Australia's leading provider of affordable DIY legal kits
Call our Customer Care Specialists on 1300 728 200
   

Legal Forum

Welcome to the FREE AussieLegal Forum

This FREE legal forum is supported by participating lawfirms in your local area.
The information contained in this public forum, and any comments made by the administrators, it's appointed mediators, or members of the public are of a general nature and may not be regarded as financial or legal advice in any way. We recommend that you seek formal advice from a practicing solicitor or licensed financial advisor regarding your particular situation. By registering to use this forum you meet the above criteria and agree to abide by all of the above rules and policies.

To be sure we provide you with the most relevant information to your state, please let us know which state you your legal matter resides in:

ACT  NSW  NT  QLD  SA  TAS  VIC  WA  

AussieLegal recommends this law firm:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Sounds silly, but it's about time we...

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
DT-PMout View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 23/November/2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
  Quote DT-PMout Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Sounds silly, but it's about time we...
    Posted: 23/November/2011 at 12:17
Sounds silly, but it's about time we tried a legal challenge to stop the (indisputable) lying, dishonesty and poor delivery of election promises that our elected representatives are continuously and deliberately performing.

Hi there,

I guess this just sounds like another silly rant, but is there any legal reason why the Australian people can not take a class action against a political party or its leaders that effectively sacks them for poor performance of the job we have elected and paid them to do?

If any other working Aussie does not perform their role to the expectations of the employer then they are generally counselled, coached, warned and dismissed. And not at the end of their 'X' year contract period, but often within a week or month. If I take a job to paint the ceiling and end up deciding its better for the customer if I tile the walls, what will be the result? Why can the people who are supposed to be delivering to our needs and expectations perform their jobs differently? My key gripes, but examples none the less: A lazy solution Environmental/Carbon Tax and more US troops in Aus (which I am sure a lotn of us spent a good part of the 70's, 80's and 90's voting to reduce).

It just so happens Labour, the Greens and the independants are in the firing line at the moment, but I think this needs to be permanently fixed for all pollies & parties by the people and for the good of our coutry. Its getting really dejecting to keep voting within a system that doesn't require delivery of what we vote for. Maybe every single change should be voted by the people... we have the technology!

Anyway, there is the legal question. Can the people of Australia legally sue (or remove) pollies/parties that do not deliver what they promise when in the "hiring" process?

Surely we have some rights with controlling our democratic system still?

rambler1 View Drop Down
Legal Guru
Legal Guru
Avatar

Joined: 01/May/2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1918
  Quote rambler1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23/November/2011 at 13:45
Mate get a reality check any government has a mandate by election to govern for 3 years and under the Westminster system they dont have to tell you in advance what they are going or not going to do and if they have a majority they have a mandate irrespective of the bull before hand.

Theres a legal constitution of australia which outlines the time and methodology of elections and rules.

You should read it.

If you dont like the government ,you get to vote with everyone else at election time or whenever the government loses its majority.

Thats the australian way, however if you live in Congo you get to choose your representative and if you dont like him you can shoot him anytime.
Luke 11 46: Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! For you load men with burdens that are difficult to carry, and you yourselves won't even lift one finger to help carry those burdens.

AsiaOilDude View Drop Down
Legal Guru
Legal Guru


Joined: 17/February/2011
Location: Singapore
Posts: 2495
  Quote AsiaOilDude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23/November/2011 at 15:42
I sort of get what you're thinking here. Suing someone for non performance? The problem is you're suing people who have protected speech and what are you damaged etc etc? Which court would even hear it? However Rambler is correct - the right way to overthrow your government in Australia is to vote them out.
Not legal advice. Personal opinion only. Seek legal advice from qualified personnel only.

QuoVadis View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/September/2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 510
  Quote QuoVadis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23/November/2011 at 17:26
No consideration in the contract. I agree with you AOD. they system sucks and people continue on the whole to vote for the person with the charisma that seems to make them float to the surface.

Personally, I'd like to see a government formed with only those people that have tertiary education in the portfolios that they get or are in opposition in. So, the Minister for Finance should be at least a qualified accountant. Minister for Health should be a medical doctor etc., etc. Have you got any idea of how much money is paid out to "consultants" because ministers are largely too thick to understand their own portfolio. If we had highly educated people at the helm a whole lot of stuff would run better (IMO). All pollies should at least have an MBA so that they understand a broader aspect of real life.

Then when things are based on science and fact there'd be less compromise bullsh*t because no party has the spine to go ahead with anything. Particularly when they've had their own policies dumbed down for them to understand.
BSL lawyers: leeches in suits and wigs.
Blood Sucking Lawyers - The Law Firm

iconoclast View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 04/January/2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 1270
  Quote iconoclast Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23/November/2011 at 22:06
Agree with the above posts. Our problem really is the lack of any true democracy as defined by The Concise Macquarie Dictionary, (c) Macquarie University 1982, Doubleday publishers:
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them or their elected representatives under a free electoral system. 2. a state having such a form of government.... 4. a state of society characterised by formal equality of rights and privileges.... 6. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class...

or in the alternate and meaning as far as I can see exactly the same things; as defined by the Oxford English Reference Dictionary second edition revised 2003 published by Oxford University Press as being:

"1a. a system of government by the whole population, usu, through elected representatives. etc etc
So do we have a democracy or instead the illusion that we have one?

Legal action? Forget it right now, you'll never win.
not legal advice

MickOne View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 29/November/2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 283
  Quote MickOne Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23/November/2011 at 22:21
OP's original point: No. You get millions of 'employers' to agree on who should be fired and who should not - it is not going to happen. Your original point does not allow for a change in circumstances - think policy reaction to GFC.

@iconoclast:

We are all mature enough to accept that 'true democracy' has never existed, even in ancient greece only citizens (male greeks) were allowed to take part in a plebiscite (vote). No women, non-citizens, slaves or others were allowed to take part in the decisions which were important to the community. Democracy has always been representative, it has just become formalised in modern systems to create economic efficiency.

The concept that really makes me scratch my head is people that want to remove compulsory voting - because apparently its better for politics when the people are even less engaged.

AsiaOilDude View Drop Down
Legal Guru
Legal Guru


Joined: 17/February/2011
Location: Singapore
Posts: 2495
  Quote AsiaOilDude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24/November/2011 at 13:44
I think that 'representation' or 'town hall voting' on issues and important positions (i.e. judges / sheriffs / police commissioners) is technically possible now with the internet - I see in the US and even Switzerland this is getting some attention - so there is perhaps hope for 'true democracy' somewhere in the future.

QV's point is interesting to me as living in Singapore I notice that the dominant party makes a considerable effort to put in correctly educated people into the correct portfolio (i.e. doctors into health, economists into finance) - I think the results speak for themselves.

There is a counterargument to democracy I've heard some time back - it goes along the lines that the majority don't necessarily know what is right and that it is the smarter minority who fight to bring in changes sometimes needed. Some examples include abolition of slavery & womens emancipation. In a completely functional transparent democracy (i.e. where majority truly rule and interest groups cannot lever the system) these types of important changes would no be possible. Imagine Australia ruled by bogans? Oh hang on, we are right now!
Not legal advice. Personal opinion only. Seek legal advice from qualified personnel only.

iconoclast View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 04/January/2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 1270
  Quote iconoclast Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24/November/2011 at 15:17
Take yr point Mickone.
Knock it off AOD, the smarter minority looking out for the "bogon" majority? Women eg Emiline Pankhusrst in the MINORITY? What 49.9% of the population plus the few intelligent/informed/reflective/fair/just men taking it to way over 50%. ARRRGH! This is 2011 not 1911. I give up and will leave it to my 2 dreadlocked, intelligent, educated, sensitive EMPLOYED and successful sons shall I? I'm off to have a little lie down because I suddenly have another mysteriously induced migraine.
not legal advice

AsiaOilDude View Drop Down
Legal Guru
Legal Guru


Joined: 17/February/2011
Location: Singapore
Posts: 2495
  Quote AsiaOilDude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24/November/2011 at 16:48
Icono - maybe I have the examples a little wrong.
Not legal advice. Personal opinion only. Seek legal advice from qualified personnel only.

iconoclast View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 04/January/2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 1270
  Quote iconoclast Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24/November/2011 at 17:38
I guess this whole thread is what Occupy Wall Street [OWS]is all about. It has hit a nerve worldwide. Even the original tea-party promoters (before it got hijacked by some possibly/arguably loony US Republicans) have come out in support. It's online and it's all about disenfranchisement in so called democracies, disillusionment with big business doing dirty deals dirt cheap. Maybe that's a better xogy AOD? Be quick in case thread gets blocked 'cos it's maybe a bit off a legal forum topic but still really on-topic as to original post
not legal advice

AsiaOilDude View Drop Down
Legal Guru
Legal Guru


Joined: 17/February/2011
Location: Singapore
Posts: 2495
  Quote AsiaOilDude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24/November/2011 at 17:43
Iconoclast - I support what OWS is doing in general (raising awareness and making some of the folks at the top a little nervous). I thought this was hilarious reading though.   (It's SATIRE people).http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/2437

Edited by AsiaOilDude - 24/November/2011 at 17:50
Not legal advice. Personal opinion only. Seek legal advice from qualified personnel only.

iconoclast View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 04/January/2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 1270
  Quote iconoclast Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24/November/2011 at 22:22
Yup that sure is funny AOD but is it really reflective of the experienced and i phone documented reality? Cops caught on video footage mace spraying into the faces of non violent, linked-arms, seated, Ghandi inspired PEACEFUL student demonstrators??? What! USA state M.....i burning all over again? Vietnam protesters, or innocent kids in Iran or Tienamin Square all over again? When do we ever learn AOD. Something seriously wrong. Whatcha gonna do about it? What can any of us do about it?
not legal advice

DT-PMout View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 23/November/2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
  Quote DT-PMout Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25/November/2011 at 01:48
Thanks for all the comments... had a fair idea it would not fly legally. So how about if one person wewre to gain the signatures of more than half the population to outline and create change to the accountability system for these clowns (pollies)?

Can the people directly change the system in anyway? We all know none of the parties/pollies ever will.

MickOne View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 29/November/2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 283
  Quote MickOne Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25/November/2011 at 12:37
The system of accountability is election. What magical power do signatures hold?

Getting half the country to agree to ANYTHING would be your challenge. The problem you have is there is an individual, or many I suspect, that have diametrically opposed opinions to you: A person believing that the incumbent system is great and should not change.

So even if you could gain half the signatures of Australia, you would never get them to agree when to exercise this intended mechanism for coup d'etat/revolution. Ergo, they might like the power but not the situation for its use.

There is a reason why this does not exist in any modern system worth imitating - it is moronic. A person may be smart, but the mob is stupid and prone to rash action.

Look at Greece, they have no income tax system, their government has been in structural deficit for decades, would the populous revolt and throw out a government that proposed creating one, despite it being essential for their country's survival... I think we all know the answer.

As sad as it sounds DT-Pmout - the people rarely know better. Democracy is not a pact to create a sinking ship.

 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Want to save money?

Check out our list of do-it-yourself legal kits.

Need formal advice?

Let us help you find a lawyer who specializes in your particular area of law.

Need further information?

Visit our legal forum where you can ask questions and search for similar topics.