Is our 2 party system just a con?

[facthunter]

What about the Pressure they bring to Bear on governments?  (as well as their OWN flock. ?) Remember the DLP? It wasn't the Labor Party It was a Catholic Party. Look at the Australian CHRISTIAN Lobby , and Rupert Murdoch is a PAPAL Knight.  as well as Various Jewish Associations.  Don't kid yourself Religious groups Have No Political Input. HERE. Nev

[octave]

3 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Don't kid yourself Religious groups Have No Political Input. HERE. Nev

That is not really my point. I was commenting on the notion that our freedoms now are less than before.  Sure, religion seeks to influence the government, but in terms of personal freedom, religious folks are not in any real sense degrading my freedom.  I am saying that in the past, religion did have great control over the average person, but this power has decreased with time. 

 

So yes, I agree that religion does attempt to influence the government and does have its little victories; however, in issues like same sex marriage, divorce, etc., society has moved on from the old repressive rules (for most of society at least). 

[old man emu]

5 hours ago, octave said:

I'm wondering what rights people think have been stripped away?    

I don't think that the basic Human Rights have been stripped awy. It's the more trivial that people whinge about. It's hard to come up with a list of Rights that people seem to think they have lost, or the extent of former rights. 

[onetrack]

There are rights and there are privileges. We have only minimal basic rights in Australia, but a lot of privileges extended to us. Privileges such as drivers licences, and firearms licences, and fishing licences.

 

All those privileges can be restricted or withdrawn, according to the Govt of the day, reacting to pressure from parties involved with those issues, or the courts responding to offences against the Acts that govern those privileges.

 

Ever-increasing restrictions on firearms ownership and use, is what seems to get a lot of people going - along with restrictions on fishing.

Most people seem to accept the ever-increasing restrictions as regards driving on public roads.

Ever-lowering speed limits, increasing levels of driving penalties, and intrusion by automation, such as AI-assisted cameras.

Radar detectors are banned in every State and territory, another restriction that seems to cause great levels of complaint about Govt becoming Big Brother.

 

We definitely have a vast array of major restrictions now, that we didn't have in my youth. I could buy explosives in any co-op and go and blow up anything I liked - all I needed was an explosives permit handed out by the local policeman, who just asked a few perfunctory questions.

 

I could get multiple firearms and a licence with ease, along with unlimited amounts of ammo, and no need to tell any authority where I was going to shoot, or what I was going to shoot.

 

I could go fishing nearly anywhere with only minor restrictions. I didn't need a boat drivers licence, I could go buy any boat and roar off in it anywhere.

 

There were no demerit points and the fines for traffic offences were mostly mere annoyances. Drunk driving was regarded as a no-no, but no-one did anything about it, and it took a very drunk driver to get arrested. Even then, they were just released when they sobered up.

 

We could knock down trees and vegetation wholesale and no-one could stop us. But nowadays, clearing bans and massive fines for "environmental damage" rule the day.

 

Our basic human rights are still the same as they always were. We have no Bill of Rights, as America has, and the writers of the Australian Constitution decided there was no need for one, as we were a civilised country who treated people with respect. Well, the white Europeans, anyway.

 

The Aboriginals rights were trampled for decades until they started taking Govts to court, aided by smart white lawyers - and they won a lot of concessions and reparations. That seems to stick in a lot of white Europeans throats, too.

 

All in all, I think the biggest problem we have today is excessive bureaucracy. There are Depts and Divisions for everything, and ever increasing regulation of every single thing you want to do.

Somewhere along the line we have lost a lot of the old "freedoms" - to do what we liked, when we liked, and where we liked.

 

The cause of that has been vastly increasing numbers of people, increased numbers of badly-behaved people, and increased disapproval of activities that were formerly tolerated - not necessarily because they were harmless, just that few people saw it happening, and few people were affected by what is now regarded today, as unacceptable behaviour.

[octave]

10 hours ago, onetrack said:

I could buy explosives in any co-op and go and blow up anything I liked - all I needed was an explosives permit handed out by the local policeman, who just asked a few perfunctory questions.

 

If we removed these restrictions, my suburban neighbour would get the right to buy explosives and blow stuff up. If they did this in their backyard, then as a neighbour, I would lose some rights, such as the right to quiet enjoyment of my property and possibly personal safety.

 

 

11 hours ago, onetrack said:

I didn't need a boat drivers licence, I could go buy any boat and roar off in it anywhere.

 

Substitute boat with aircraft.  Should we give people the right to buy a plane and fly untrained through congested airspace?

 

11 hours ago, onetrack said:

All in all, I think the biggest problem we have today is excessive bureaucracy. There are Depts and Divisions for everything, and ever increasing regulation of every single thing you want to do.

 

I sort of agree with this, although sometimes a rule can seem overly restrictive or dumb if you don't look at all the ins and outs. 

 

11 hours ago, onetrack said:

Somewhere along the line we have lost a lot of the old "freedoms" - to do what we liked, when we liked, and where we liked.

If we take down the "No Hunting" sign in a forest, then in my opinion, we are taking a right away from those who want to peacefully and safely bushwalk. 

   

I was on a domestic flight a couple of weeks ago.  As I travel regularly, I am well aware of the rules.   There has been a new "restriction" on passengers' rights. You can bring a battery power bank with you, but you have to keep it within reach, and you MUST NOT USE IT during the flight. One passenger argued with the cabin crew member about it.  I think they used the word "rights"

 

I don't think there has ever been a time when humans were able  to "do what we liked, when we liked, and where we liked."  The drug dealers who lived next door for 18months before we got them kicked out, and some of them jailed, believed they could do "what they wanted, when they wanted and where they wanted" including flying a drone into our backyard and using a jackhammer at midnight, as well as waving around all sorts of weapons, knives, a homemade gun, etc.  When I confronted the guy flying the drone, he said, "he could fly it anywhere he wanted to. Also, it was 3:30AM

 

The phrase " to do what we liked, when we liked, and where we liked " reminds me of something a teenager would say

 

I think a problem is that we are well attuned to things we believe impinge on our rights, but certainly would complain less about the rights of people doing things that annoy us.   If the restrictions against riding a pushbike or a horse through the Burnley tunnel were lifted, then a small group of people would gain rights; however, the majority of road users would lose the right to travel this route at a reasonable speed and unimpeded.

 

There are things I would like to do, but cannot.  There are also things I do that are restricted, but I do them anyway.

 

As well as legal rights and restrictions, there are social rights and restrictions.  

 

I think to portray Australians as being oppressed is a bit of an overreach.  If we line up every society on earth in order of freedom, we are definitely (in my view) more towards the free end than the oppressed end.

 

[octave]

Here is a fairly clear example.  Between 1979 and 1990, I was a musician in the RAAF. We used to travel around 30000 km a year in various RAAF aircraft, buses, and coaches.  When I first joined, I would get home after travelling, and I would hang my uniform in the laundry so as not to taint the clothes in my wardrobe with the smell of cigarette smoke.   I think it was sometime in the early 80s  when we were being given the briefing by the loadmaster in a C130, and instead of pointing out where the ashtrays were located, he informed us that as of today, smoking was prohibited in all RAAF aircraft and vehicles.    You should have seen the faces on the smokers; there was almost a mutiny.   Yes, they lost a right, but with good reason.  The rest of us gained a right

[nomadpete]

I don't think Onetrack was calling it 'opressive'.

 

He pointed out that there was no need to create a law, for instance, to prevent free availability to purchase explosives. 

I cannot recall any reports of neighbours blowing up anything in their backyard, can you?

Do you fear that your neighbour would do that if he/she could?

 

Our society has become less social as it becomes more crowded. The old social norms that encouraged individuals to be more considerate, have faded. 

 

But our basic freedoms are not, in my opinion, being oppressed.

[nomadpete]

As for the oppressive law prohibiting smoking near other people, well I can speak as an ex smoker.

 

I gave up smoking just before such laws were made. I gave up because I realised it was harmful, also I noticed it sometimes bothered some people. Creating a law was not what changed my behaviour. 

However, human nature has a habit of creating strong herd acceptance of social behaviour, and that prevented many people from behaving responsibly. The law was necessary to change the mob.

 

But smoking itself has not been banned. I am free to smoke, so long as I basically don't bother other people by doing it.

 

 

Edited 11 hours ago by nomadpete

[octave]

27 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

Do you fear that your neighbour would do that if he/she could?

Generally, no, but 2 years ago the property next door to us was empty for the first 7 years that we lived here.  When we bought, we did not know it was a housing department property. Eventually, the housing department moved a single woman in who, it turns out, was involved in drug dealing. The worst thing was the constant visits from drug dealers, customers, and some pretty violent people.   During this time, we had a man on our property, wielding a hunting knife. We got the police to intercept him and due to laws that some might find oppressive, the knife was confiscated.    A man was arrested with a homemade pistol, and due to those oppressive gun laws, he ended up in jail.  A neighbour confronted an obviously high man early one morning. The man lifted his shirt to reveal a pistol in his waistband.  We had someone on our roof trying to evade the police (damaged a solar panel), a police man had his car rammed by someone escaping him.   We actually have some pretty dramatic doorbell camera footage.

Anyway, my point is that we fought these people tenaciously and we were able to get rid of them (about a year ago).  We were able to do this by using the law, no doubt laws that some would find oppressive.  Now my area has returned to the peaceful, friendly place it was before these morons moved in.  Without these laws, sure, we may be a freer country, but we would still be living with fear and anxiety. We had to give evidence sitting across the room from the tenant of this property, and believe me, at this point, people being able to do "what they want, when they want and where they want"  does not seem like freedom to me.

Laws are crafted for the worst of us. Most people are good and decent, but what do you do about the ones who are not?

 

Here is a picture of the "knife" man. Knife strapped to his bike. Earlier, he was waving this around.  We called the police and they just arrived as he was leaving the property. Whilst he was not arrested, he was searched, and the knife, being illegal, was confiscated.   I do not believe that this man's rights or freedoms were violated. He was not impressed. As he returned to the property, he was yelling, "if I found out who dobbed me in ...... (We didn't quite hear the specifics of the threat.)

 

 

 

[octave]

37 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

I don't think Onetrack was calling it 'opressive'.

Yes, I get that. I wasn't necessarily having a go at onetrack, just presenting an alternative view.

 

40 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

He pointed out that there was no need to create a law, for instance, to prevent free availability to purchase explosives. 

I cannot recall any reports of neighbours blowing up anything in their backyard, can you?

Do you fear that your neighbour would do that if he/she could?

To believe that if explosives were easily available, there would not be occasional catastrophic events is being overly optimistic.    Back in the day, fireworks were occasionally used to blow up people's letter boxes or torture cats and dogs with. I am not offering an opinion on whether fireworks should be legal or not,  only that they were not banned without reason. Some may say the reason wasn't strong enough.  I am glad my ex-neighbour could not buy explosives.

[facthunter]

In Early Newcastle, Mines were everywhere and so were detonators and sticks of gelignite. I cannot recall a single incidence of inappropriate use but today People are More whacky.  Nev

[octave]

I look up if any crimes have been committed using commercial explosives (not homemade). So, whilst with the present restrictions, it is somewhat rare that it has happened (despite restrictions).   I guess we don't know what would happen if explosives were freely available.

 

Commercial or Industrial Explosives

Some Australian bombings have involved explosives that originated from mining or commercial sources:

• The Sydney Hilton Hotel Bombing is generally believed to have involved a substantial quantity of high explosive, although the exact source and perpetrators remain disputed.
• The Russell Street Bombing used a large car bomb. Reports from the investigation indicated the perpetrators used commercially manufactured explosives rather than something improvised from household chemicals.
• Criminal groups have occasionally stolen explosives and detonators from mines, quarries, and construction operations, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s.

Australia's large mining sector means that explosives such as ANFO (ammonium nitrate fuel oil), emulsions, and gelignites are used legitimately in huge quantities, but access is tightly controlled.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The difference between 60 years ago and today is the "culture" of the people. When everyone grows up in the same culture, they know what is acceptable and only a small minority cause trouble. For example, in Broken Hill we had explosives and guns everywhere, but it was not a problem. Then "outsiders" move in, not part of the culture, and in ignorance or indifference they do things that require regulation. We had an Asian visitor who shot sheep, and claimed he was just hunting like the rest who were shooting kangaroos. Multiculturalism requires much greater regulation, but that is not effective if the newcomers do not respect the regulations and their enforcers.

[octave]

Here is another true story.    Back in the early 90s, we lived on 44 bush acres, and we built our own house. which we lived in as we built.  Late on one afternoon, I was soaking in the bath after a session of building. He could hear my 4-year-old son out in our driveway.  Our driveway was 100 meters long and dipped down substantially in the middle. WE would lock the gate so no one would drive down it, and my son would go to the high point at the gate and coast down to the dip.  Lying in a hot bath, I could hear my son's delighted sounds and his request to his mother to "watch me"  I heard a noisy vehicle followed by several gunshots. This was followed by my son screaming in a way I had never heard before.  This was followed by my wife screaming obscenities.   I truly believed my son or wife had been shot. I leapt out of the bath totally naked, and ran down the driveway.  They were both OK but traumatised.  This person had shot across our property, and I accept that they probably did not see my wife or son.  We reported it to the police, but as they said, it would be a case of his word against ours.  

A couple of days later, I was getting my car fixed, and I related this story to my mechanic, who was a gun enthusiast.  Being a law-abiding gun owner, he was able to, with our vehicle description, give me the name of this moron.   We were able to give the police a name.  We later learned that his guns were unlicensed.  I think his guns were confiscated (I guess until he complied)

Without rigorous licensing, this problem would have had no resolution.   I am not against gun ownership, but it does need to be regulated.   When I learned to fly, I had to reach a level of competency and jump through regulatory hoops.    

[octave]

12 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

The difference between 60 years ago and today is the "culture" of the people.

Maybe, although the Hilton bombing and the Russell Street bombing were some time ago (less than 60 years).   There were also bombings outside the Family Court in Sydney in the 80s.    Where I live is quite safe (now we turfed the druggies out); however, about 2 suburbs away, there are weekly house fires that are considered suspicious.  Sure, anyone can buy petrol and matches, but imagine if explosives were readily available.   

[Marty_d]

From 1997 - 2022 there have been almost 1500 school shootings in the USA. (Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38433681/)

To my knowledge there have been 2 in Australia since 1991 which resulted in death.

There's a damn good reason some freedoms are restricted.

 

[willedoo]

Back in the pre-registration, pre-license days there were a lot of problems in country areas with gun hoons causing trouble. It wasn't the locals, who were mostly farmers and all the locals were responsible firearm owners. The problem was with idiots passing through and shooting at road signs, farm sheds, livestock and wildlife. It didn't happen all the time but enough to be a problem. One of the saddest things is they used to shoot koalas up in the trees. I lost my best horse that way, intentionally shot by idiots travelling through. She was my pride and joy at the time, a tall black and white piebald mare, half thoroughbred. She was a beautiful looking mare and riding her was like sitting in an armchair it was that smooth. A once in a lifetime horse just like that once in a lifetime dog some people get to own.

[willedoo]

On the subject of blowing things up, back in the 1960's a mate of mine used to get gelignite from the local hardware store when he was a teenager. He used to make up a story that his dad had sent him in for it and he'd use it to blow fish when mullet were running. I can remember one of his dad's mates had half a hand missing from doing the same thing.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

17 hours ago, old man emu said:

It's hard to come up with a list of Rights that people seem to think they have lost, or the extent of former rights.

We've never had Rights, we've only ever had laws to govern our behaviour, and those laws are legislated by fellow human beings who are called "politicians", who react to other humans' complaints. Everyone has a complaint about something, and eventually we'll all be standing still in the one spot unable to move for fear of being charged for moving. We are our own worst enemy.

 

Bring in programs to teach common sense.

 

I once told a bloke not to chainsaw a tree down because it would hit power lines when it fell. He just said "Nahh". He cut the tree down and the next thing the power company truck was out fixing the downed power wires. He still didn't think he was an idiot, he thought he knew more than me, but it was plain to see the arc at which the tree would fall. To prevent that catastrophe, all he needed to do, was consult with me, because I was standing 90 degrees to the proposed travel of the tree and I judged it would hit the lines. He lacked common sense.

 

 

 

[willedoo]

At 90 degrees it's easy to judge. At distance you can hold your arm out and spread a couple of fingers from base to tree top and flip them sideways to see where the top will land. Or if closer use a stick. Even eyballing it is better than nothing.

[facthunter]

IF people HAVE something, it's inevitable (almost) that they will want to Play with it.  We are NOW Light years off the topic.

     Anyhow WE do NOT have a Bill of rights. It's been talked about often. Perhaps we should?  Is Our two Party System a Con? I think under the current circumstances, the Question is Irrelevant.  The UAP/ Liberal Party of R.G.Menzies is Unrecognisable in relation to Its current form which is  Becoming  Extinct at a great rate of Knots, before our very eyes. Making T Abbot the President, only ensures it's Fate.   THAT role is Party Managerial , not Policy making.  Abbot won't be able to Help Himself reaching for the Tiller.  Nev

Edited 3 hours ago by facthunter
extra content

[onetrack]

Yes, electing Abbott as President of the Liberal Party is a guaranteed way to ensure the future Liberal Party will be able to hold an entire Party meeting, in a room the size of a disabled toilet.

[willedoo]

For a while now the national conversation has all been about the rise of One Nation. That's where most of the coalition votes are going so the fate of the coalition will all depend on how ON tracks in the next two years until the election. If ON keeps growing or even stays at current polling levels, then the coalition is dead and the vacuum will be there for a new centre right party to emerge. If ON trips up or fizzles out early enough, then the coalition still has time to rebuild before the next election. For the coalition to have any chance I think ON would have to be in significant decline by the end of this year. Problem for the coalition is time is getting short. If ON stuffs right up early enough, we're back to the two party status quo; if they keep rolling on, it's a three party system coming - Labor, One Nation and whatever party emerges as the centre right replacement for the coalition.

[onetrack]

I doubt very much whether ON has the leadership to run an effective, sizeable Opposition party. "Boof" Joyce is a dill, Pauline is just a stirrer with no concrete plans for Australia, worthy of consideration, and many of their choices for political representation largely end up being duds, often changing sides, turning out to have an unsavoury past, or just throwing in the towel.

[willedoo]

Yes, it's hard to see it at this point. They'd need to employ some experienced professional operators to organise the party structure for a start. Their problem is that to become a large effective opposition, they'd have to evolve and become basically what their new supporters are currently fleeing from. That might make some of them do the reverse trip back again. One very recent poll asked a hypothetical question on voting intention if Pauline Hanson announced her retirement and left the party and the One Nation vote almost halved.