I'm not endorsing, nor turning a blind eye to China's government. I was responding to a comment which was only critising China, while arguing that the US has all of these protections and thus was effectively endorsing the US government (to the point of saying that they prefer US government surveillance). I on the other hand, do not endorse the vast majority of the US government's actions, hence the criticism.

It's a bit silly to require every comment which critises the US to also have to include a disclaimer that "yes, I also think China/Russia/other-enemy-of-the-US is bad".

> They seem to already be comfortable [...] and influencing various levels of your government.

I'm really not sure what you're referring to. If you're talking about the Australian government, I'm not aware of any substantial evidence that the CCP has actually influenced our government. Our government is friendly with China and does many things against the interests of the public as a result, but there is far more evidence of just ordinary domestic corruption.

I will also point out that there is strong evidence that the US (in particular, the CIA) effectively helped facilitate a soft-coup in Australia in 1975 (in response to Menzies' threat to close Pine Gap because the US lied about what it was used for). Oh, and the CIA offered $24m of laundered money to the Opposition for that election in order to help them win -- if only there was a word to describe that...

So if we're going to point-score about foreign influence in the Australian government -- the US literally replaced our prime minister in a (to quote Victor Marchetti, a former CIA officer) "kind of Chile coup". But I'd love it if nobody interfered with other countries' democratically-elected governments.

"Australia started preparing — in 2008?

The United States is not the leader in this process. It’s a kind of follower because the first government that publicly declared that China has to be contained was Australia’s government.

The government of Australia in 2008 had already issued a white paper clearly stating that if we do not contain China, if our allies don’t contain China, then even Australia will become a Chinese colony.

So the Australian government had already taken a clear position. We have a choice: we either contain China or we become a Chinese colony.

Then, in 2011, just immediately after the tsunami and earthquake, [Australian] Prime Minister Gifford came to Tokyo. She made a little trip up to Fukushima when she arrived, just to show she is not afraid, and then she gave a speech in Tokyo, saying very clearly that Australia and the United States, Japan, have to cooperate to hold back China.

At that time, the prime minister was Mr. Kan, and Mr. Ichiro Ozawa was a very influential politician. Ozawa believed in containment.

So, the Australian prime minister comes to Tokyo and tells the Japanese: “Get up. Deal with this issue. Face China.”"[1]

I haven't vetted any of this but FYI.

[1]http://japan-forward.com/asias-next-page-india-japan-must-sh...

Why can the governor general replace a prime minister who has a majority?

Why did the citizens reward and vote in the party who pulled those election tricks.

Why would you blame the US but not bother to change the laws? This can happen again.

> Why can the governor general replace a prime minister who has a majority?

It's one of their constitutional rights. Their purpose is to act as a surrogate for the Head of State (currently Queen Elizabeth II) and the role was designed to mirror the process of the UK's Head of State -- the Queen picks her ministers and in theory doesn't need to choose the leader of the party with the largest number of seats.

Do I think it's a system that should be changed? Yes, but this is complicated by the need for a mechanism for double-dissolution (which cannot be automatic because it could then just be gamed to re-trigger elections).

> Why did the citizens reward and vote in the party who pulled those election tricks.

As is usual, propaganda. The laundered $24m wouldn't have been used to buy toilet paper.

> Why would you blame the US but not bother to change the laws? This can happen again.

Given that the US triggered and orchestrated the constitutional crisis in order to further their own foreign policy (which was confirmed by President Jimmy Carter to have been the case when he vowed that the US wouldn't do it again), I think it's entirely fair to blame the US.

In order to change the role of Governor-General you'd need a constitutional amendment. To say that it's effectively impossible to get a constitutional amendment passed in Australia is an understatement (only 8 amendments have been passed, out of 44 attempts in the past ~120 years -- and most of those were passed soon after Federation). One of those failed amendments was to switch Australia to a republic model which would've replaced the Head of State and Governor-General with a President -- but the overall set of rights given to the President would've been the same.

It should also be noted the inclusion of double-dissolution in our Constitution was somewhat controversial at the conventions during drafting, but was eventually agreed to be vital if the Senate was to have the powers it currently has. So we would need some mechanism to avoid deadlocks, and the lack of obvious alternative solutions to this problem results in most proposals just keeping the existing system but changing how the Head of State and Governor-General are elected.