澳洲广播电台第十一集：澳大利亚政治面面观(页 1) - 澳洲留学移民 - 澳大利亚广播电台 -

澳洲广播电台第十一集：澳大利亚政治面面观

这一集展示了当代澳大利亚政治的各个方面，包括政党体制及运作、当今选民的多变性以及难以决断的君主立宪制与共和制之争。

[color=Red]详细内容请看二,三,四楼[/color]

中文详细内容
[quote]
﹙音乐：《国会的秩序》主题曲（Order In The House）选自国会提供的国会广播和音效﹚

[b]国会议长：[/b]

有请外交部长。

[b]政界人士甲：[/b]

我昨天所作的陈述是绝对真实的，仍然是现行政策。议长先生，情况并没有改变，

[b]政界人士乙：[/b]

情况就是我确实履行了我的诺言。你是个伪善的牛皮大王……

[b]政界人士甲：[/b]

我要对他们尽职，我要对澳大利亚人民尽职，而且……

[b]议长：[/b]

部长先生，这位部长将自行退席。

[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]

大家好，这里是苏·斯拉梅为您主持的“今日澳洲”。

今天的节目是“澳大利亚政治面面观”。

第二次世界大战后的这么多年里，澳大利亚的政坛局势一直很稳定，由澳大利亚工党和自由党这两大政党控制。

少数政党和无党派人士介入选举给当代澳大利亚政坛带来了一些不稳定因素。国会两院中的辩论一直是吵吵嚷嚷，喋喋不休，这种现象使国外游客大为惊讶。

[b]（国会）部长：[/b]

部长先生，这并不是事实，而且也应该受到道义上的指责。这种说法根本就是不实之辞。

[b]部长：[/b]

现在，我们国家所面临的真正问题是为什么你不支持这个政策呢？你知道那些要求最终都能在联邦法院提出来，为什么你不予支持呢？这是你必须回答的问题。

[b]部长：[/b]

你这个胆小的家伙……你清楚得很，你是有史以来最胆小的领导……

[b]国外访客：[/b]

肯定还有更多大吵大闹的争论，其中的一些可能会在国会关起门来后继续进行……可现在，在众目睽睽之下他们已经大嚷大叫了。如果某位政界人士对另外一个看不顺眼，前者肯定会直截了当说出来，并且在说这话的时候吸引所有在场媒体的注意。

[b]访客：[/b]

特别让我震惊不已的是在政界里居然会有那么多的人身攻击。在瑞典，对另外一位政界人士进行人身攻击根本就是不可想象的。你可能会不同意他说的话，或是与他在政见上意见相左，但绝不会以这里的这种方式表现出来。”

[b]议长：[/b]

部长先生，部长先生……

[b]部长乙：[/b]

不行，咱们得理论理论。来呀，至少拿出点儿气魄来……

[b]议长：[/b]

部长，请您坐下。

[b]部长乙：[/b]

真是耻辱啊。政府支持他简直是丢人啊。总理应该为自己支持这个卑鄙小人感到惭愧。

[b]尼克·埃科诺穆博士：[/b]

我们国会的辩论可以称得上是粗鲁。人们甚至互相动粗。他们很喜欢在澳大利亚政治中显现大丈夫气概，这也是诸如澳式足球和橄榄球一类的体育运动暴力在政坛的体现。

[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]

莫纳什大学的尼克·埃科诺穆博士认为，国会的情况在很大程度上反映了澳大利亚社会甚至体育方面的现实，这与其他威斯敏斯特国会体制并没有太大不同……

[b]尼克·埃科诺穆博士：[/b]

澳大利亚采用威斯敏斯特国会体制，而威斯敏斯特体制本质上就是对抗性的。诚然，政界人士互相攻击体现了某些澳大利亚的特点，但你若对英国国会、加拿大国会、印度国会和新西兰国会的运行情况很熟悉的话，就会发现它们与澳大利亚国会有许多相似之处。所以，尽管澳大利亚国会的辩论言行粗鲁，崇尚大丈夫政治手段，并且使用老百姓的口头语，这是一种普通人的语言，而不是远见卓识者或思想深邃者的语言，所有这些都与我们所采用的威斯敏斯特国会体制非常吻合。非常有趣的是，澳大利亚国会的工作情况会在一个独立的国会广播网上播出，有时辩论的水平非常低下，人身攻击的言行令人瞠目。某些蓄意阻挠议案通过的行为甚至会达到了肆无忌惮的程度，听众对此会忍无可忍，给澳大利亚广播公司打电话提出抗议。这些投诉会转交给国会大厅的负责官员，比如众议院的议长和参议院的主席。他们就会对议员们说，看看，听众已经提意见了，他们已经对国会的辩论忍无可忍了。我觉得议员们应该赶紧提高一下自己的讲话档次。即便这是对澳大利亚社会的一个反映，但我想对于政界人士这种基本行为准则的缺失，有时候人们还是会对他们产生不信任感甚至失望。

[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]

由现任总理约翰·霍华德领导的联邦政府是自由党和澳大利亚国家党组成的政党联盟。

该联盟于一九九六年从澳大利亚另一大党，澳大利亚工党手中取得政权。下面就来听一下尼克·埃科诺穆是如何评论这些主要政党的特点的……

[b]尼克·埃科诺穆博士：[/b]

首先，我要指出政党政治在澳大利亚的至关重要性。整个体制都以政党，尤其是主要政党为中心来运行。目前共有三个主要政党。一个是澳大利亚工党。虽然工党获得了大量非工会成员的支持，该党仍是以工会为基础的政党，相当于我们国家的社会民主党，被认为是澳大利亚政治中的左派。工党强大的对手是右派的澳大利亚自由党。该党创建于第二次世界大战之后。自由党的立党之本是维护被他们视为澳大利亚中产阶级企业家的利益，与在他们看来过于强大的工会势力抗衡。工党和自由党这两大政党均以城市为基础。自由党在乡村地区，特别是维多利亚州西区、南澳州和塔斯马尼亚州的农民中有不少支持者。我想还有另一个政党——澳大利亚国家党值得一提。这个党曾经名为乡村党。它的支持者主要集中在墨累-达灵河流域，包括昆士兰州、新南威尔士州和维多利亚州。这是一个代表农民利益的党派，倾向于与自由党联盟来发挥其作用。该党的定位为亲商业、亲私人企业的政党。尽管在国际商品价格极不稳定的时期，国家党一直提倡国家对经济进行广泛的干预，从而维持种植业的生产，但是这个党也对工会的权力感到担忧。以上是澳大利亚的三大政党。绝大多数澳大利亚人，约占人口总数的百分之八十至九十都会支持这三大政党。

[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]

澳大利亚的政治稳定在很大程度上取决于主要政党的控制地位和实行了联邦政治体制。

位于堪培拉的联邦政府是所得税和普通销售税的主要征收机构。与此同时，“财政联邦制” 确保了中央政府向全国人民提供公平、均等的服务，使人口稀少的各州与人口密集的东部沿海各州居民享受到同样的政府服务。

下面有请新南威尔士大学的政治学家伊莱恩·汤普森博士……

[b]伊莱恩·汤普森博士：[/b]

长期以来，我们实行的是财政均等化制度，听起来有些花哨，但从根本上说这一制度的实施意味着在过去的一百年里中央政府一直坚持公平、均等的原则，以保证全国各地的公民，无论是住在偏远的乡村地区还是北方地区或是珀斯都能以同样或者是尽可能接近同样的价格享受到同等水平的政府服务。将钱从富裕地区征收过来，再重新分配到欠富裕地区，这样便能保证，比方说，从悉尼，这一澳大利亚最大的经济中心征收的税款不仅能够在悉尼市内以及新南威尔士包括偏远地区在内的各州之间重新分配， 而且还能用于全国其他的州，以确保全国公民都能享受到医疗、教育及其他各项政府服务。这样，事实上，悉尼的税款甚至能够被重新分配到塔斯马尼亚州，以保证那里的人同样能享受到这些便利。

[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]

二十世纪八十年代以来，新自由主义一直主导着澳大利亚的公共政策，也就是澳大利亚公众讨论中所说的经济理性主义政策。这一经济政策以盈余预算、减少税收及削减公共支出为主要经济管理手段。

从二十世纪八十年代到九十年代初期间，在前工党总理鲍勃·霍克和保罗·基廷的领导下，澳大利亚的经济经历了解除管制与对外开放的过程。

约翰·霍华德为首的自由－国家党联合政府于一九九六年开始执政，提倡自由市场经济的管理方式……

[b]伊莱恩·汤普森博士：[/b]

谈起这一具有历史意义的均等原则，我们中的许多人都认为这是非常有利于澳大利亚政治稳定的重要因素。然而在过去的二十年里，在竞争与新经济管理模式的名义下，这一均等化制度出现了严重的倒退。于是在地方和乡村地区，无论在私营部门还是公共部门都出现了大规模削减主要由政府补贴并且是非营利服务设施的情况。其结果是医院、学校、医疗服务机构、邮局、银行等机构都关闭了。所以有人说，这在一定程度上导致了广大地方与乡村选民产生了一种遭背叛感，因而对国家党这个代表澳大利亚乡村利益的政党感到极大的失望。政府对此的反应是正在努力恢复跨州补贴，以保证全国人民能向从前一样更加均等地享受各种政府服务，尽管现在所使用的政治语言有所不同。

[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]

像尼克·埃科诺穆博士所说的，一九九六年人们对经济理性主义政策的大失所望得以戏剧性的表现：波琳·汉森的单一民族党竟一度成为不可小觑的政治力量……

[b]尼克·埃科诺穆博士：[/b]

毫无疑问，澳大利亚乡村和地方的居民认为自己是这场政策辩论焦点转移中的输家，因为辩论已远离了往日的经纪业主题。在经纪经济下有着大量的政府干预，而国家党即过去的乡村党偏爱的政策之一便是权力分散，即政府通过一系列补贴和减税手段干预经济，鼓励到乡村与地方中心开办企业。现在这些都已一去不复返了，这些政策已被州政府和联邦政府所废除，如今谈论更多的是以市场为导向的经济管理方式。

[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]

选民们是否感到自己被抛弃了呢？

[b]尼克·埃科诺穆博士：[/b]

是这样的，这正是一九九六年像单一民族党这样的小党得以在政坛上忽然崭露头角并对一九九八年联邦大选产生影响的原因之一。虽然其影响在二零零一年联邦大选中已不十分显著，但在有些州的竞选中，单一民族党直到二零零一年都颇有收获。单一民族党最初以其在种族与移民问题上的立场引起了人们的注意，其许多政策带有浓厚的种族主义色彩。同时，该党还反对移民，由于很快利用了乡村与地方对主要政党对经济理性主义政策、私有化以及取消政府干预等做法的不满，单一民族党的号召得到了不少人的呼应。

[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]

单一民族党的头号领袖波琳·汉森于一九九八年失去了众议院席位，二零零一年竞选连任参议员时也未能如愿。

联邦国会中仅有一名议员为单一民族党成员，而他现在也已成为无党派议员。

虽然西澳州议会中有几名单一民族党议员，但由于绿党成员，也就是环境保护主义者在数量上占优势，他们在政府中的影响也已微乎其微。

波琳·汉森现象加之绿党和无党派议员的成功表明，两大主要政党在走向趋同，尤其是在经济政策方面是如此，而对主流政策的失望已使越来越多的选民开始作出其他选择。

[b]尼克·埃科诺穆博士：[/b]

绿党在上次联邦大选中表现得非常不错，并不是因为竞选辩论中涉及到了任何热门的环境问题，相反，辩论中几乎没有提出环境问题。事实上，绿党在竞选中主要对自由党-国家党联盟拒绝难民入境的政策予以了抨击。由于反对霍华德政府的政策，绿党在全国获得了近十分之一的选票，并赢得了两个参议院席位。这表明主要政党的政策正趋于一致，引起了选民的一些不满，于是他们不再支持主要政党而是将选票投给了这些边缘小党。

[b]伊莱恩·汤普森博士：[/b]

现在有百分之二十五的澳大利亚选民将首选选票投给非主要政党，对此我们有必要向不太了解澳大利亚政治体制的听众们解释一下背景情况。

[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]

伊莱恩·汤普森将向我们解释在由选民选举产生并决定大选胜负的众议院议员选举过程中，选择选举制是如何确保主要政党的绝对优势的……

[b]伊莱恩·汤普森博士：[/b]

如果我们的选举制度与美国或英国的一样，也就是说在众议院选举中，选民只要在想选的候选人名字旁作个记号就行了，记号最多的候选人就会当选，那么我们的联邦众议院中就会出现许多小党与无党派议员。但由于我们所采取的是特殊的选择选举制，那么只有获得至少百分之五十选票加一票的政党才能获选，这样如果一位选民将一个小党作为第一选择而这个小党根本无法得到多数选票，这张选票就必须拿来重新分给这位选民在选票上填写的位于第二选择或第三选择的主要政党，哪个政党将获得这张选票则取决于它在选择顺序上所处的地位。这样说来，选择选举制在一定程度上对确保主要政党持续控制联邦政治并籍此保持政体稳定是十分有利的，但从另一方面来说，我认为，这一制度又意味着主要政党无法真切地察觉到选民的不满。鞋子也许是有些挤脚，但还不是太紧，这在一定程度上是由选择选举制度决定的。

[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]

在上院也就是参议院，情形就完全不同了，在力量对比中占优势的实际上是小党与无党派议员。

他们在上院的成功很大程度上取决于参议院选举中采取的比例选举制度。

[b]尼克·埃科诺穆博士：[/b]

在上院也就是参议院，我们采取的是完全不同的比例代表制，候选人在参议院全院选举中赢得约百分之十四的选票或在半院选举中赢得约百分之七的选票便可获得一个席位。可见，这与百分之五十选票加一票的选举制有着很大的差别，这意味着一些没希望赢得下院席位的小党很有可能在上院赢得席位。因此，没希望赢得下院席位的澳大利亚民主党、单一民族党和绿党事实上都拥有参议院席位，于是也就在国会中占踞了重要的地位，发挥着重要的作用。在澳大利亚，参议院是极有影响力的国会机构，任何法案未经参议院同意都无法获得通过。参议院还有权否决预算议案，这有可能迫使政府提前举行大选，从而引起严重的政治危机，此类危机，我们在一九七五年曾经历过一次。因此，小党赢得参议院席位并对主要政党形成制约是至关重要的，这样他们便能在澳大利亚政治体制中起到举足重轻的作用。

[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]

小党与少数无党派议员在参议院中起着至关重要的平衡作用，有时他们确实能够阻止政府议案的通过。

这令政府感到无比烦恼，以至于霍华德总理放出口风，要在二零零四年底举行联邦大选时就取消参议院的议案否决权事宜进行全民公决，以修改宪法有关条文。

参议院少数派议员自然对该提议提出反对意见，强调参议院是对政府进行制约的重要机构。

事实上，参议院常被称为“审议院”。

无论如何，历史都证明，尽管宪法规定对宪法的任何修订都要通过全民公决，即由人民来决定，都要获得多数人、多数州的同意才能通过，但是澳大利亚人从来都不愿意通过全民公决来改变其政治体制，。

你正在收听的是澳洲广播电台第十一期“今日澳洲”节目——澳大利亚政治面面观。

﹙插播音乐：埃里克·博格尔的《再见，幸运之邦》，选自专辑《纸屑》﹚

自一九零一年以来举行的四十四次全民公决中，只有八次获得了成功。

其中著名的一例是赋予澳大利亚原住民与其他公民同等权利的一九六七年全民公决。

一起有名的失败例子是一九九九年就是否实行共和制而进行的全民公决。

是否希望成为共和国以及与原住民达成和解是二十世纪九十年代澳大利亚政治议程中的头等大事。

事实上，许多澳大利亚人认为这两个问题是密不可分的，澳大利亚要成为共和国，就必须改写宪法，也就是建国宪章。有人认为，这样一来，就有机会正式承认原住民在澳大利亚这片于一七八八年被英国开拓为殖民地的大陆上的存在。

以下是原住民人类学家马西娅·兰顿一九九六年发表的演说……

[b]马西娅·兰顿：[/b]

许多澳大利亚人对共和国的渴望之中包含着实现和解的关键因素。如果澳大利亚不再自我定位成一个依赖并派生自英国的移民国家，并与维护“土地君权所有”的君主制及其理论决裂，那么澳大利亚便能形成一整套作为一个民族的理念，这些理念符合当今的国情，而不是与一七八八年或英国的历史保持一致。澳大利亚人可以在这样一套全新的民族理念下形成并发展出一系列承认我们存在权利的准则。

[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]

格雷姆·戴维森教授来自莫纳什大学的历史研究学院。他认为保罗·基廷在担任总理期间积极推进民族和解和力图在澳大利亚实现共和制，但是他在这两个问题上并没有得到澳大利亚公众的支持，而由他领导的工党政府也在一九九六年的联邦大选中输给了约翰·霍华德为首的自由党-国家党联盟……

[b]格雷姆·戴维森：[/b]

我觉得保罗·基廷在担任总理期间，试图赋予澳大利亚作为国际社会一员所需要的某种精神内涵。基廷总理在任期内一直致力于澳大利亚的经济改革，向世界其他国家开放澳大利亚市场，降低贸易壁垒，取消政府对经济的管制。但是，这些政策和措施的实施却使很多人产生了疑问，比如，这样作了之后，什么才是澳大利亚特色？在这个国界消失了的世界里如何形成这种特色？我想，保罗·基廷消除这些疑问的首要措施就是把更多的原住民因素融合在这个国家特色之中，然后，进一步切断与英国之间的联系。但结果是，在我看来，许多澳大利亚人对这一切，尤其是在宪法问题上，有自己的保留意见。而且，我觉得，在这两个方面所取得的进展并没有像基廷总理所预料的那么大。

[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]

霍华德政府在一九九九年为是否实行共和制举行了全民公决，公决中并没有单纯就澳大利亚是否应该成为共和制国家提问，而是把问题放在了是否应该由澳大利亚国会选出的国家元首取代澳大利亚总督，也就是取消英国女王在澳大利亚的全权代表。

人们对是否实行共和制众说纷纭，莫衷一是：一些人赞同保留君主制；另外一些人觉得应该对宪法作一些小小的修改；还有一些人认为澳大利亚公民应该直接选举国家元首。争议的焦点是澳大利亚是否应该继续保持威斯敏斯特式的议会制还是应该转型成为美国式的总统制。

一九九九年的共和制全民公决失败了。

但是，格雷姆·戴维森教授相信共和制和寻求与澳大利亚原住民的和解这样的问题都绝不会完全从澳大利亚政治议程表上消失。

[b]格雷姆·戴维森：[/b]

在很大程度上，只是把这两个问题从时间上往后推了推。但我认为，像澳大利亚是否应该成为共和国这样的问题迟早会不可避免地提上议事日程，只是会比二十世纪九十年代后期的人们所想象的时间要长得多，但是这一天肯定会到来的。至于是否应该将原住民因素以及如何将这一因素与澳大利亚的民族特征融合在一起则是一个很有趣的问题。我认为在这个问题上澳大利亚人所抱的期望还是有一定意义的。他们想重新确立一种不同于过去的、与土地之间的关系，因为最初对澳大利亚民族性的理解建立在对开拓地及其探索和发现之上，而所有这些探索和发现都被归功于欧洲人。既然我们已经看到这种最初的关系中存在很多问题并带有剥削性质，于是我们开始关注原住民，从而建立一种新型的人与土地的关系。这种关系既有环境方面的意义，又有精神层面的意义。之所以这么说，是因为我认为这一时期传统宗教信仰的影响力在持续下降，所以在某种程度上说，澳大利亚人求助于原住民来获得某种精神寄托。而我个人认为这种精神寄托也存在相当大的问题。

[b]唐·凯西：[/b]

从共和运动本身来考虑，从与原住民达成和解来考虑，同时从在宪法中明确承认原住民作为澳大利亚最早居民在澳大利亚大陆上居住了四万到七万年这一事实的角度来考虑，我个人坚持认为，需要把共和制问题与原住民问题分开来讨论。

[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]

唐·凯西是澳大利亚的原住民，目前担任澳大利亚国家博物馆馆长，在一九九一年和一九九二年期间参与了民族和解委员会的组建工作。

[b]唐·凯西：[/b]

原住民和解问题应该得到特别的关注，我们应该把这个问题与其他问题区别开来，专门在这个问题上赢得人们由衷的支持，不能与共和制问题混为一谈。我赞同澳大利亚实行共和制，但是，包括我在内的很多澳大利亚民众对此很迷惑，非常地迷惑不解。很多德高望重并且受过良好教育的澳大利亚人都认为，如果我们同意实行共和制政体，澳大利亚走向共和制的形式，不管是好是坏，就一定会像美国一样。这些人认为我们已经是一个民主社会，每个公民都有投票的权利，人们也可以自由谈论各种问题，而不会因此爆发战争或内战。这些基础已经存在，因为我们沿袭了英国的传统。我认为他们没有意识到我们最终会成为一个共和国，所以我们最好是讨论什么是最为理想的共和制，而不是简单地说我们永远都不想变成一个共和国。

[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]

我们下周的节目是“国际舞台上的澳大利亚”，专门探讨从第二次世界大战之后到现在，澳大利亚的对外政策受到了那些因素的影响。

[b]温斯顿·丘吉尔爵士：[/b]

今晚我向各位发表演说，而我的心此时此刻由于英国遭受了一次沉重且后患无穷的军事打击而无比沉重：新加坡失陷了。

[b]贝内特陆军中将：[/b]

我记得那天傍晚，当我巡查澳大利亚防线时，我意识到我们战士的心都碎了，充满了失望。我们要永世不忘这一点：没有美利坚合众国的参战，这场战争将持续更久的时间，损失将更为惨重。

[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]

欢迎收听下周节目。感谢我们的技术总监——赖安·厄甘和学术指导——莫纳什大学的全国澳大利亚研究中心。
[/quote]

英文详细内容
[quote]
(Music: Theme from Order In The House Parliamentary Broadcasts and Effects from Parliament)

[b]PARLIAMENTARY SPEAKER:[/b] "Minister for Foreign Affairs":

[b]POLITICIAN 1:[/b] "The statement I made yesterday was absolutely true and it remains the policy, it remains the case Mr Speaker,

[b]POLITICIAN 2:[/b] "It remains the case I have done exactly what I promised to do."

You are a sanctimonious windbag…"

[b]POLITICIAN 1:[/b] "That is my duty to them, that is my duty to the Australian people and that …"

[b]SPEAKER:[/b] "Minister, the minister will excuse himself from the House."

[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] Hello Sue Slamen with you for AUSTRALIA NOW.

Today: THE CHANGING FACE OF AUSTRALIAN POLITICS.

For most of the period since the Second World War Australia has had a very stable political system that's been dominated by the major political parties: Labor and Liberal.

And while minor parties and independents have introduced some electoral volatility into the contemporary political scene, one parliamentary constant that often surprises overseas visitors is just how loud and rowdy debate in the House can be…

[b]PARLIAMENT MINISTER:[/b] "Minister is it not a fact that as well as being morally reprehensible, this statement is absolutely untrue."

[b]MINISTER:[/b] "Now the real question for this country is why won't you support that? You know those claims could all be made in the federal court, why won't you, that is the question that you've got to answer?"

[b]MINISTER:[/b] "You're a gutless leader … and you know it, you're the most gutless leader that's ever been…"

[b]OVERSEAS VISITOR:[/b] "There's definitely some more loud argument going on and as some of those arguments will probably go on behind closed doors and … here they are shouted out in public and if some politician doesn't like another one he'll definitely tell him and make sure that every single camera is on him while he does that.

[b]VISITOR:[/b] The thing that strikes me about especially in politics is the amount of personal attacks. You see in Sweden you wouldn't dream of attacking another politician personally, it's maybe what he says or his political arguments, but not the way you see it down here."

[b]SPEAKER:[/b] "Minister, the minister…"

[b]MINISTER:[/b] "Come on let's have the debate, come on, show a bit of ticker for once…"

[b]SPEAKER:[/b] "The Minister will resume his seat."

[b]MINISTER:[/b] "This is a disgrace and the government's support for him is a disgrace, and the Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself for supporting this scumbag."

[b]DR NICK ECONOMOU:[/b] "We've got a very robust debate and people attack each other and they like to play the man as we say in Australian politics, which of course is another sporting metaphor referring to the violence of Australian Rules Football and rugby."

[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] While Monash University's Dr Nick Economou agrees that Parliament reflects much about Australian society and even sport, it's not much different than other Westminster parliamentary systems …

[b]DR NICK ECONOMOU:[/b] "Australia has a Westminster parliamentary system and Westminster systems are by their very nature adversarial. Sure there are some very Australian characteristics at work when politicians attack each other, but if you were someone who is familiar with the operation of the British parliament, the Canadian parliament, the Indian parliament, New Zealand parliament, you'd find many things that were familiar in Australia. So the Australian tendency to play rough house, play the man politics and to use a very popular colloquial language, you know the language of the ordinary person, not the language of visionaries or philosophers, that dovetails very neatly with our Westminster system. It's interesting the Australian parliament, which is broadcast across Australia on a separate parliamentary network, sometimes the standard of debate is so low, the insults are so dreadful, the obstructionism can be so rampant that listeners will ring up the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and complain, and these complaints will be handed over to the presiding officers of the Chambers, the Mr Speaker in the case of House of Representatives to the President of the Senate, who will say to members, look, we've had complaints from listeners who are upset about the level of debate in the parliament. I would urge members to try and lift their game. So even though it's a reflection of the Australian society, there is a bit of scepticism and there is a bit of dismay I think sometimes amongst the community that politicians should behave in such a basic manner."

[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] The current federal Government led by Prime Minister John Howard consists of a coalition between the Liberal Party and the National Party.

This Coalition won power in 1996 from the other major force in Australian politics, the Labor Party. Here's how Nick Economou characterises the main political parties…

[b]DR NICK ECONOMOU:[/b] "Let me start by saying that party politics is critically important in Australia. The whole system turns around the parties, especially the major parties and there are three. One is the Australian Labor Party, it's a trade union based party, although it also draws a great deal of support from non-unionised people. It's our social democratic party; it's considered to be the party of the left of centre in Australian politics. Its great rival on the right of centre is the Liberal Party of Australia, which was formed after the Second World War. It's great reason for existence is to advance the interests of what they consider to be middle-class entrepreneurial Australians, and to oppose what they see as too much trade union power. Both of these parties, Labor and Liberal, are major political parties; they're mainly urban based. The Liberals do have support in the country amongst farmers particularly in the Western District of Victoria, South Australia and also Tasmania. There's a third party that I think is worth mentioning, that's the National Party, it used to be called the Country Party. Its voter support is concentrated in the Murray Darling Basin, which basically runs through Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. It's a farmer party and it tends to operate in coalition with the Liberal Party, it sees itself as a pro-business, pro-private enterprise party. It has concerns about trade union power as well, although its history has been one in which it's advocated extensive state intervention in the economy to try and sustain farming, especially during times when international commodity prices have been fluctuating wildly. They're the three major parties. The vast majority of Australians, anywhere between 80-90 per cent would vote for."

[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] Australia's political stability has been due in large part to the dominance of the major political parties and also to the operation of its federal political system.

While the Federal Government in Canberra is the major tax collector for both income and the General Sales Tax or G.S.T, a system of 'fiscal federalism' has ensured that the national Government equitably distributes government services to people who live in sparsely populated states, as well as those states up and down the East Coast where most Australians live.

Political Scientist, Dr Elaine Thompson from the University of New South Wales…

[b]DR ELAINE THOMPSON:[/b] "We've had a long-time system called fiscal equalisation, which is a very pompous sounding term but it essentially means that the government over the last 100 years has been committed to the idea that everybody wherever they live, whether it's in the most remote country area or in the Northern Territory or in Perth will receive the same level at the same costs or as close as they can to the same costs of government services. You took from the rich and you gave to the less well off, so money, say tax monies that were generated essentially say by Sydney, which was one of the great economic centres, would be not merely redistributed so that people in the state that Sydney's in New South Wales, in far regional New South Wales, would have access to hospitals and schools and other government services, but right across Australia, across state boundaries. So in effect Sydney money would go to Tasmania as it were to ensure that they also had those facilities."

[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] Since the 1980's Australian public policy has been dominated by neo-liberalism or what in Australian public debate is called economic rationalism; an approach to managing the economy that's characterised by surplus budgets, tax cuts and restraints on public spending.

Former Labor Prime Ministers, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating over-saw the de-regulation and opening up of the Australian economy during the nineteen eighties and early nineties.

The 1996 election of the Liberal National Party Coalition Government led by John Howard is committed to a free market approach to economic management…

[b]DR ELAINE THOMPSON:[/b] "Now over the last twenty years that historic commitment which a lot of us have been talking about this think was one of the great contributors to the level of political stability in Australia, this equalisation of course has been being wound back in the name of competition and this new way of running economies. So that we've had for example both in the private and the public sector an enormous level of cutbacks in what are now seen as heavily subsidised non-economic government services going to say regional and rural areas. The result of that has been the closing of hospitals and schools and medical services and post offices and banks, etc., etc. And the consequence of that it's suggested has been in part an enormous disillusionment with the National Party, that is the party of the country in Australia, the country party, by voters who feel that they have been betrayed in regional and rural Australia. And the political response to that is now setting in where government is returning to the idea though they don't use this language, of in effect cross subsidising the country in order to give it more equal access to such services once more."

[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] Disenchantment with economic rationalism expressed itself most dramatically in 1996 when Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party became, for a time, a force to be reckoned with, as Dr Nick Economou explains…

[b]DR NICK ECONOMOU:[/b] "There's no doubt that rural and regional Australia has felt itself to have been the losers in the shift in the policy debate, away from the old days of brokerage, because under brokerage you could have extensive state intervention, and one of the favourite policies pursued by the National Party or the old Country Party was something called decentralisation, that you would intervene with a series of subsidies and tax concessions to encourage industries to set themselves up in rural and regional centres. That's gone, that's all been abandoned by both state and federal government, and now we're talking more about a market orientated approach.

[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] Do the voters themselves feel abandoned?

[b]DR NICK ECONOMOU:[/b] They have done and that's one of the reasons why a minor party like One Nation burst onto the scene in 1996 and had an impact on the 1998 federal election, not so much in the 2001 federal election, but in some states One Nation did quite well even as recently as 2001. That was a party that initially got attention because of its position on race and immigration, it was quite racist in many of its policies, it was anti-immigration, but very quickly seized upon the sense of rural and regional dissatisfaction with the major parties, and rural and regional dissatisfaction with economic rationalism, privatisation, the abandonment of state intervention, and people responded to the call."

[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] The main personality behind One Nation, Pauline Hanson, lost her seat in the House of Representatives in 1998 and failed to be re-elected when she ran for the Senate in 2001.

There was a single One Nation Senator in the National Parliament although he now sits as an Independent.

And while there are some One Nation MPs in the West Australian State Parliament their political impact is nullified by the fact that there are more Greens or environmentalists in that State Chamber.

The Pauline Hanson phenomenon along with the success of the Greens and Independents reflects the view that the two major political parties have moved closer together, particularly on economic issues and that this disenchantment with mainstream politics has led to a growing number of voters looking for alternatives.

[b]DR NICK ECONOMOU:[/b] "The Greens performed very well in the last Federal Election, not because there was any great environmental issue that was being debate, on the contrary, the environment hardly figured in the debate at all. Rather the Greens campaigned against the Liberal and National Party's policy of not allowing asylum seekers to come to Australia, and on opposing Mr Howard's policy the Greens picked up almost ten per cent of the vote nationally, and they picked up two senate positions as well. So the argument is that the major political parties have been converging and this has led to a bit of dissatisfaction amongst the voters and they've taken their votes off to some of these fringe minor parties."

[b]DR ELAINE THOMPSON:[/b] "Twenty five per cent of Australians now vote away from the major parties in terms of their first preference votes, and again that's something which needs to be explained to listeners who don't know the Australian system front-wards and backwards."

[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] Elaine Thompson explains how the preferential system of voting for the popularly elected House of Representatives where government is won or lost ensures the dominance of the major parties in that House …

[b]DR ELAINE THOMPSON:[/b] "If we had the system of voting that say the United States or the United Kingdom has, which is that for the House of Representatives you simply go along and you put a mark against the person you want elected and that's the end of it and the one that gets most marks wins, we would have a great many minor party and Independents in our federal parliament in the House of Representatives. But because we have this extraordinary system of preferential voting, it is only if you get 50 per cent plus one vote of the vote that you get elected, so that minor parties end up having their votes distributed to the number that people have put down as their second preference or their third preference, depending on where the major party is on their voting form. So preferential voting has helped if you like from one level stabilise the political system by ensuring that the major parties continue to dominate federal politics, but on the other hand has also meant that people's dissatisfaction is not I think being felt severely enough by those major parties. The shoe may be pinching but it's not pinching them hard enough, and that's partly due to the system of preferential voting."

[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] It's quite a different story in the Upper House or Senate where minor parties and independents actually hold the balance of power.

Their success in getting elected to the Upper House is due in large part to the system of proportional voting that operates for Senate elections.

[b]DR NICK ECONOMOU:[/b] "In the Upper House, in the Senate, we have proportional representation, a completely different system, and in Senate elections, depending on whether it's a full Senate election or a half Senate election, candidates are required to win either about fourteen or seven per cent of the vote to get a seat. And as you can see that's a big difference from 50 per cent plus one, so this means that some of the minor parties that haven't got a hope of winning a Lower House seat are actually in with a real chance of winning a seat in the Senate. And so the Australian Democrats, One Nation and the Green, who have no hope of winning seats in the Lower House, actually do win Senate seats. So they do have a parliamentary presence and that makes them quite important players. The Australian Senate is a very powerful parliamentary chamber; legislation can't get through the Australian parliament if the Senate doesn't agree. And the Senate also has the power to block budget bills, and this can force governments to elections ahead of their time, can in fact cause quite severe political crises, we had one of those in 1975. So the fact that these minor parties can get senators elected and that they can hold the balance of power is very, very important, so they become important players in the Australian political system."

[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] The minor parties, along with a handful of independents, hold the balance of power in the Senate, and they can and sometimes do block government legislation.

So frustrated was the Government that Prime Minister Howard floated the idea of putting constitutional changes to remove the Senate's ability to block legislation to a referendum at the next federal election due in late 2004.

Not surprisingly minority Senate parties oppose the idea, arguing that the Senate is the one body that can be a counter-balance to the government of the day.

In fact the Senate is often referred to as the House of Review.

In any case, history shows that Australians are reluctant to support system change at referendums, even though the Constitution requires that any changes must be put to the people via a national referendum and must get a majority, in the majority of the States, for changes to go through.

You're listening to Radio Australia's series 'Australia Now', Program 11 The Changing Face of Australian Politics.

(Music: Goodbye Lucky Country by Eric Bogle from the album Scraps of Paper)

Of the 44 referendums held since 1901 only 8 have been successful.

One of the notable successes was the 1967 referendum that gave indigenous Australians the same rights as other citizens.

One of the notable failures was the 1999 Republic Referendum.

Questions about the desirability of Australia becoming a Republic and reconciliation with the indigenous people were high on the national political agenda in the nineteen nineties.

In fact many Australians linked the two issues because in order for Australia to become a republic the Constitution or Founding Charter would have to be re-written and that it's argued would provide an opportunity to formally recognise the presence of indigenous people on the land that Britain colonised in 1788.

Here's Marcia Langton, an Aboriginal anthropologist speaking in 1996…

[b]MARCIA LANGTON:[/b] "There is a real key to reconciliation in the desire of many Australians for a Republic. If Australians have found themselves an identity as a people as opposed to a dependent distant derivative settler state from Britain, and cut their links with the monarchy and the monarchical philosophy, which underwrites Crown Land, then they will have developed a notion of a nation with a set of premises, relevant to the present conditions, not the conditions of 1788 and English history, but to present conditions, then they can find within and develop within that set of precepts of the new nation some principles which acknowledge our right to exist."

[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] Professor Graeme Davison from the School of Historical Studies at Monash University argues that Paul Keating staked his Prime Ministership largely on the joint issues of reconciliation and Australia becoming a republic. But he failed to carry the Australian public with him and the Keating Labor Government lost the 1996 Federal election to John Howard's Liberal-National Party Coalition…

[b]GRAEME DAVISON:[/b] "I think partly what Paul Keating was attempting to do was to give a kind of moral content to Australian nationhood. I think he'd been involved and largely was seen in terms of economic reform, of opening Australia to the rest of the world, of bringing down trade barriers, of deregulating the economy, and that left in the minds of many people a question about what is the national self and how is to be constituted in this borderless kind of world. And I think the answer he was really giving was that it lay first of all in an incorporation of Aboriginality much more into the sense of who the nation were, and secondly, and taking a further step towards severing the link with Britain. As it turned out I think there were reservations in the minds of many Australians, particularly on constitutional issues, and the progress that he expected on those two issues has not taken place nearly as rapidly as I expect he thought it would."

[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] When the Howard Government put a Referendum on a Republic to the people in 1999, it didn't simply ask whether they wanted Australia to become a Republic but whether the Queen's representative in Australia, the Governor-General, should be replaced by an Australian Head of State chosen by the Parliament.

Opinion on the republic was divided - some wanted to maintain the monarchy, some wanted minimal change to the Constitution and yet others wanted to directly elect the Head of State; at issue was whether Australia would continue to be a Westminster parliamentary democracy or move to an American Presidential system.

The 1999 Republic Referendum failed.

But Professor Graeme Davison believes that the issues of a Republic and a formal process for reconciliation with indigenous Australians are never entirely off the political agenda.

[b]GRAEME DAVISON:[/b] "I think in large part they've simply been deferred, so I think the issue for example of whether Australia becomes a Republic is an issue that will more or less inevitably come up. It may well be that the timeframe is going to be a much longer one than many people thought in the late 90s, but it will assuredly come. Whether Aboriginality and how Aboriginality will be incorporated in the national imagination I think is a very interesting question. I think that there's a certain sense in which what Australians look to here I think is to re-establish a different kind of relationship with the land, because the original understanding of Australian nationality, which was built around our idea of the frontier and ideas of exploration and discovery, really assumed that Europeans did it all. And now that we've come to see that some of those relationships are much more problematical and exploitative, then we look to Aborigines to model a different kind of relationship to the land, both environmentally and in a certain sense spiritually. And I think one of the other things that's happened through this period has been the steady decline of organised religion. And so I think in part what Australians look to Aborigines for is some kind of spiritual inspiration, now I regard that as highly problematic, myself."

[b]DAWN CASEY:[/b] "In the interests of both the Republican movement and in the interests of indigenous reconciliation, in the interests of having the fact that Aboriginal people were here for 40 to 70-thousand years recognised as indigenous people of this country in the Constitution, I think it is my firm view that the Republican debate needs to be kept separate."

[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] Dawn Casey, is an Aboriginal Australian who's Director of the National Museum of Australia and who worked on the development of the Reconciliation Council between 1991 and 1992.

[b]DAWN CASEY:[/b] "That needs to be a special focus reconciliation, we need to look at that as a separate issue and win the hearts and minds of people just on that issue and not blur it with the issue of the Republic. I'm in favour of Australia becoming a Republic, but certainly what comes through for me for people was they were very confused about it, very confused about it. Many people who are well considered, well educated people believe that an Australian movement to a republic, if we just agreed on doing that could become like the United States, whether or not that's good or bad. They see us being a democratic society, everyone getting a vote and being able to discuss things without there being wars or civil wars, has been on the basis because we've come out of England. I think what they don't see is that eventually we will become a republic, so you're better off having the debate and discussions over what's the best form for a republic, as opposed to just saying we never want to be a republic."

[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] In next week's program "Australia's Place in The World" - the forces that have shaped Australian foreign policy-making since the Second World War.

[b]SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL:[/b] "Tonight I speak to you all under the shadow of a heavy and far reaching military defeat. Singapore has fallen."

[b]LT GENERAL BENNETT:[/b] "I remember touring the Australian lines late that afternoon, and I realised then the heartbreaking disappointment of our men. We must never forget that but for the United States of America the war would have been long and costly."

[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] Join me Sue Slamen for that program next week. My thanks to Ryan Egan for technical production and The National Centre for Australian Studies at Monash University in Melbourne for academic advice.
[/quote]

**** Hidden Message *****

[color=Red]回复可下载广播[/color]

thanks

thanks

thanks!!!!!

thanks a lot~

up

thanks a lot

ddddddd

回复 #3 城市童话 的帖子

:)

:) :) :) :)

hh

回复 #4 城市童话 的帖子

:)

taiganxie le

thanks

:')

thanks

hui zhi ue

hehe

thanks very much

jding!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

dddd

111111111111

和黑

从事的工作、生活的家园和休闲方式；为您解读他们赖以生存的环境、管理国家的政治体制以及他们是如何待人处事以及在本地区发展睦邻友好关系的。
转载请注明出自澳洲中文网,本贴地址：[url]http://www.ozchinese.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=50404[/url]

了

解

sfd

dfs

tks

tks

UP

:monkey16

投上一票！

good

thank you

ta

ta

ta

ta

very good, thanks

ljjkjljk

ding

回复 #3 城市童话 的帖子

:monkey11

gf