 1977 - so technically every political party was unconstitutional. The Prime Minister isn't in there either. The cabinet isn't in there. But I encourage you to watch my episode on Convention (ua-cam.com/video/DhG-FStd7LI/v-deo.html) where I discuss how a lot of Parliament is built off traditions and rules that aren't written as statues. The Westminster convention is that the Governor/Governor-General/Monarch appoints someone to be Prime Minister/Premier under the condition that they can maintain the confidence of the House. That does not mean they need any party affiliations, and in fact, in the early days of state Parliaments there were Independents who had no specific party structure, but were Premiers. Sir John Forrest in WA comes to mind as an example from 1890-1901. It is however a lot easier to maintain and demonstrate confidence if you have more than half the seats aligned with a specific party structure, or agreement. As we saw under Gillard's time as Prime Minister, and even Morrison's latter half of his first term, this can mean that Independents can provide "confidence and supply" and although they may not agree 100%, they agree to allow the government to function and not call for a motion of no confidence, or block money bills to prevent the government from functioning.
Also: a Coalition is a formal agreement to vote as one and requires both (or more) parties to form a collective party line by coming together. The Nationals and Liberals don't always agree, but compromise with each other in meetings to create a collective party platform in Parliament. Labor and Greens on the other hand have on very few occasions formed alliances (Gillard had one Greens member provide confidence and supply in 2010, Greens helped Labor form government in Tasmania also 2010), and the ACT Labor/Greens currently have an alliance where not all Greens sit with the Government, and instead are part of the crossbench and can vote separately to Labor, despite their mutual efforts to compromise together to pass legislation. Nationals and Liberals in WA are also not in a Coalition and can vote separately, but as there are so few in this current state Parliament they've formed an alliance and share the shadow ministry. The two are similar, they both involve parties working together, but a Coalition is a tighter bond with more rules whereas an alliance doesn't hold the same obligations or permanency. To many this is a technical distinction, as either one can be required to form a majority for a government and voters are more interested in who forms that government and what parties, rather than the mechanics of it.
As for your comment that ALP would always win without the Coalition - they'd still need more than half the seats, and without the Nationals helping ALP (they almost did once in WA when an election resulted in Nationals being able to choose who formed government), it wouldn't happen often. John Howard once managed to get so many seats he didn't need the Nationals to form government. So it's possible. But generally, yes, Labor (at least federally) is most often the most popular political party by itself. But it doesn't always win more than half the seats. There are of course many other political parties, and so even Labor majority governments need to negotiate with other parties, often conservative, to get legislation passed in the upper house. I encourage people to think of Parliament as a collaborative process where the government that wins steers the ship, but isn't the only one who gets to have a voice in all the directions that ship travels.
Anyway, I hope that's been helpful. It is a lot to read but thanks for the questions. I hope you enjoy my channel! And don't forget to ensure your details with the AEC are up to date as there's an election next year and you get to vote for who you think deserves the job.
@@AuspolExplained Thank you for the very detailed and well explained reply. I didn't mean to cause you so much work ;) but my generation does have these beliefs and so I felt I needed some clarification. I do get a tired of the armchair lawyers telling me everything that I wrote down, but I figured the best way was to just say it as I hear it. It actually stems from the generation before mine I think, so we are talking about people born in the 1939/48 period and next generation. A majority of the information was based on very early time within the forming of the Constitution thru to the end of WWII. The periods of time through out tat time frame were very tumultuous politically and as you say, the Constitution is not there for Parliament, but for the people. Probably why they stopped it from being taught in school back in the early 70's. Imagine an educated Australia...politicians nightmares! I am subscribed and I do plan to catch a bit each time as I do not watch free to watch free to air TV, the MSM triggers my PTSD and anything our PM does at the moment only makes me ashamed of our country. As for voting, I never waste a vote and I ensure that I know exactly who I want and in what place. My personal opinion of preferential voting is probably like the rest of my age group though, irrespective of how it is painted. If as you say way back when, they did it to prevent a tie, we could also say the politicians back then paid to be politicians and took no remuneration. Some built roads to service their own farms to a shipping point, others built rail lines for the same reason and the public benefitted from this. Now it seems that the disregarding of the Constitution is normal for all of our political people, they can stall any group of people with a number of excuses, yet at the same time they can dictate which is what seems to happen at times what you will do or have etc because they say so. The people don't want it but are forced to have it.
I realise by the date of the video I am late into your work, I am curious though? You seem to be a young fella at the time, maybe 24ish how did you get so involved in AUSPOL as a subject? Do you see yourself getting into politics in the future? If you do, would you aim at joining a party or forming a new one that would have a better ambition to fix the country?
I often think I could use one term and concentrate all our energy internally to start making Australia what it should be! I don't need the fat wage, pension or fancy position afterwards, I just want to see every Australian in every State get a fair go and that does not mean increased unemployment for those who have never worked. just a quick FYI...I know a guy who immigrated to Astralia from Europe, he has gotten his citizenship, never held a proper job ever and now he is on a pension for old age. I started work at 15 as an apprentice mechanical engineer, that was taken away from me by the government hanging the regulations ratio, despite the fact that all the others were motor mechanics. My boss said I would be 21 before I could go back onto my apprenticeship and advised me it was my choice if I stay or go (1972) I left and became a train driver, the youngest qualified in SARialways. At 21 I joined the Army and I did 30 years, served overseas and suffer from severe PTSD and other injuries. I couldn't work, my wife couldn't live with me and we divorced, I tried to end my life and Veterans affairs tried to help me do that by refusing me everything at every turn. Mine is but one story and I survived with a lot, a huge LOT of help from other veterans, Drs and Nurses in a place called Ward 17. The point I am getting at is...I am a first Gen White Australian and I was treated like dirt for what I did, yet on the other hand we have a person who comes to Australia as a refugee from one of the then Easern bloc states and he openly tells me how he has made his living by not working anymore than a few hour and collecting government handouts. This is why I asked if you had plansin the future :) somebody has to fix this place, the status quo cannot support the welfare state at the current rate. Yeh, I know a bit off topic, but maybe it will generate some of that clever stuff you have inside that head of yours into a new topic. damned if I know what, but I would sure like to see.
Just one other idea, I reckon you should invest in a cheap leather topped desk, S/h a nice high backed chair and set up a background wall of half old half new parliament house behind you. You can look like the PM and talk while not holding the camera then ;) Just keep up the good work, you've convinced me to listen, and your reply was never to long!
No worries, I had time and you had questions so I figured you deserved a detailed response. Also: thank you for thinking I'm younger than I am. I'm about to turn 30 in a few months. I got into politics as many people do: gradually, learning more about what was going on, and then realising how important the decisions in Parliament are for affecting our lives. I made this channel because people kept asking me super basic questions about how voting works, or didn't know we have two chambers, etc, and so that's why this exists - to make an easily searchable resource for people to learn.
As for running for politics: no thank you! Parliament sits late into the night, there's SO MANY meetings, and I just don't have the energy to do it all. It's a tiring job with long hours and even if you do it well someone out there still hates you so I admire people's commitment to do the job. Someone has to - I just hope the people who do it know what they're doing and have helpful ideas. If you're super passionate then give it a go! Or encourage someone you know and donate to them/volunteer door knocking to help their campaign. I've done volunteering in the past and it's great fun, but actually running for parliament itself is too much for me. I'd rather be the one letting people know what they need to know before they run and letting them have fun.
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that a the Parliament could select the kind of voting system it desired,voting by preferences is not more than 1 vote. While electors generally are requested to vote for both House of Representatives and the Senate, they are in fact 2 separate elections, just generally held on the same day.
@@AuspolExplained The legal principle embedded in the constitution is "political liberty" and "desire to vote" and this I pursued in the court and very successfully that it couldn't force me to vote or deemed to have voted. “A pretend law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it”. Chief Justice Latham 1942 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
I wanna add a note for anyone watching this in the future: you can vote via mail! You can register to vote (I am in VIC but I think it is the same elsewhere) and have your vote mailed to you. Please! Vote!
Most electorate offices can send you a postal vote application, or you can contact the AEC directly.
@ Auspol Explained
Hey, I didn't know you had a yourube channel we met today on the tour.
Surprise! I hope you had a great time in Parliament
omg you finally made it to youtube! this video was great, can't wait for more (finally someone who isn't friendlyjordies lmao)
Love the visual description. Good on you. #accessibility
How did you fly under my radar for so long. ❤ excited about finding it.
Perfect example of an educated citizen
Greetings from Britain. I love your videos
The Upper House I.e The House of Lords Temporal is unelected. used to consist of Bishops and Aristocracy, until 1999 you could inherit your seat. Today, you are appointed due to having special skills or expertise and you have made distinguished contributions to public life (or hefty donations to the Conservative Party).
The lower house is called the House of Commons because basically they aren’t aristocracy….
Technically the Lords role is to scrutinise and propose amendments to legislation. They have the power to veto any legislation but if this happens the commons can invoke the parliament act of 1911 to force it through….very rare
Someone decided it wasn’t very, you know….democratic to give landed gentry and clergy or a gang of unelected political cronies the power to veto the democratically elected common folk.
A majority of the UK electorate support replacing the lords….because it’s absurd and costs A
LOT OF MONEY
Everyone should share your video about the referendum - “What is the Indigenous Voice to Parliament?”
It’s clear, factual and cuts through all the BS that is getting traction from the scare mongering No faction. It will be very sad if we as a Nation in 2023 say No to a reform that leads to improving Indigenous lives.
What part of the no campaign was inaccurate?
I like the NT crocodile joke. Very nice. Hehe
Hi David, first of all, I love your videos! Thank you so much for all the information. I'm trying to understand how Australian politics work but I'm a little bit confused at some points. Australia has six states and as one of them, NSW has its own Parliament. The Parliament of NSW which has a lower and an upper house. In this level we find the politicians who are called MP as for example Mss Julia Finn MP. But later as a federal level, we have the Parliament in Canberra where we can find Mr Anthony Albanese. I don't understand it, so the Parliament in Canberra is elected in a general election where the whole country vote and in Sydney the Parliament is just elected by NSW residents. Is that right? Finally, could you recommend some books which could help me and some newspapers/ radio/ tv to get information about what is going on? Thank you so much and sorry for this long question!
I have a video about the difference between Federal and State (and local) governments you should watch. But to answer your question: each state has its own state parliament. MP means Member of Parliament so a state politician can be called MP, or they might be referred to by the house they're in (like MLA - Member of the Legislative Assembly or MLC - Member of Legislative Council, which are the two state houses). So you're right. You'd vote in a state election for the state parliament, and then a separate election called a general or federal election for the federal parliament which is located in Canberra.
Also: I don't really know of any books that would help with current politics. The only political books I read are biographies, which are good ways to learn the historic origins of things (like medicare brought in under Bob Hawke) but also sometimes really biased (like Turnbull's memoir says the NBN was an amazing success and he deliberately doesn't mention any of the set backs or controversies with it). That's kinda why I made this channel. As for newspapers though: I really like the ABC, SBS, and the Guardian as the main three that I read. I read the Sydney Morning Herald more years back. I avoid the very obviously right wing biased things like The Australian or The Herald Sun as they as Murdoch owned papers give voice to racist and transphobic viewpoints which is really offputting. But yeah, the ABC is a very good resource, especially during election times and federal budgets.They create fantastic feature articles and infographics explaining quite a lot so start with them and then read other sources as well for a broader understanding of politics. Best of luck!
This video is awesome! Really great explanation! As someone who has thought of moving to Aus, in general what's it like over there?
For someone as politically incompetent as me, this has been super helpful. Thanks my dude!
Thank you!!
I'm about to move from the UK to Australia and it turns out the two government systems are basically exactly the same (apart from the stupid house of Lords in the UK, it's so archaic!) Not that surprising I guess! Makes it easier to understand at least. Thanks for the vid :)
I watched this at school and had to take notes
Even though I got heaps of info it still was days of taking notes
And learning about the government is boring
Hello! It is a bit of an info-dump isn't it? It is my first video so hopefully I can work on making them more interesting in the future. I'm glad you learned something though.
Government is boring until it is stolen by an authoritarian dictator, eg Adolf Hitler in 1930s Germany. It happens!
Senators from the NT and ACT are elected differently to the States Senators, and do hold office for six years. The Territories four Senators hold the same term as that of the members of the House of Representatives, that is, for three years, or less, depending on the duration of the House.
Yes. I can't remember all the content in this video but I fear I may not have made that point, though in a later video I have corrected myself. I should probably remake this old video one day with better lighting and more concise explanations.
Nice to meet you senator mark
It's called the Upper House because it was historically populated by Lords, which had higher aristocratic standing than Commons
Great explanations thank you.
Hi thank you very much for your video. Can you please explain how when a bill is up for debate how different members may sort of be gently bound to voting in agreement with the party they belong to.. also can you explain examples of 'crossing the floor' and if you can please explain presently the makeup of the upper house in parlament and roughly explain their numbers per group and who they are sort of bound too... sorry I know that's a lot and may not make sense but I'm trying to predict the possible outcome of a certain bill... if you wanted to you could do a video where you objectively discuss a bill (can I suggest the NO COVID VACCINE PASSPORT BILL.. presented by the independent... I think his name is Craig Kelly) how the votes are likely to be divided into groups and how many seats are in these groups? I hope you know what I mean... I'm a total beginner, hense why I'm not making any sense. Good luck interpreting my request and thank you
Hi. Certainly! OK so members are either strongly encouraged to vote in line with the party, or take a pledge to do so. So Labor members almost always consistently as a whole because crossing the floor can have them expelled from the party. It's decisions in the party room and their national conferences that determine how they will collectively vote. The Liberals are not as strict on this, but repeatedly crossing the floor isn't encouraged - especially for the past few years where the Liberal government has not had a strong majority in the House of Reps. This can still lead to being expelled from the party, just that there isn't the same pledge to not do it as Labor has.
Crossing the floor is what it says it is: literally crossing the floor, as sometimes a division on a bill means members are on one side of the room or the other to be counted as yes/no. It's a term for voting against the rest of your party. It doesn't happen very often, so you can assume that most of the time a party votes as one group.
As for the make up of the Australian Parliament you can easily find that by looking up the House of Representatives/Senate on Wikipedia like so:
1) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_House_of_Representatives
and 2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate
As you can see: the current government as of this comment is the Liberal/National Coalition who have the bare minimum majority of 76 out of 151. This can still cause them problems (see why in my video about the Speaker of the House being a member of the government, but not being able to vote with the government except in a tie breaker: ua-cam.com/video/yJig8x8K2lk/v-deo.html )
But they don't control the Senate. That's normal. So a Liberal bill often requires support of either Labor, or the crossbench (which is everyone else).
Craig Kelly, as an independent, is a member of that crossbench. I don't really do videos on specific bills, at least not current ones, because they can be changed/amended through multiple readings. So pre-emptively commenting on a bill that has not had any/much debate in parliament is perhaps not very helpful.
However, Craig Kelly is an example of how a party disciplines members as he was a former Liberal member who - despite voting in line with the party - was ejected for repeatedly pushing misinformation about COVID, medical treatments for the disease, and rejecting the health advice of the government he was part of, so this might not inspire much confidence that the Liberal party will support his latest bill. There is possibly some tension between them as they found him too disruptive to continue being part of their party. He can of course introduce it - any member of parliament can introduce a bill, even multiple members within a party can introduce competing bills - but I cannot really predict how far it will go.
Very much enjoyed this! looking forward to more i'm eager to learn :)
sorry i sounded like a boomer with this comment
but maybe an agreeable boomer
Rosie you are such a pretty and wonderful lady so how are you doing today ? Like to know you are you married or single?
Rosie that's an interesting video
Really interesting vid, now I understand why in my country you can vote for just one candidate & not the preferential thing its really complicated tbh. But I actually would like the preference thing like a tier list of politics 😂
On the question of Upper/ Lower houses... I’m not totally sure but I’ve always thought it has something to do with society in general?
The Upper House in British parliament is the House of lords so made up of ‘upper crust’ society way back when, while the House of Commons/ Lower house wasn’t nobility itself?
Wikipedia (not the most reliable source but it’s late) seems to agree somewhat?
“The division of the Parliament of England into two houses occurred during the reign of Edward III: in 1341 the Commons met separately from the nobility and clergy for the first time, creating in effect an Upper Chamber and a Lower Chamber, with the knights and burgesses sitting in the latter. They formed what became known as the House of Commons, while the clergy and nobility became the House of Lords.”
Ah that makes sense!
@@AuspolExplained Brit here. Sorry this is a bit long. Seth Torra is correct.It's a snobbery thing. Also the House of Lords once consisted of hereditary lords, or Peers as the official title is. Under Tony Blair's governorship, the hereditary system was almost entirely abolished. Only a handful of seats are still hereditary. The rest are filled by people chosen by parliament. The ruling party gets to put the most members down but the opposition get to choose some too. The list then goes to the monarch for 'consideration', but that's one of those formalities where they choose and the monarch signs a bit of paper to make it official (what a waste of time when she could be playing with her corgi's 🙂). Then the chosen individuals attend a ceremony a whole day pageantry, along with people receiving more minor titles, and everyone goes home with a fancy badge and certificate. However the opposition party get to put some people in it too. There are partisan peers and non partisan. However unlike the House of commons the partisan peers are not obliged to vote in favour of their party's decisions. That's come in handy a few times. It used to be a rule that if you were a peer you couldn't stand as an MP in the Commons (unless you renounced your title) but that rule was abolished. The legislation goes back and forth between the Houses, as in your Senate. However the Lords aren't allowed to put any bills forward themselves. A peerage is for life, although you can retire from the House of Lords if you want. Obtaining a peerage seems to mean spending a small fortune in personalised stationery, but no longer gets you the best seats at the theatre! One of the few remaining hereditary Peerage seats was held by Lord Lucan (yep, that Lord Lucan. The murderer) although his son now has it after years of fighting to have his father declared dead. Honestly! It's not like the man was using it 😂 If you want to know more about this system, such as why hereditary Peerage was abolished, the religious representation, or anything else please feel free to ask. Your video is awesome! Although I'm probably going to have to watch it a few more times until I get it down because of the differences in our systems but I look forward to watching the rest of your video's. This was brilliant and funny! II'll make it so much fun no matter how many times it takes me to wrap my dense brain around it! 😂. Thanks 😊.
@@annagettings4675 Thank you! That was a handy explanation (and remarkably I have heard of Lord Lucan) and I appreciated reading it. It's weird how the British system can seem so weird to me even though there are so many things Australia inherited from it.
17:46 I went to vote today and the volunteer said I couldn’t get another form 😕
Good stuff! looking forward to more videos in the future!
Watching this after filling out my ballot this morning made me glad I actually researched the minor parties 👌
Thank you so much for all your hard work!!
Great run-through, thanks!
See, I am an American trying to move to Australia, and OMG this is informative. It's also strange to me that the Liberal party is the opposite of what it is here in the States. Though, it makes sense since in the US it used to be the opposite as well. Eh. Thank you for the info!
this was so good
"...it will help describe me to crime stoppers" - lost my marbles, so funny
I’m loving your videos. Could you do videos more specifically on parties/party heads and public perception vs actual policies?
Thanks! I should get round to that yes. I do want to make sure explaining political parties is very thorough so as to not come off as biased but I will have a break down of each party.
As an American, I enjoyed learning about one of our friends' political systems. I like just learning about various political systems, even tho I'm a leftist
Thank you for this video very helpful not why I'm only being taught this in Uni but nonetheless v helpful :)
Fun fact: I voted below the line for this year's NSW state election, just so I could put that son of a bitch Mark Latham last. *346 boxes.* I weep for whoever counted it.
Before they instituted the changes to the Senate voting, I used to vote below the line, and I would get distressed about deciding which horrible party would get the wooden spoon, and which horrible party would get a relatively higher place. With the new rules, I theoretically prefer being able to determine which party I hate the most, but with the recent election, for my sanity, I stopped after I had preferenced all the parties I could handle getting a seat, and left the rest in a 'all these parties are awful' metaphorical basket, and left them blank.
With our current political climate I'm curious about Australia. I understand there is a sort of hybrid system based on a parliamentary type of Congressional system that is in my opinion, depends on more than just one president. Of course Australia doesn't have a strong military defense. But I'm retired and wondering .I've lived in az for the last 50 years. Maybe a cabin in the woods would be better. This summer we set a record 115° on one very hot day in August.
Great video
THank YOU
Tamika you are such a pretty and wonderful lady so how are you doing today ? Like to know you are you married or single?
Hmm, the prime minister's party or coalition doesn't always have a majority in the House of Representatives. Julia Gillard's party, Labor, didn't after the 2010 federal election.
At 5.42 you stated the Liberal Party is right wing and the Labor Party is central, this is incorrect. Labor is a left leaning party anyway you look at it! The term progressive is often applied to Labor, they stand for greater taxation and greater centralization of power. They also align with the Greens (hard left party) when it suits them to pass/block legislation. The LNP is more conservative or right leaning, the term in bed with big business is often used, they also stand for less taxation, while only a short video you might have pointed out Australia has Progressive Taxation System so this comment had some context. You mentioned the Governor General powers yet failed to mention the 1986 Australia Act, essentially removing UK say in Australian Politics. One major concern is that it would have been helpful to outline the Constitution in relation to the separation of powers between State and Federal Governments. A lot of people seem to think the Federal Government has some kind of power to override the States when in fact it doesn't. This creates a blame game between the Federal and State Governments.
One of the commenters below stated they viewed this Video in School, so your opinion is being heard by younger people, therefore IMO you should be presenting a neutral view, some of your comments appeared a bit left leaning, to your credit you did say people should research a party before voting so 10/10 for that.
You're right Labor is centre-left. This is an editorial mistake that I've been frustrated with ever since, though thought at the time that I'd get more flack from progressives complaining that Labor is "basically just like the Liberals" because of the venn diagram and occasional (but not always) bipartisan support and capitulation on issues like tax cuts, etc. That assertion that they're the same is wrong, but it's what happens whenever you make any comment on where political parties lean. I'm actually in the process of rewriting a basics of government series that corrects this mistake (and also has better lighting). I'll break it into parts because I want shorter, simpler, videos that aren't huge info-dumps - which is why you'll find that the 2nd video on my channel goes into that separate of Federal and State governments! I did a whole video about the responsibilities of the different tiers of Federal, State, and Local and have a video where I interview a state politician about his job, and the mayor of Fremantle on the role of local government. As you can see, there's a lot to cover and I don't want to make 50+ minute videos. But any suggestions for videos are appreciated! Thanks for the comment!
Less taxation will help middle class thrive, USA middle class beter off than Australian middle class
Many Australian citizens are not allowed to sit in the federal parliament based on the fact that they also possess overseas citizenships. Fairly soon this group will outnumber those who are permitted to sit in parliament.
Feature proofing!
If someone reports a crime they shouldn't be ignored!
I have been tortured, yet I am ignored!
I have had my human rights violated for years, yet I am ignored!
Infact by talking I am harassed and intimated!
Sick government!
What happens to a shadow minister when there is no sun ☀️?
They sadly lose part of their powers and grow frail 😔
certified good stuff
I know your views are pretty left leaning from FB (same bruh, same) and I commend you at not taking some very very easy shots at the LNP during this.
Also this was so informative and fun!! My ADHD ass can't sit through most UA-cam videos but I watched all of it and it just cleared things up so nice!! Good job man!! Very excited for more stuff
He a lying left turd , The government profits the most in a social democracy country not The Corporations . Does this fuckwit know the difference to Turnover from sales and Net profit ??? no because he doesnt own a business
very helpful video :) but those suns in the background continue to scare me