Malcolm Turnbull Cartoon Analysis

This cartoon is depicting Australia’s politics denying Australia citizens the right of same sex marriage, using the iconic TV show, The Voice, to convey the message. The audience is first drawn to Tony Abbott who is shown with overlarge ears and stating that he should not be ‘expect[ed]’ to ‘turn’ around for same sex marriage, which represents him not allowing it. The way he is sitting is also showing his stubbornness on the issue. The audience then see the other “judges” who have all said yes to marriage equality. This represents USA, Ireland and New Zealand who all allow same sex marriage. These countries being used may be to make the audience feel as if Australia is falling behind these countries that we are so similar to.

Kevin Rudd’s speech was eloquent and lengthy (2012). He continued to make promises to the Indigenous Australians saying they, the government, were determined to close the gap, embrace new solutions to old issues and form a partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

When you think of the “land down under” you don’t really think of the kind of government they have. I chose to write about the Australian government because I really don’t hear much about Australia. It currently has a pretty interesting story to tell when it comes to their government. I became a bit interested in Australian politics when I saw a political animated cartoon on the internet that depicted Kevin Rudd, the last Prime Minister, on a news television show and it was quite humorous. I am going to give a quick history lesson on Australia then go into how the government formed and came to be. Then I will talk about the Australian constitution, the Australian arms of government, their federal system, political parties and Australia’s

Parliament of Australia (2012) has claimed that it’s “Establishing a funding scheme that ensures fairness and openness requires a legislative system that promotes an equitable distribution of resources among political parties and candidates and the timely disclosure of political donations and electoral expenditure”.

Select one image and write at least three observations to support each decoding category. Write your observations in complete sentences, using proper spelling, grammar, capitalization, and punctuation.

In the first source, The picture depicts the same boy before and after his enrolment in one of the many residential schools in Canada. Right off the bat, we can see the drastic change in appearance. Although not noticeable The boy’s personality, knowledge and culture have also probably changed. At the time residential schools were made mandatory for kids, with the motivation of assimilating the natives and hopes of “killing the Indian within them.” These schools were constructed because the Indian Act (Act government used to encourage assimilation) made federal government responsible for education. Children were taken away from their families, sometimes by force striping them from their identity forever. Digging deeper we can infer that the cause of residential schools stems back to the cultural contact between the two nations. The clashing social values of the two cultures is what created the foundation of residential schools.

The house of representatives makes and passes federal laws. They are one of two chambers that creates the U.S legislative branch. The house may even be referred to as “the people house” because it’s representative’s are viewed and based upon the population or amount of people in each state. In this political cartoon, there are two sides one side is labeled “the people's house” which is the outside view of the Capitol building, while the other side shows citizens inside the Capitol building scared. The Capitol building holds meeting's and debates with the electives, however, the scared citizens show a negative connotation because they are not providing respect to the building and what's surrounding them. The ironic part of this cartoon is

Where there are problems, they are often with the way the Australian federal system operates, rather than with federalism itself. Rather than criticising our federal system, we should be working to make better use of its advantages
in order to improve our prosperity. In particular, the reform of the allocation of powers and responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the States, and reform of fiscal federalism, are desperately needed. (Twomey and Withers, 2007)

_"The most bitterly fought domestic issue of my whole time as prime minister was waterfront reform in 1998." - John Howard._

Mr Campbell Newman was a popular lord mayor as a member of the Liberal Party, who served the Queensland government for three years from 2012 – 2015 (Lewis, 2015). In the recent 2015 Queensland state election, Newman was heavily punished by the public voters of Queensland as a result of treating the public servants unfairly by cutting jobs in contrast to his promises. He also claimed that there would be no forced redundancies and that he would try to lower the unemployment rate, yet these promises were never met. In support of this, the following essay argues that Campbell Newman didn’t interfere with the free market economy of Queensland, which can be beneficial for consumers in many ways because there is no government intervention. Instead,

Attorney-General George Brandis’ extended self-defence of his role in the Bell group legislation scandal yesterday doesn’t get us particularly far in clarifying questions about the Western Australian government’s attempt to dud taxpayers, and the government’s role in encouraging them. Two major public interest questions remain, along with a serious political question.

In 1930, international trade prices collapsed, triggering a fall in export earnings and increasing overseas debt. The Bank of England insisted the Australian state, territory and federal governments balance their budgets, cut all overseas borrowing and lower all award wages by 10%. The arms in this picture belong to Sir Otto Neimeyer who threatened the Australian PM Jack Lang to bring up the Australian stock market, so that England would not begin to be affected. He objected, much to the England's anger but the deal was later signed when the new Australian PM James Scullin came into power.

The last element, caricature is used to exaggerate a person’s physical features to make them look noticeable and give meaning to the representation. The cartoonist has intentionally caricatured Turnbull and his wife’s height to make them look childlike. The effective use of the caricature has negatively adjusted the way Australian citizens view Malcolm Turnbull. Furthermore, exaggerating their height into little children could also indicate what Turnbull is really like when discussing important political changes in Parliament between parties; he is very apprehensive like a little boy in a pet shop. To the last example, Turnbull’s eyebrows and anxious smile has particularly been caricatured to outline his hesitant behavior. The crowd closely observes Turnbull, which effectively brings out his confidence when under pressure.

Today as first speaker, I will be speaking about how much money becoming a republic would cost and how Australia is fine just the way it is. Our second speaker, will inform you all on the urgency to stay a democracy as it is an Australian tradition. Last but not least, our third speaker, will rebut and sum up our team’s

In return, the Abbott Government will help unlock funding for new public infrastructure projects through reinvestment of the sale proceeding from existing Government-owned assets. The Commonwealth will provide states and territories incentive payments of 15 per cent of the sale price of privatised assets, with the returns to be reinvested into new priority infrastructure projects. This Privatization decision is actually a trick from the Government,