Nick Xenophon blocks government's $4 billion childcare and welfare omnibus bill

Sydney Morning Herald
February 14, 2017

Nick Xenophon's Senate bloc will oppose the government's childcare and welfare omnibus savings bill, jeopardising the Coalition's attempt to jam through $4 billion worth of savings and reform measures.   :)

Without Senator Xenophon's three votes, the package will require the unlikely backing of Labor or the Greens to pass the Senate. On Monday, the government attempted to pressure senators to support it by tying the savings to funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

The omnibus legislation contains cuts to family tax benefits, paid parental leave and unemployment payments as well as increased and streamlined childcare subsidies. $3 billion would in savings would be directed to a fund for the NDIS.

The South Australian powerbroker branded the plan "robbing Peter to pay Paul", coming as the Greens and other crossbenchers labelled the plan as akin to blackmail.

"As a negotiating tactic, this is as subtle as a sledgehammer. Pitting battling Australians against Australians needing disability support services is dumb policy and even dumber politics," Senator Xenophon said in a statement.

"The trade off is simply too harsh," he told ABC radio, arguing that other savings should be found that wouldn't disadvantage families.

"We'll keep talking but we can't accept the package in its current form."

He also said he'd rather see a small increase in the Medicare Levy or the Medicare Levy Surcharge than cuts to welfare to pay for the NDIS.

Social Services Minister Christian Porter said he would have further discussions with Senator Xenophon on Tuesday to try and secure a way forward for the bill.

"I think the fundamental difficulty is the one that Nick has raised, which is that he does not consider it's a mechanism that he can support to find savings inside the family tax benefit system to pay for childcare," he told ABC radio.

"We've been very clear on that from the beginning. We want to keep working to make sure than people benefit from the childcare reforms, which again, as Nick noted, seem to be widely lauded."

Mr Porter said the government would continue to find funding for about $1.6 billion for childcare and defended linking the savings measures to the NDIS funding.

"I don't think it is, in any sense, wrong or a bad idea to - when you do identify savings - place them into an account and absolutely quarantine them for the NDIS," he said.

Labor MPs will finalise their position on the bill today but have been scathing about the cuts contained in it and the strategy of linking it to disability funding.

"This is a disgraceful political game of brinkmanship," said Labor's social services spokeswoman, Jenny Macklin.

The government has accused Labor of leaving a funding "black hole" for the NDIS in 2013.

"We inherited an empty promise from the previous government when it came to the NDIS. It wasn't fully funded. We have been working from day one to ensure that we fill that vacuum that was created by the previous government," Treasurer Scott Morrison said on Monday.

Greens finance spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young said the omnibus bill was "pure blackmail" from the government.

"Trying to pit one family against another, trying to say the care of a young child needs to be pitted against the care of people with disabilities... it is disgusting to see a government that is meant to be looking after people pitting communities against each other like this," she said.   :(

"The Greens won't be standing for it and I know there are other people in the Senate who are increasingly concerned."

Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm said the government was book ended by the Xenophon bloc and conservatives including Cory Bernardi.

"The omnibus savings bill basically involves the continuation of a very large amount of middle class welfare, additional money for childcare and additional money for family tax benefits.

"The bottom line is this: if it doesn't save the taxpayers money, I'm not going to vote for it anyway. So Nick can talk about it all he likes, giving away more money and raising taxes... if it doesn't save money for taxpayers, if it doesn't go into reducing the budget deficit, I'm not going to vote for it and I suspect Cory [Bernardi] will do the same."

The Australian Council of Social Service also strongly rejected the linking of social security cuts to disability funding, saying that both areas needed to be funded properly.   ;)

"It is particularly egregious to be linking cuts to income support to the funding of the NDIS when the government legislated $4 billion over four years in personal income tax cuts last year for people earning $80,000 and over and is trying to push through a further $50 billion in company tax cuts," ACOSS chief executive Cassandra Goldie said.   :(

Well done nick [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]

bravo

This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation.

Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it.

Auggie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 7:04pm:

This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it.

54 46 the people have spoken

Its time wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 7:05pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. 54 46 the people have spoken

That's one way of looking at it. It could also be that Nick Xenophon has blocked it for partisan reasons, which is most likely the case. Majority vote really goes out the window when we have organized political parties.

Auggie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 7:04pm:

This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it.

a handful of people can shutdown government legislation


Yes it takes a tiny small insignificant 51% to vote against it ?

Bad legislation is bad legislation and the house of review is there to moderate poor legislation.

It is more of a concern that buying one or two votes can result it terrible legislation being passed.

Auggie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 7:04pm:

Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it.

in the meantime it affects real lives.

https://youtu.be/3GwjfUFyY6M

Just need dumb nation to support it to consolidate she is a poor mans libtard party

Auggie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 7:04pm:

This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it.

That really distills down to an absurd position.  You want to give them four years freedom to legislate carte blanch at will, and potentially totally stuff the place....on the fall back position that after the damage is done, they can be booted.

Nah.

Aussie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 8:25pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. That really distills down to an absurd position.  You want to give them four years freedom to legislate carte blanch at will, and potentially totally stuff the place....on the fall back position that after the damage is done, they can be booted. Nah.

The government in NZ, UK and other Westminster countries have absolute power to legislate on any matter. It is known as parliamentary sovereignty. The idea is based on the concept of 'responsible government.' The institution of the Westminster system is designed to protect against any 'bad legislation'. The UK House of Commons has had for 115 years the power to legislate on any matter without recourse; the House of Lords has not, since 1911, had the power to veto legislation. How do explain Britain's continual and consistent good governance, despite having no restraint on its power, nor any other branch of the Parliament that can stop legislation? Is it that British governments are simply more competent than Australian Governments? New Zealand has had one House since 1956, and has not, until recently, had any restraints on its power, but yet NZ has managed to produce good policy. How do you explain this situation?

In fact, if you look at the States in Australia, particularly Queensland, they have no restrictions to confiscate land without compensation, or to criminalize reading Charles Dickens (as an example). The High Court has no power to strike down laws based on the 'substance' of a law, which is an American practice. It is fair to say that the modern media, and our strong civil service also serve as checks on government power.

The Westminster system lends itself naturally to the concept of 'good government.' This notion that 'the Government can screw things up' doesn't take into consideration our competent civil service, and the fact that the party leadership has sway, to a certain extent, over the party in power.

The Senate was designed to appease the smaller States at Federation, otherwise we wouldn't have had a country. Obviously, the Framers were inspired by the American system in the design of the Senate. However, given the rise of organized political parties, the Senate no longer acts as a 'States House.' It has in fact transformed into a House where minority parties are more present due to the voting system, but of course you already know this. Therefore, it is also valid to state that a minority party that holds the balance of power can stifle the will of the popular 'House'; it can be agreed that the House of Reps is 'closer' to the people than the Senate, given the nature of its composition - i.e. single-member electorates.

What has any of that got to do with what I posted?

Aussie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 8:53pm:

What has any of that got to do with what I posted?

My argument that 'let the Government pass the legislation' (albeit with some review from the Senate, as we've talked about before) is based on my preference toward the 'Westminster' system of government and not the 'Washminster' system, which we have adopted in Australia.

As I have stated before, I would like to see a Senate that has reduced powers that cannot override the will of the Government, as we see in UK and other Westminster systems. I believe (as many people don't) that this increases accountability, because you know 'where the buck stops'. I am not personally convinced that the Australian Government is going to run this country into ruin, even if they had no restraint on their power, simply because of the strength of our institutions and our civil service.

I was simply explaining that 'letting the government' pass the legislation 'and letting them answer to the people directly' is what is ultimately the fundamental aspect of the 'Westminster' system (but not the Washminster).

I know that not everyone agrees with me; but that is why I said 'let them pass the legislation and answer to the public' because that is how it's done in UK, NZ et al. Why murk accountability; let Turnbull answer for his 'bad legislation' and go down in Australian history as an incompetent PM. In the meantime, this country is going to be all right.

Nah, this is what you posted:


Quote:

Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it.

Aussie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 9:04pm:

Nah, this is what you posted: Quote: Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it.

I think I have clearly explained my 'talking point'.

I know that you and I don't agree on this issue, and I know that many Australians don't. So, let's agree to disagree.

Auggie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 7:04pm:

This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it.

No. It requires > 50% of the senate to shut down legislation.

Bigger child care subsidies is just about the last thing we need.

Auggie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 9:07pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:04pm: Nah, this is what you posted: Quote: Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. I think I have clearly explained my 'talking point'. I know that you and I don't agree on this issue, and I know that many Australians don't. So, let's agree to disagree.

Nobody has agreed with you so far  :D

crocodile wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 9:09pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. No. It requires > 50% of the senate to shut down legislation. Bigger child care subsidies is just about the last thing we need.

I'm not saying that I agree with the legislation. I wouldn't pass it if I were in Government, but that was what the Liberals have done and they should be able to answer for it.

Wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility that the Libs passed this legislation KNOWING that it would be rejected by the Senate, in order to use it for political gain? If there was no Senate 'to blame', would they have passed the legislation in the first place if they knew that doing so would cost them the election?

Its time wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 9:09pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:07pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:04pm: Nah, this is what you posted: Quote: Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. I think I have clearly explained my 'talking point'. I know that you and I don't agree on this issue, and I know that many Australians don't. So, let's agree to disagree. Nobody has agreed with you so far  :D

I don't formulate my opinions based on whether or not people agree with me.

Auggie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 9:12pm:

Its time wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:07pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:04pm: Nah, this is what you posted: Quote: Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. I think I have clearly explained my 'talking point'. I know that you and I don't agree on this issue, and I know that many Australians don't. So, let's agree to disagree. Nobody has agreed with you so far  :D I don't formulate my opinions based on whether or not people agree with me.

Yes i can imagine saying smash the lower socio economic was going to go any other way

Its time wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 9:22pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:12pm: Its time wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:07pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:04pm: Nah, this is what you posted: Quote: Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. I think I have clearly explained my 'talking point'. I know that you and I don't agree on this issue, and I know that many Australians don't. So, let's agree to disagree. Nobody has agreed with you so far  :D I don't formulate my opinions based on whether or not people agree with me. Yes i can imagine saying smash the lower socio economic was going to go any other way

Call me stupid, but I don't understand what you've just written.

Auggie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 9:26pm:

Its time wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:22pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:12pm: Its time wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:07pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:04pm: Nah, this is what you posted: Quote: Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. I think I have clearly explained my 'talking point'. I know that you and I don't agree on this issue, and I know that many Australians don't. So, let's agree to disagree. Nobody has agreed with you so far  :D I don't formulate my opinions based on whether or not people agree with me. Yes i can imagine saying smash the lower socio economic was going to go any other way Call me stupid, but I don't understand what you've just written.

It's good that you're consistent , principled , time will tell

Auggie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 9:12pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. No. It requires > 50% of the senate to shut down legislation. Bigger child care subsidies is just about the last thing we need. I'm not saying that I agree with the legislation. I wouldn't pass it if I were in Government, but that was what the Liberals have done and they should be able to answer for it. Wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility that the Libs passed this legislation KNOWING that it would be rejected by the Senate, in order to use it for political gain? If there was no Senate 'to blame', would they have passed the legislation in the first place if they knew that doing so would cost them the election?

It's disgraceful policy. It needs to be rubbed out before it makes the starting block.

Its time wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 9:36pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:26pm: Its time wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:22pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:12pm: Its time wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:07pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:04pm: Nah, this is what you posted: Quote: Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. I think I have clearly explained my 'talking point'. I know that you and I don't agree on this issue, and I know that many Australians don't. So, let's agree to disagree. Nobody has agreed with you so far  :D I don't formulate my opinions based on whether or not people agree with me. Yes i can imagine saying smash the lower socio economic was going to go any other way Call me stupid, but I don't understand what you've just written. It's good that you're consistent , principled , time will tell

Well, I'll take that as a compliment.

If you were inferring that I am 'against the poor' and that's why I support the Libs policy, I would've made the same argument for the Labor party being in power or for any Government being in power. In fact, I don't support the Liberals.

crocodile wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 9:38pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:12pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. No. It requires > 50% of the senate to shut down legislation. Bigger child care subsidies is just about the last thing we need. I'm not saying that I agree with the legislation. I wouldn't pass it if I were in Government, but that was what the Liberals have done and they should be able to answer for it. Wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility that the Libs passed this legislation KNOWING that it would be rejected by the Senate, in order to use it for political gain? If there was no Senate 'to blame', would they have passed the legislation in the first place if they knew that doing so would cost them the election? It's disgraceful policy. It needs to be rubbed out before it makes the starting block.

Sure, it's a disgraceful policy, so why would you deny the fantastic opportunity for Turnbull to be disgraced for the rest of his life?

Auggie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 7:04pm:

This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it.

Is that an order?

:o

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 9:50pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. Is that an order? :o

Call me stupid, but I don't understand what you've just written.

Auggie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 9:44pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:38pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:12pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. No. It requires > 50% of the senate to shut down legislation. Bigger child care subsidies is just about the last thing we need. I'm not saying that I agree with the legislation. I wouldn't pass it if I were in Government, but that was what the Liberals have done and they should be able to answer for it. Wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility that the Libs passed this legislation KNOWING that it would be rejected by the Senate, in order to use it for political gain? If there was no Senate 'to blame', would they have passed the legislation in the first place if they knew that doing so would cost them the election? It's disgraceful policy. It needs to be rubbed out before it makes the starting block. Sure, it's a disgraceful policy, so why would you deny the fantastic opportunity for Turnbull to be disgraced for the rest of his life?

They should give you the button! What harm could it do?

Auggie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 9:52pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:50pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. Is that an order? :o Call me stupid, but I don't understand what you've just written.

It means you're a fascist: like my mum but with a bigger c((((  ;)

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 9:53pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:52pm: TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:50pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. Is that an order? :o Call me stupid, but I don't understand what you've just written. It means you're a fascist: like my mum but with a bigger c((((  ;)

By that logic, the UK, Ireland, NZ are fascist too.

Auggie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 9:44pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:38pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:12pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. No. It requires > 50% of the senate to shut down legislation. Bigger child care subsidies is just about the last thing we need. I'm not saying that I agree with the legislation. I wouldn't pass it if I were in Government, but that was what the Liberals have done and they should be able to answer for it. Wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility that the Libs passed this legislation KNOWING that it would be rejected by the Senate, in order to use it for political gain? If there was no Senate 'to blame', would they have passed the legislation in the first place if they knew that doing so would cost them the election? It's disgraceful policy. It needs to be rubbed out before it makes the starting block. Sure, it's a disgraceful policy, so why would you deny the fantastic opportunity for Turnbull to be disgraced for the rest of his life?

Have you thought that one through. There is a choice. Stop the nonsense now or let it go with all the ensuing pitfalls just so that I can have a giggle later on. No thanks.

Auggie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 8:49pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 8:25pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. That really distills down to an absurd position.  You want to give them four years freedom to legislate carte blanch at will, and potentially totally stuff the place....on the fall back position that after the damage is done, they can be booted. Nah. The government in NZ, UK and other Westminster countries have absolute power to legislate on any matter. It is known as parliamentary sovereignty. The idea is based on the concept of 'responsible government.' The institution of the Westminster system is designed to protect against any 'bad legislation'. The UK House of Commons has had for 115 years the power to legislate on any matter without recourse; the House of Lords has not, since 1911, had the power to veto legislation. How do explain Britain's continual and consistent good governance, despite having no restraint on its power, nor any other branch of the Parliament that can stop legislation? Is it that British governments are simply more competent than Australian Governments? New Zealand has had one House since 1956, and has not, until recently, had any restraints on its power, but yet NZ has managed to produce good policy. How do you explain this situation? In fact, if you look at the States in Australia, particularly Queensland, they have no restrictions to confiscate land without compensation, or to criminalize reading Charles Dickens (as an example). The High Court has no power to strike down laws based on the 'substance' of a law, which is an American practice. It is fair to say that the modern media, and our strong civil service also serve as checks on government power. The Westminster system lends itself naturally to the concept of 'good government.' This notion that 'the Government can screw things up' doesn't take into consideration our competent civil service, and the fact that the party leadership has sway, to a certain extent, over the party in power. The Senate was designed to appease the smaller States at Federation, otherwise we wouldn't have had a country. Obviously, the Framers were inspired by the American system in the design of the Senate. However, given the rise of organized political parties, the Senate no longer acts as a 'States House.' It has in fact transformed into a House where minority parties are more present due to the voting system, but of course you already know this. Therefore, it is also valid to state that a minority party that holds the balance of power can stifle the will of the popular 'House'; it can be agreed that the House of Reps is 'closer' to the people than the Senate, given the nature of its composition - i.e. single-member electorates.

And that's precisely where it falls down in Oz.... there was no appeasing the States - they could have simply said 'NO' to Federation and been invaded, like in the United States (well Glory, Glory.... Ah wish Ah wuz in Dixie!)..

Anyone who has been watching the 'popular' house lately will see exactly why both the major parties are in such bad odour with the voting public.

Thank God for the Senate..... We The People PUT them there to keep a close eye on rabicd legislations...

Now what idiot would consider it sound policy to chop again at unemployment benefits while offering bigger childcare subsidies?  All such a policy will do is make it harder for the unemployed to get a job and get off benefits, so where is the real benefit there?  Supporting dual income families by thrusting others on the street is not a 'policy' in any way.. it is pure despotism ... and the crime rate will rise etc, along with demand on health services.  Jeez - we could even have unemployed Muslims running around with guns and selling drugs.....

Look after your own kids, work when you can and let others get a shot.. the end result will be a forced lowering of house prices and more economic activity overall, and a more positive society in which people have some hope of prospering.

Lot of people got a lot of knives and forks on their table... but they ain't got much to eat.. man - they gotta cut something.... Bob Dylan.....

crocodile wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 11:02pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:44pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:38pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:12pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. No. It requires > 50% of the senate to shut down legislation. Bigger child care subsidies is just about the last thing we need. I'm not saying that I agree with the legislation. I wouldn't pass it if I were in Government, but that was what the Liberals have done and they should be able to answer for it. Wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility that the Libs passed this legislation KNOWING that it would be rejected by the Senate, in order to use it for political gain? If there was no Senate 'to blame', would they have passed the legislation in the first place if they knew that doing so would cost them the election? It's disgraceful policy. It needs to be rubbed out before it makes the starting block. Sure, it's a disgraceful policy, so why would you deny the fantastic opportunity for Turnbull to be disgraced for the rest of his life? Have you thought that one through. There is a choice. Stop the nonsense now or let it go with all the ensuing pitfalls just so that I can have a giggle later on. No thanks.

You tell me physically how a Government, any Government in Australia can turn this country into a Zimbabwe, because that's the extent of the fear that people on this topic seem to be? That if we strip the powers of the Senate to veto Bills, we'll be opening the door up on tyranny.

I asked Aussie the same question, and I'll ask you: the UK Parliament has complete authority to pass any law it wishes without restraint or recourse, and it has existed this way for 115 years since the House of Lords lost their power to veto Bills due to the Parliament Act 1911. How is it that the UK has never fallen into tyranny despite such unrestrained power (and two world wars)? Do they have more angels over there than we do? Are they simply better than us?

NZ is another example: they have a unicameral House with absolute authority to pass any law. The States in Australia have the power to pass laws to allow the police to walk into your house and confiscate your land without compensation. Queensland, which has had a single House since the 1920's has had the absolute power to do anything it wanted, and not once did it confiscate land without compensation, or criminalize a person for reading Charles Dickens.

The Commonwealth has no power to throw anyone in jail for reading Charles Dickens, and you're concerned that the Canberra could 'turn Australia in Zimbabwe? How on earth is that even possible?

The most IMPORTANT thing in politics is accountability. ACCOUNTABILITY. The current Washminster system blurs accountability by perpetuating this blame game between the House and the Senate. Yes, the Senate should have power to review legislation, and make recommendations, but it shouldn't undermine the popular will of the House of Reps. The Senate was a rotten compromise between the small States and the larger States, and was based on the American Senate, which was also a compromise. Other subsequent Westminster systems didn't adopt an American Senate because they knew it was contrary to the institution of the Westminster system: India didn't adopt it, neither did Malaysia; nor did Ireland.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 11:13pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 8:49pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 8:25pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. That really distills down to an absurd position.  You want to give them four years freedom to legislate carte blanch at will, and potentially totally stuff the place....on the fall back position that after the damage is done, they can be booted. Nah. The government in NZ, UK and other Westminster countries have absolute power to legislate on any matter. It is known as parliamentary sovereignty. The idea is based on the concept of 'responsible government.' The institution of the Westminster system is designed to protect against any 'bad legislation'. The UK House of Commons has had for 115 years the power to legislate on any matter without recourse; the House of Lords has not, since 1911, had the power to veto legislation. How do explain Britain's continual and consistent good governance, despite having no restraint on its power, nor any other branch of the Parliament that can stop legislation? Is it that British governments are simply more competent than Australian Governments? New Zealand has had one House since 1956, and has not, until recently, had any restraints on its power, but yet NZ has managed to produce good policy. How do you explain this situation? In fact, if you look at the States in Australia, particularly Queensland, they have no restrictions to confiscate land without compensation, or to criminalize reading Charles Dickens (as an example). The High Court has no power to strike down laws based on the 'substance' of a law, which is an American practice. It is fair to say that the modern media, and our strong civil service also serve as checks on government power. The Westminster system lends itself naturally to the concept of 'good government.' This notion that 'the Government can screw things up' doesn't take into consideration our competent civil service, and the fact that the party leadership has sway, to a certain extent, over the party in power. The Senate was designed to appease the smaller States at Federation, otherwise we wouldn't have had a country. Obviously, the Framers were inspired by the American system in the design of the Senate. However, given the rise of organized political parties, the Senate no longer acts as a 'States House.' It has in fact transformed into a House where minority parties are more present due to the voting system, but of course you already know this. Therefore, it is also valid to state that a minority party that holds the balance of power can stifle the will of the popular 'House'; it can be agreed that the House of Reps is 'closer' to the people than the Senate, given the nature of its composition - i.e. single-member electorates. And that's precisely where it falls down in Oz.... there was no appeasing the States - they could have simply said 'NO' to Federation and been invaded, like in the United States (well Glory, Glory.... Ah wish Ah wuz in Dixie!).. Anyone who has been watching the 'popular' house lately will see exactly why both the major parties are in such bad odour with the voting public. Thank God for the Senate..... We The People PUT them there to keep a close eye on rabicd legislations... Now what idiot would consider it sound policy to chop again at unemployment benefits while offering bigger childcare subsidies?  All such a policy will do is make it harder for the unemployed to get a job and get off benefits, so where is the real benefit there?  Supporting dual income families by thrusting others on the street is not a 'policy' in any way.. it is pure despotism ... and the crime rate will rise etc, along with demand on health services.  Jeez - we could even have unemployed Muslims running around with guns and selling drugs..... Look after your own kids, work when you can and let others get a shot.. the end result will be a forced lowering of house prices and more economic activity overall, and a more positive society in which people have some hope of prospering. Lot of people got a lot of knives and forks on their table... but they ain't got much to eat.. man - they gotta cut something.... Bob Dylan.....

I don't what you're talking about when you say 'they would've been invaded. Invaded by whom? By Britain?

Second, I may not agree with the policy, but let the Government do its job. I'd be making the same argument for any party in power. I trust that no Government will arrest me for reading Ernest Hemmingway.

Third, how bad can any policy get? You mean to insult our institutions by implying that we would descend into a Zimbabwe? It is almost impossible to do so. The foundations on which this country was founded are so strong that we don't need a second House with the power to veto in order to save it. By the way everyone's acting, we'd think the Senate was our saviour.

Auggie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 11:27pm:

I don't what you're talking about when you say 'they would've been invaded. Invaded by whom? By Britain? Second, I may not agree with the policy, but let the Government do its job. I'd be making the same argument for any party in power. I trust that no Government will arrest me for reading Ernest Hemmingway. Third, how bad can any policy get? You mean to insult our institutions by implying that we would descend into a Zimbabwe? It is almost impossible to do so. The foundations on which this country was founded are so strong that we don't need a second House with the power to veto in order to save it. By the way everyone's acting, we'd think the Senate was our saviour.

The Federation would have enforced joining.

The elected government (it is separate from the public service) IS doing its job - through legislation being passed through the House of Representatives and then reviewed by the Senate........ what is this argument that the elected House should be able to govern entirely without oversight?  Sounds like LNP propaganda to me and sour grapes and trying to blame someone else for bad policy year after year.

New Zealand is a different type of country - it's small and filled with very independent-minded individuals - any government that sought to rip its people off would be lynched.  Australia is a large area country, the people are out of touch with one another,  and we have a history of being subservient (well, most do) and kissing the assets of City Hall which is precisely why this nation is in the bind it is right now  .. that's why they're called The Sheeple.

Why don't you just come out and say 'the elected house should be allowed to govern!" as if that were the end of it all.  They ARE governing by our system - but the Senate does not agree with their often stupid policy ideas.

It doesn't have to be Zimbabwean bad to make it bad - we don't live in Zimbabwe and I never made reference to the joint.  You are running a very thin wire there, son, and are making a totally false comparison with the real issues I've already mentioned.

I suspect you more and more of being just another right wing plant and a lackey of the neo NAZIs who want total control to abuse at whim.

Auggie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 11:22pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:02pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:44pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:38pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:12pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. No. It requires > 50% of the senate to shut down legislation. Bigger child care subsidies is just about the last thing we need. I'm not saying that I agree with the legislation. I wouldn't pass it if I were in Government, but that was what the Liberals have done and they should be able to answer for it. Wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility that the Libs passed this legislation KNOWING that it would be rejected by the Senate, in order to use it for political gain? If there was no Senate 'to blame', would they have passed the legislation in the first place if they knew that doing so would cost them the election? It's disgraceful policy. It needs to be rubbed out before it makes the starting block. Sure, it's a disgraceful policy, so why would you deny the fantastic opportunity for Turnbull to be disgraced for the rest of his life? Have you thought that one through. There is a choice. Stop the nonsense now or let it go with all the ensuing pitfalls just so that I can have a giggle later on. No thanks. You tell me physically how a Government, any Government in Australia can turn this country into a Zimbabwe, because that's the extent of the fear that people on this topic seem to be? That if we strip the powers of the Senate to veto Bills, we'll be opening the door up on tyranny. I asked Aussie the same question, and I'll ask you: the UK Parliament has complete authority to pass any law it wishes without restraint or recourse, and it has existed this way for 115 years since the House of Lords lost their power to veto Bills due to the Parliament Act 1911. How is it that the UK has never fallen into tyranny despite such unrestrained power (and two world wars)? Do they have more angels over there than we do? Are they simply better than us? NZ is another example: they have a unicameral House with absolute authority to pass any law. The States in Australia have the power to pass laws to allow the police to walk into your house and confiscate your land without compensation. Queensland, which has had a single House since the 1920's has had the absolute power to do anything it wanted, and not once did it confiscate land without compensation, or criminalize a person for reading Charles Dickens. The Commonwealth has no power to throw anyone in jail for reading Charles Dickens, and you're concerned that the Canberra could 'turn Australia in Zimbabwe? How on earth is that even possible? The most IMPORTANT thing in politics is accountability. ACCOUNTABILITY. The current Washminster system blurs accountability by perpetuating this blame game between the House and the Senate. Yes, the Senate should have power to review legislation, and make recommendations, but it shouldn't undermine the popular will of the House of Reps. The Senate was a rotten compromise between the small States and the larger States, and was based on the American Senate, which was also a compromise. Other subsequent Westminster systems didn't adopt an American Senate because they knew it was contrary to the institution of the Westminster system: India didn't adopt it, neither did Malaysia; nor did Ireland.

I don't believe I've mentioned Zimbabwe even once.

We don't want the senate to become an automatic rubber stamp.  For the coalition, or labor.   :(

Never mind that the billions of dollars in savings that Labor advocated pre-election are now being blocked by the same ALP for no reason other than spite.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 8:04am:

Never mind that the billions of dollars in savings that Labor advocated pre-election are now being blocked by the same ALP for no reason other than spite.

they can save billions more with changes to NG, health rebates and superannuation concessions .... but the libs can't have that, they  don't attack the poor :D :D :D

Auggie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 11:22pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:02pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:44pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:38pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:12pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. No. It requires > 50% of the senate to shut down legislation. Bigger child care subsidies is just about the last thing we need. I'm not saying that I agree with the legislation. I wouldn't pass it if I were in Government, but that was what the Liberals have done and they should be able to answer for it. Wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility that the Libs passed this legislation KNOWING that it would be rejected by the Senate, in order to use it for political gain? If there was no Senate 'to blame', would they have passed the legislation in the first place if they knew that doing so would cost them the election? It's disgraceful policy. It needs to be rubbed out before it makes the starting block. Sure, it's a disgraceful policy, so why would you deny the fantastic opportunity for Turnbull to be disgraced for the rest of his life? Have you thought that one through. There is a choice. Stop the nonsense now or let it go with all the ensuing pitfalls just so that I can have a giggle later on. No thanks. You tell me physically how a Government, any Government in Australia can turn this country into a Zimbabwe, because that's the extent of the fear that people on this topic seem to be? That if we strip the powers of the Senate to veto Bills, we'll be opening the door up on tyranny. I asked Aussie the same question, and I'll ask you: the UK Parliament has complete authority to pass any law it wishes without restraint or recourse, and it has existed this way for 115 years since the House of Lords lost their power to veto Bills due to the Parliament Act 1911. How is it that the UK has never fallen into tyranny despite such unrestrained power (and two world wars)? Do they have more angels over there than we do? Are they simply better than us? NZ is another example: they have a unicameral House with absolute authority to pass any law. The States in Australia have the power to pass laws to allow the police to walk into your house and confiscate your land without compensation. Queensland, which has had a single House since the 1920's has had the absolute power to do anything it wanted, and not once did it confiscate land without compensation, or criminalize a person for reading Charles Dickens. The Commonwealth has no power to throw anyone in jail for reading Charles Dickens, and you're concerned that the Canberra could 'turn Australia in Zimbabwe? How on earth is that even possible? The most IMPORTANT thing in politics is accountability. ACCOUNTABILITY. The current Washminster system blurs accountability by perpetuating this blame game between the House and the Senate. Yes, the Senate should have power to review legislation, and make recommendations, but it shouldn't undermine the popular will of the House of Reps. The Senate was a rotten compromise between the small States and the larger States, and was based on the American Senate, which was also a compromise. Other subsequent Westminster systems didn't adopt an American Senate because they knew it was contrary to the institution of the Westminster system: India didn't adopt it, neither did Malaysia; nor did Ireland.

There most certainly exist forms of restraint and recourse. The House may introduce legislation but there is one last step. Did you forget about Royal Assent. A perfunctory exercise today but only due to sensible legislation. Try it on with something nasty and we'll see.

John Smith wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 8:08am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:04am: Never mind that the billions of dollars in savings that Labor advocated pre-election are now being blocked by the same ALP for no reason other than spite. they can save billions more with changes to NG, health rebates and superannuation concessions .... but the libs can't have that, they  don't attack the poor :D :D :D

They aren't poor. The people getting benefits aren't entitled to them and don't need them. I know some families on nearly $200k who have cleverly set up their finances in a way that allows them to pocket significant sums for childcare rebates and so on. Stop portraying these people as victims. It's us taxpayers (not you) who are the victims.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 8:04am:

Never mind that the billions of dollars in savings that Labor advocated pre-election are now being blocked by the same ALP for no reason other than spite.

Armie, we don't need further child care subsidies. Once implemented they are difficult to remove. The current subsidies are very expensive and should never have been introduced. Howard needs his arse kicked for their introduction and Rudd castrated for increasing them. The senate is at least showing some good sense.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 11:54pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:27pm: I don't what you're talking about when you say 'they would've been invaded. Invaded by whom? By Britain? Second, I may not agree with the policy, but let the Government do its job. I'd be making the same argument for any party in power. I trust that no Government will arrest me for reading Ernest Hemmingway. Third, how bad can any policy get? You mean to insult our institutions by implying that we would descend into a Zimbabwe? It is almost impossible to do so. The foundations on which this country was founded are so strong that we don't need a second House with the power to veto in order to save it. By the way everyone's acting, we'd think the Senate was our saviour. The Federation would have enforced joining. The elected government (it is separate from the public service) IS doing its job - through legislation being passed through the House of Representatives and then reviewed by the Senate........ what is this argument that the elected House should be able to govern entirely without oversight?  Sounds like LNP propaganda to me and sour grapes and trying to blame someone else for bad policy year after year. New Zealand is a different type of country - it's small and filled with very independent-minded individuals - any government that sought to rip its people off would be lynched.  Australia is a large area country, the people are out of touch with one another,  and we have a history of being subservient (well, most do) and kissing the assets of City Hall which is precisely why this nation is in the bind it is right now  .. that's why they're called The Sheeple. Why don't you just come out and say 'the elected house should be allowed to govern!" as if that were the end of it all.  They ARE governing by our system - but the Senate does not agree with their often stupid policy ideas. It doesn't have to be Zimbabwean bad to make it bad - we don't live in Zimbabwe and I never made reference to the joint.  You are running a very thin wire there, son, and are making a totally false comparison with the real issues I've already mentioned. I suspect you more and more of being just another right wing plant and a lackey of the neo NAZIs who want total control to abuse at whim.

I don't want the senate abolished. It should be there. I want a Senate that should be able to propose and suggest amendments. It would only be able to delay bills for one year, or even two, like in House of Lords. One year is a lot of time in politics and public opinion can change during that time. I think a one year delay is sufficient scrutiny.

Second, I'm definitely not fascist. If you read my other posts on a variety of issues i am and considered myself to be a liberal.

My point about Zimbabwe is that people refute my argument by implying that without an equally powerful senate, Australia would descend into chaos. I actually believe we would believe have better government in the long term under a pure Westminster system.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 8:12am:

The people getting benefits aren't entitled to them and don't need them.

if they're getting them, they're entitled to them you idiot

John Smith wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 8:15am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:12am: The people getting benefits aren't entitled to them and don't need them. if they're getting them, they're entitled to them you idiot

Yes, because no one ever lies to a doctor or to Centrelink staff, do they?

crocodile wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 6:36am:

Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:22pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:02pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:44pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:38pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:12pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. No. It requires > 50% of the senate to shut down legislation. Bigger child care subsidies is just about the last thing we need. I'm not saying that I agree with the legislation. I wouldn't pass it if I were in Government, but that was what the Liberals have done and they should be able to answer for it. Wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility that the Libs passed this legislation KNOWING that it would be rejected by the Senate, in order to use it for political gain? If there was no Senate 'to blame', would they have passed the legislation in the first place if they knew that doing so would cost them the election? It's disgraceful policy. It needs to be rubbed out before it makes the starting block. Sure, it's a disgraceful policy, so why would you deny the fantastic opportunity for Turnbull to be disgraced for the rest of his life? Have you thought that one through. There is a choice. Stop the nonsense now or let it go with all the ensuing pitfalls just so that I can have a giggle later on. No thanks. You tell me physically how a Government, any Government in Australia can turn this country into a Zimbabwe, because that's the extent of the fear that people on this topic seem to be? That if we strip the powers of the Senate to veto Bills, we'll be opening the door up on tyranny. I asked Aussie the same question, and I'll ask you: the UK Parliament has complete authority to pass any law it wishes without restraint or recourse, and it has existed this way for 115 years since the House of Lords lost their power to veto Bills due to the Parliament Act 1911. How is it that the UK has never fallen into tyranny despite such unrestrained power (and two world wars)? Do they have more angels over there than we do? Are they simply better than us? NZ is another example: they have a unicameral House with absolute authority to pass any law. The States in Australia have the power to pass laws to allow the police to walk into your house and confiscate your land without compensation. Queensland, which has had a single House since the 1920's has had the absolute power to do anything it wanted, and not once did it confiscate land without compensation, or criminalize a person for reading Charles Dickens. The Commonwealth has no power to throw anyone in jail for reading Charles Dickens, and you're concerned that the Canberra could 'turn Australia in Zimbabwe? How on earth is that even possible? The most IMPORTANT thing in politics is accountability. ACCOUNTABILITY. The current Washminster system blurs accountability by perpetuating this blame game between the House and the Senate. Yes, the Senate should have power to review legislation, and make recommendations, but it shouldn't undermine the popular will of the House of Reps. The Senate was a rotten compromise between the small States and the larger States, and was based on the American Senate, which was also a compromise. Other subsequent Westminster systems didn't adopt an American Senate because they knew it was contrary to the institution of the Westminster system: India didn't adopt it, neither did Malaysia; nor did Ireland. I don't believe I've mentioned Zimbabwe even once.

I never said that YOU believed we could turn into Zimbabwe. I was using an extreme example to actually show that fears are unfounded and exaggerated.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 11:54pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:27pm: I don't what you're talking about when you say 'they would've been invaded. Invaded by whom? By Britain? Second, I may not agree with the policy, but let the Government do its job. I'd be making the same argument for any party in power. I trust that no Government will arrest me for reading Ernest Hemmingway. Third, how bad can any policy get? You mean to insult our institutions by implying that we would descend into a Zimbabwe? It is almost impossible to do so. The foundations on which this country was founded are so strong that we don't need a second House with the power to veto in order to save it. By the way everyone's acting, we'd think the Senate was our saviour. The Federation would have enforced joining. The elected government (it is separate from the public service) IS doing its job - through legislation being passed through the House of Representatives and then reviewed by the Senate........ what is this argument that the elected House should be able to govern entirely without oversight?  Sounds like LNP propaganda to me and sour grapes and trying to blame someone else for bad policy year after year. New Zealand is a different type of country - it's small and filled with very independent-minded individuals - any government that sought to rip its people off would be lynched.  Australia is a large area country, the people are out of touch with one another,  and we have a history of being subservient (well, most do) and kissing the assets of City Hall which is precisely why this nation is in the bind it is right now  .. that's why they're called The Sheeple. Why don't you just come out and say 'the elected house should be allowed to govern!" as if that were the end of it all.  They ARE governing by our system - but the Senate does not agree with their often stupid policy ideas. It doesn't have to be Zimbabwean bad to make it bad - we don't live in Zimbabwe and I never made reference to the joint.  You are running a very thin wire there, son, and are making a totally false comparison with the real issues I've already mentioned. I suspect you more and more of being just another right wing plant and a lackey of the neo NAZIs who want total control to abuse at whim.

Second your point about Australia being too big disregards the fact that we're a federation where power is diffused between the commonwealth and states. Criminal law and other powers are within the domain of the states.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 8:12am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:08am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:04am: Never mind that the billions of dollars in savings that Labor advocated pre-election are now being blocked by the same ALP for no reason other than spite. they can save billions more with changes to NG, health rebates and superannuation concessions .... but the libs can't have that, they  don't attack the poor :D :D :D They aren't poor. The people getting benefits aren't entitled to them and don't need them. I know some families on nearly $200k who have cleverly set up their finances in a way that allows them to pocket significant sums for childcare rebates and so on. Stop portraying these people as victims. It's us taxpayers (not you) who are the victims.

Armie, They don't have to set anything up. Child care rebate isn't income tested. Rinse and repeat. Child care rebate isn't income tested. 50% per child up to $7,500 even for Gina's ilk. That's also on top of any other child care subsidy via the income tested family benefits.

crocodile wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 8:09am:

Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:22pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:02pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:44pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:38pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:12pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. No. It requires > 50% of the senate to shut down legislation. Bigger child care subsidies is just about the last thing we need. I'm not saying that I agree with the legislation. I wouldn't pass it if I were in Government, but that was what the Liberals have done and they should be able to answer for it. Wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility that the Libs passed this legislation KNOWING that it would be rejected by the Senate, in order to use it for political gain? If there was no Senate 'to blame', would they have passed the legislation in the first place if they knew that doing so would cost them the election? It's disgraceful policy. It needs to be rubbed out before it makes the starting block. Sure, it's a disgraceful policy, so why would you deny the fantastic opportunity for Turnbull to be disgraced for the rest of his life? Have you thought that one through. There is a choice. Stop the nonsense now or let it go with all the ensuing pitfalls just so that I can have a giggle later on. No thanks. You tell me physically how a Government, any Government in Australia can turn this country into a Zimbabwe, because that's the extent of the fear that people on this topic seem to be? That if we strip the powers of the Senate to veto Bills, we'll be opening the door up on tyranny. I asked Aussie the same question, and I'll ask you: the UK Parliament has complete authority to pass any law it wishes without restraint or recourse, and it has existed this way for 115 years since the House of Lords lost their power to veto Bills due to the Parliament Act 1911. How is it that the UK has never fallen into tyranny despite such unrestrained power (and two world wars)? Do they have more angels over there than we do? Are they simply better than us? NZ is another example: they have a unicameral House with absolute authority to pass any law. The States in Australia have the power to pass laws to allow the police to walk into your house and confiscate your land without compensation. Queensland, which has had a single House since the 1920's has had the absolute power to do anything it wanted, and not once did it confiscate land without compensation, or criminalize a person for reading Charles Dickens. The Commonwealth has no power to throw anyone in jail for reading Charles Dickens, and you're concerned that the Canberra could 'turn Australia in Zimbabwe? How on earth is that even possible? The most IMPORTANT thing in politics is accountability. ACCOUNTABILITY. The current Washminster system blurs accountability by perpetuating this blame game between the House and the Senate. Yes, the Senate should have power to review legislation, and make recommendations, but it shouldn't undermine the popular will of the House of Reps. The Senate was a rotten compromise between the small States and the larger States, and was based on the American Senate, which was also a compromise. Other subsequent Westminster systems didn't adopt an American Senate because they knew it was contrary to the institution of the Westminster system: India didn't adopt it, neither did Malaysia; nor did Ireland. There most certainly exist forms of restraint and recourse. The House may introduce legislation but there is one last step. Did you forget about Royal Assent. A perfunctory exercise today but only due to sensible legislation. Try it on with something nasty and we'll see.

Don't we also have royal assent? Therefore, that should be check enough, shouldn't?

Second the queen would never veto legislation that was passed by parliament, even it weren't sesnsible legislation. She is required to act by and with the consent of the government.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 8:16am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:15am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:12am: The people getting benefits aren't entitled to them and don't need them. if they're getting them, they're entitled to them you idiot Yes, because no one ever lies to a doctor or to Centrelink staff, do they?

are you going to claim everyone who gets the benefits they're proposing to cut is lying? ;D ;D ;D
You can't seriously be that stupid.

If some are lying, prove it and cut them off, then penalise them.

John Smith wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 8:25am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:16am: John Smith wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:15am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:12am: The people getting benefits aren't entitled to them and don't need them. if they're getting them, they're entitled to them you idiot Yes, because no one ever lies to a doctor or to Centrelink staff, do they? are you going to claim everyone who gets the benefits they're proposing to cut is lying? ;D ;D ;D You can't seriously be that stupid.

No, but you can be. ::)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 8:04am:

Never mind that the billions of dollars in savings that Labor advocated pre-election are now being blocked by the same ALP for no reason other than spite.

Are those savings that labor originally supported still exactly the same?  Or have they been changed, watered down or taken from their original context to suit this appalling government?   If they have been changed from the original, then Labor shouldn't support them.

Vic wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 8:43am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:04am: Never mind that the billions of dollars in savings that Labor advocated pre-election are now being blocked by the same ALP for no reason other than spite. Are those savings that labor originally supported still exactly the same?  Or have they been changed, watered down or taken from their original context to suit this appalling government?   If they have been changed from the original, then Labor shouldn't support them.

As far as I can tell from various news reports, they are the same.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 8:45am:

As far as I can tell from various news reports, they are the same.

bullsh1t. You can't even tell your head from your arse.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 8:40am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:16am: John Smith wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:15am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:12am: The people getting benefits aren't entitled to them and don't need them. if they're getting them, they're entitled to them you idiot Yes, because no one ever lies to a doctor or to Centrelink staff, do they? are you going to claim everyone who gets the benefits they're proposing to cut is lying? ;D ;D ;D You can't seriously be that stupid. No, but you can be. ::)

Ah - so we hang a thousand men on suspicion on the off chance one baddie might get away - typical of the attitude of the lairds...

Auggie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 8:24am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:09am: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:22pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:02pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:44pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:38pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:12pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. No. It requires > 50% of the senate to shut down legislation. Bigger child care subsidies is just about the last thing we need. I'm not saying that I agree with the legislation. I wouldn't pass it if I were in Government, but that was what the Liberals have done and they should be able to answer for it. Wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility that the Libs passed this legislation KNOWING that it would be rejected by the Senate, in order to use it for political gain? If there was no Senate 'to blame', would they have passed the legislation in the first place if they knew that doing so would cost them the election? It's disgraceful policy. It needs to be rubbed out before it makes the starting block. Sure, it's a disgraceful policy, so why would you deny the fantastic opportunity for Turnbull to be disgraced for the rest of his life? Have you thought that one through. There is a choice. Stop the nonsense now or let it go with all the ensuing pitfalls just so that I can have a giggle later on. No thanks. You tell me physically how a Government, any Government in Australia can turn this country into a Zimbabwe, because that's the extent of the fear that people on this topic seem to be? That if we strip the powers of the Senate to veto Bills, we'll be opening the door up on tyranny. I asked Aussie the same question, and I'll ask you: the UK Parliament has complete authority to pass any law it wishes without restraint or recourse, and it has existed this way for 115 years since the House of Lords lost their power to veto Bills due to the Parliament Act 1911. How is it that the UK has never fallen into tyranny despite such unrestrained power (and two world wars)? Do they have more angels over there than we do? Are they simply better than us? NZ is another example: they have a unicameral House with absolute authority to pass any law. The States in Australia have the power to pass laws to allow the police to walk into your house and confiscate your land without compensation. Queensland, which has had a single House since the 1920's has had the absolute power to do anything it wanted, and not once did it confiscate land without compensation, or criminalize a person for reading Charles Dickens. The Commonwealth has no power to throw anyone in jail for reading Charles Dickens, and you're concerned that the Canberra could 'turn Australia in Zimbabwe? How on earth is that even possible? The most IMPORTANT thing in politics is accountability. ACCOUNTABILITY. The current Washminster system blurs accountability by perpetuating this blame game between the House and the Senate. Yes, the Senate should have power to review legislation, and make recommendations, but it shouldn't undermine the popular will of the House of Reps. The Senate was a rotten compromise between the small States and the larger States, and was based on the American Senate, which was also a compromise. Other subsequent Westminster systems didn't adopt an American Senate because they knew it was contrary to the institution of the Westminster system: India didn't adopt it, neither did Malaysia; nor did Ireland. There most certainly exist forms of restraint and recourse. The House may introduce legislation but there is one last step. Did you forget about Royal Assent. A perfunctory exercise today but only due to sensible legislation. Try it on with something nasty and we'll see. Don't we also have royal assent? Therefore, that should be check enough, shouldn't? Second the queen would never veto legislation that was passed by parliament, even it weren't sesnsible legislation. She is required to act by and with the consent of the government.

Dear God - you are lost here, aren't you?  Her Majesty, in our Constitutional Monarchy, can delay the introduction/signing of legislation by her (him) for six weeks - but has no choice but to sign.  I'd hardly call that Royal assent, would you?  The Monarch cannot reject legislation.

Auggie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 8:20am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:54pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:27pm: I don't what you're talking about when you say 'they would've been invaded. Invaded by whom? By Britain? Second, I may not agree with the policy, but let the Government do its job. I'd be making the same argument for any party in power. I trust that no Government will arrest me for reading Ernest Hemmingway. Third, how bad can any policy get? You mean to insult our institutions by implying that we would descend into a Zimbabwe? It is almost impossible to do so. The foundations on which this country was founded are so strong that we don't need a second House with the power to veto in order to save it. By the way everyone's acting, we'd think the Senate was our saviour. The Federation would have enforced joining. The elected government (it is separate from the public service) IS doing its job - through legislation being passed through the House of Representatives and then reviewed by the Senate........ what is this argument that the elected House should be able to govern entirely without oversight?  Sounds like LNP propaganda to me and sour grapes and trying to blame someone else for bad policy year after year. New Zealand is a different type of country - it's small and filled with very independent-minded individuals - any government that sought to rip its people off would be lynched.  Australia is a large area country, the people are out of touch with one another,  and we have a history of being subservient (well, most do) and kissing the assets of City Hall which is precisely why this nation is in the bind it is right now  .. that's why they're called The Sheeple. Why don't you just come out and say 'the elected house should be allowed to govern!" as if that were the end of it all.  They ARE governing by our system - but the Senate does not agree with their often stupid policy ideas. It doesn't have to be Zimbabwean bad to make it bad - we don't live in Zimbabwe and I never made reference to the joint.  You are running a very thin wire there, son, and are making a totally false comparison with the real issues I've already mentioned. I suspect you more and more of being just another right wing plant and a lackey of the neo NAZIs who want total control to abuse at whim. Second your point about Australia being too big disregards the fact that we're a federation where power is diffused between the commonwealth and states. Criminal law and other powers are within the domain of the states.

We're talking about specific federal issues here - you are digressing to avoid the point.

Auggie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 8:17am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 6:36am: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:22pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:02pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:44pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:38pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:12pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. No. It requires > 50% of the senate to shut down legislation. Bigger child care subsidies is just about the last thing we need. I'm not saying that I agree with the legislation. I wouldn't pass it if I were in Government, but that was what the Liberals have done and they should be able to answer for it. Wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility that the Libs passed this legislation KNOWING that it would be rejected by the Senate, in order to use it for political gain? If there was no Senate 'to blame', would they have passed the legislation in the first place if they knew that doing so would cost them the election? It's disgraceful policy. It needs to be rubbed out before it makes the starting block. Sure, it's a disgraceful policy, so why would you deny the fantastic opportunity for Turnbull to be disgraced for the rest of his life? Have you thought that one through. There is a choice. Stop the nonsense now or let it go with all the ensuing pitfalls just so that I can have a giggle later on. No thanks. You tell me physically how a Government, any Government in Australia can turn this country into a Zimbabwe, because that's the extent of the fear that people on this topic seem to be? That if we strip the powers of the Senate to veto Bills, we'll be opening the door up on tyranny. I asked Aussie the same question, and I'll ask you: the UK Parliament has complete authority to pass any law it wishes without restraint or recourse, and it has existed this way for 115 years since the House of Lords lost their power to veto Bills due to the Parliament Act 1911. How is it that the UK has never fallen into tyranny despite such unrestrained power (and two world wars)? Do they have more angels over there than we do? Are they simply better than us? NZ is another example: they have a unicameral House with absolute authority to pass any law. The States in Australia have the power to pass laws to allow the police to walk into your house and confiscate your land without compensation. Queensland, which has had a single House since the 1920's has had the absolute power to do anything it wanted, and not once did it confiscate land without compensation, or criminalize a person for reading Charles Dickens. The Commonwealth has no power to throw anyone in jail for reading Charles Dickens, and you're concerned that the Canberra could 'turn Australia in Zimbabwe? How on earth is that even possible? The most IMPORTANT thing in politics is accountability. ACCOUNTABILITY. The current Washminster system blurs accountability by perpetuating this blame game between the House and the Senate. Yes, the Senate should have power to review legislation, and make recommendations, but it shouldn't undermine the popular will of the House of Reps. The Senate was a rotten compromise between the small States and the larger States, and was based on the American Senate, which was also a compromise. Other subsequent Westminster systems didn't adopt an American Senate because they knew it was contrary to the institution of the Westminster system: India didn't adopt it, neither did Malaysia; nor did Ireland. I don't believe I've mentioned Zimbabwe even once. I never said that YOU believed we could turn into Zimbabwe. I was using an extreme example to actually show that fears are unfounded and exaggerated.

Then your example doesn't work.  Our democracy is working very well as it is - the government seeks to set in place nasty work at the crossroads, and it is rightly rejected by the house of review.  IF we had the 'responsible government' you are holding to - which has been shown to not be the case, you might have an argument.

Of course, in Britain the House of Lords is hardly likely to  not pass a business- assisting style of government - look at what happened to the joint under Thatcher.  Never looked up since.

Auggie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 8:14am:

I don't want the senate abolished. It should be there. I want a Senate that should be able to propose and suggest amendments. It would only be able to delay bills for one year, or even two, like in House of Lords. One year is a lot of time in politics and public opinion can change during that time. I think a one year delay is sufficient scrutiny. Second, I'm definitely not fascist. If you read my other posts on a variety of issues i am and considered myself to be a liberal. My point about Zimbabwe is that people refute my argument by implying that without an equally powerful senate, Australia would descend into chaos. I actually believe we would believe have better government in the long term under a pure Westminster system.

I think we'd be far better off residing as much power as possible in the hands of those most directly affected - the people - than in the hands of party controlled houses.  Your point about a senate delaying fits with what I outlined to you about Her Majesty.  I don't think that is sufficient, and it effectively neuters a senate.

The simple fact is that, as explained many times by many people here - if a government in the House has solid and reliable policy to put forward for the genuine best benefit of this nation AND its people, and not just for some self-appointed elite and their insider crony mates, a Senate would have no trouble passing it.

You would do better getting out of the clouds here and addressing the real issues - such as the absurd re-definition of a 25 year old as a 'youth' as a means of saving money, or the ludicrous idea of lowering company taxes, thus benefiting the owners of companies (not necessarily their shareholders) while doing nothing to actually generate employment opportunity.  Or ridiculous bribes (nothing more than that) of increased childcare subsidies, thus promoting the farce of the mandatory dual income family as the yardstick for any social and economic endeavour by the 'working class', while unemployment is raging like a bushfire near Wellington last weekend.

This government has NO idea, and it is only the Senate that is currently holding them back from both savage slashing of those with nothing and bribes to those who have no genuine need.

Or we could look at continued immigration as a substitute for generating greater OVERALL prosperity for this nation's people.

Let's say there is X quantity of economic activity at a certain income level, in this case, the sustenance level of unemployment benefits.  That means those at that level (Y)can engage in the transfer of money and goods at X level.

X/Y = level of economic activity.

So we bring in more people at that same or similar income level (Z) - our equation becomes

X/(Y+Z) = level of economic activity, for one reason - the actual level of income in that category is INSUFFICIENT to allow a greater growth of overall economic activity.  These figures are not perfect, since there will be a slight increase in economic activity with the introduction of masses of people - but that is a short-lived solution, since once they have saved to buy one microwave - they will not buy another, and the only solution is bring in more people to repeat the dose.

Economic suicide, and does not help small business or the lowest 'classes'.

Then you REDUCE the incomes of many at the lowest level..... not only do you hang yourself economically, but you shoot yourself and stab yourself first....

ADDITION:-  And as for 'starve the bastards of their easy money until they get to work' - I apply the same standard to politicians and such.  Sitting on your arse in Canberra on more per day for dinner than you pay someone you threw out of work while putting that person further into a hole by offering no hope for a week is totally unconscionable.

I say drive these money changers out of our Temple of The People.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 9:17am:

Auggie wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:24am: crocodile wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:09am: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:22pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:02pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:44pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:38pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:12pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm: This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation. Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it. No. It requires > 50% of the senate to shut down legislation. Bigger child care subsidies is just about the last thing we need. I'm not saying that I agree with the legislation. I wouldn't pass it if I were in Government, but that was what the Liberals have done and they should be able to answer for it. Wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility that the Libs passed this legislation KNOWING that it would be rejected by the Senate, in order to use it for political gain? If there was no Senate 'to blame', would they have passed the legislation in the first place if they knew that doing so would cost them the election? It's disgraceful policy. It needs to be rubbed out before it makes the starting block. Sure, it's a disgraceful policy, so why would you deny the fantastic opportunity for Turnbull to be disgraced for the rest of his life? Have you thought that one through. There is a choice. Stop the nonsense now or let it go with all the ensuing pitfalls just so that I can have a giggle later on. No thanks. You tell me physically how a Government, any Government in Australia can turn this country into a Zimbabwe, because that's the extent of the fear that people on this topic seem to be? That if we strip the powers of the Senate to veto Bills, we'll be opening the door up on tyranny. I asked Aussie the same question, and I'll ask you: the UK Parliament has complete authority to pass any law it wishes without restraint or recourse, and it has existed this way for 115 years since the House of Lords lost their power to veto Bills due to the Parliament Act 1911. How is it that the UK has never fallen into tyranny despite such unrestrained power (and two world wars)? Do they have more angels over there than we do? Are they simply better than us? NZ is another example: they have a unicameral House with absolute authority to pass any law. The States in Australia have the power to pass laws to allow the police to walk into your house and confiscate your land without compensation. Queensland, which has had a single House since the 1920's has had the absolute power to do anything it wanted, and not once did it confiscate land without compensation, or criminalize a person for reading Charles Dickens. The Commonwealth has no power to throw anyone in jail for reading Charles Dickens, and you're concerned that the Canberra could 'turn Australia in Zimbabwe? How on earth is that even possible? The most IMPORTANT thing in politics is accountability. ACCOUNTABILITY. The current Washminster system blurs accountability by perpetuating this blame game between the House and the Senate. Yes, the Senate should have power to review legislation, and make recommendations, but it shouldn't undermine the popular will of the House of Reps. The Senate was a rotten compromise between the small States and the larger States, and was based on the American Senate, which was also a compromise. Other subsequent Westminster systems didn't adopt an American Senate because they knew it was contrary to the institution of the Westminster system: India didn't adopt it, neither did Malaysia; nor did Ireland. There most certainly exist forms of restraint and recourse. The House may introduce legislation but there is one last step. Did you forget about Royal Assent. A perfunctory exercise today but only due to sensible legislation. Try it on with something nasty and we'll see. Don't we also have royal assent? Therefore, that should be check enough, shouldn't? Second the queen would never veto legislation that was passed by parliament, even it weren't sesnsible legislation. She is required to act by and with the consent of the government. Dear God - you are lost here, aren't you?  Her Majesty, in our Constitutional Monarchy, can delay the introduction/signing of legislation by her (him) for six weeks - but has no choice but to sign.  I'd hardly call that Royal assent, would you?  The Monarch cannot reject legislation.

Where did you dig that one up from Grapples. Just for your edification, section 58 of the constitution disagrees with you.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s58.html

In the UK, the monarch certainly has the power of veto. It may cause a public outrage but nevertheless is still there in cases of dire legislative abuses.

Quote:

Dear God - you are lost here, aren't you?  Her Majesty, in our Constitutional Monarchy, can delay the introduction/signing of legislation by her (him) for six weeks - but has no choice but to sign.  I'd hardly call that Royal assent, would you?  The Monarch cannot reject legislation.

It seems as though you are lost. This is exact text of our Constitution with regard to the assent of Bills.

58. "When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure.".....

59. "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the dissallowance is so made known."

60. "A proposed law reserved for the Queen's pleasure shall have any force unless and until two years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent the Governor-General makes known, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, that it has received the Queen's assent."

Challenge me on constitutional matters at your own peril. I know it better than anyone in this forum.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 9:19am:

Auggie wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:20am: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:54pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:27pm: I don't what you're talking about when you say 'they would've been invaded. Invaded by whom? By Britain? Second, I may not agree with the policy, but let the Government do its job. I'd be making the same argument for any party in power. I trust that no Government will arrest me for reading Ernest Hemmingway. Third, how bad can any policy get? You mean to insult our institutions by implying that we would descend into a Zimbabwe? It is almost impossible to do so. The foundations on which this country was founded are so strong that we don't need a second House with the power to veto in order to save it. By the way everyone's acting, we'd think the Senate was our saviour. The Federation would have enforced joining. The elected government (it is separate from the public service) IS doing its job - through legislation being passed through the House of Representatives and then reviewed by the Senate........ what is this argument that the elected House should be able to govern entirely without oversight?  Sounds like LNP propaganda to me and sour grapes and trying to blame someone else for bad policy year after year. New Zealand is a different type of country - it's small and filled with very independent-minded individuals - any government that sought to rip its people off would be lynched.  Australia is a large area country, the people are out of touch with one another,  and we have a history of being subservient (well, most do) and kissing the assets of City Hall which is precisely why this nation is in the bind it is right now  .. that's why they're called The Sheeple. Why don't you just come out and say 'the elected house should be allowed to govern!" as if that were the end of it all.  They ARE governing by our system - but the Senate does not agree with their often stupid policy ideas. It doesn't have to be Zimbabwean bad to make it bad - we don't live in Zimbabwe and I never made reference to the joint.  You are running a very thin wire there, son, and are making a totally false comparison with the real issues I've already mentioned. I suspect you more and more of being just another right wing plant and a lackey of the neo NAZIs who want total control to abuse at whim. Second your point about Australia being too big disregards the fact that we're a federation where power is diffused between the commonwealth and states. Criminal law and other powers are within the domain of the states. We're talking about specific federal issues here - you are digressing to avoid the point.

You're missing the point. The NZ Government has no restrictions on its power, whereas the Commonwealth does due to Federalism. We have less to worry about from the Commonwealth than NZ does from its unitary state.

Quote:

Then your example doesn't work.  Our democracy is working very well as it is - the government seeks to set in place nasty work at the crossroads, and it is rightly rejected by the house of review.  IF we had the 'responsible government' you are holding to - which has been shown to not be the case, you might have an argument. Of course, in Britain the House of Lords is hardly likely to  not pass a business- assisting style of government - look at what happened to the joint under Thatcher.  Never looked up since.

We do a system of 'responsible government' - it's the Westminster system of government - i.e. the Government is the party in power, and the de facto executive are Ministers who MUST be members of the Parliament.

I'm not sure what you're saying about the House of Lords. I assume you're saying that had there been a co-equal Senate, then Thatcher might not have screwed up the country? Ok, that may be case, but that's a matter of perspective. Some people think she was a horrible PM, and others think she was a great PM.

The issue with Britain economically has less to do with the 'lack of a coequal Senate' than it does with its history of peerage of class inequality. We don't have this tradition in Australia where the labour movement has always been strong.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 9:30am:

Auggie wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:14am: I don't want the senate abolished. It should be there. I want a Senate that should be able to propose and suggest amendments. It would only be able to delay bills for one year, or even two, like in House of Lords. One year is a lot of time in politics and public opinion can change during that time. I think a one year delay is sufficient scrutiny. Second, I'm definitely not fascist. If you read my other posts on a variety of issues i am and considered myself to be a liberal. My point about Zimbabwe is that people refute my argument by implying that without an equally powerful senate, Australia would descend into chaos. I actually believe we would believe have better government in the long term under a pure Westminster system. I think we'd be far better off residing as much power as possible in the hands of those most directly affected - the people - than in the hands of party controlled houses.  Your point about a senate delaying fits with what I outlined to you about Her Majesty.  I don't think that is sufficient, and it effectively neuters a senate. The simple fact is that, as explained many times by many people here - if a government in the House has solid and reliable policy to put forward for the genuine best benefit of this nation AND its people, and not just for some self-appointed elite and their insider crony mates, a Senate would have no trouble passing it. You would do better getting out of the clouds here and addressing the real issues - such as the absurd re-definition of a 25 year old as a 'youth' as a means of saving money, or the ludicrous idea of lowering company taxes, thus benefiting the owners of companies (not necessarily their shareholders) while doing nothing to actually generate employment opportunity.  Or ridiculous bribes (nothing more than that) of increased childcare subsidies, thus promoting the farce of the mandatory dual income family as the yardstick for any social and economic endeavour by the 'working class', while unemployment is raging like a bushfire near Wellington last weekend. This government has NO idea, and it is only the Senate that is currently holding them back from both savage slashing of those with nothing and bribes to those who have no genuine need.

The policies you're talking about such as the re-definition of a 25 and lowering company taxes, etc. aren't CATASTROPHIC policies by any stretch of the imagination. If you have a left-wing ideology, then these policies disgust you. I don't actually think that these are really bad policies, even though I don't support the childcare subsidies.

In the case of the Senate 'holding back' policies; they're only doing so because they're the cross-bench. It's naive to think that political parties don't have political agendas like the two-major parties. You may think that NXT held back the policy because it's a bad policy, but someone else might think that he held it back to tout his own political agenda. It's a matter of perspective.

We can debate the merits of each individual policy, but I think we agree that they are not catastrophic. I'm sure that many people support the current Liberal policies. But, I would be making the same argument for a policy I disagree with.

The party has been elected to implemented its agenda. Of course, if the policy clearly infringes on the civil liberties of the people, then we as people have the moral obligation to protest and redress for grievances. In the case where the government is implementing an agenda that is in line with its party principles and platform, then they should be allowed to do so, and then be judged by the people at the following election.

You seem to think that those who form Government in the HoR are entitled to do as they please until the next election, but you deny those who were elected to the Senate, the same right.

Aussie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 12:20pm:

You seem to think that those who form Government in the HoR are entitled to do as they please until the next election, but you deny those who were elected to the Senate, the same right.

The Senate isn't the Government. The party in the House of Reps is.

Auggie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 12:26pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 12:20pm: You seem to think that those who form Government in the HoR are entitled to do as they please until the next election, but you deny those who were elected to the Senate, the same right. The Senate isn't the Government. The party in the House of Reps is.

True, but so what?  We have a Senate, and those in it are elected just like those in the HoR.  Why can't they do as they please as you seem to be asserting those in the HoR may do?

Aussie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 12:28pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 12:26pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 12:20pm: You seem to think that those who form Government in the HoR are entitled to do as they please until the next election, but you deny those who were elected to the Senate, the same right. The Senate isn't the Government. The party in the House of Reps is. True, but so what?  We have a Senate, and those in it are elected just like those in the HoR.  Why can't they do as they please as you seem to be asserting those in the HoR may do?

They can 'do as they'd please' but they shouldn't have power to veto a party's agenda. A one year delay is sufficient in my view, or perhaps even 2 years.

Quote:

They can 'do as they'd please' but they shouldn't have power to veto a party's agenda.

There is no 'veto' power.  They have a vote, not a veto, just like the other 75 elected Senators.

Aussie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 12:48pm:

Quote: They can 'do as they'd please' but they shouldn't have power to veto a party's agenda. There is no 'veto' power.  They have a vote, not a veto, just like the other 75 elected Senators.

The Senate as a House has 'veto' power. It says in the Constitution: "except where other provided, the Senate shall have equal powers to the House of Representatives."

As I've said before, other Houses don't have the power to block legislation, no matter how hard they try.

Ah, you now move the goal posts away from a single vote to an outcome when all Senate votes on an issue are counted.

That latter thing is called democracy.

Aussie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 1:01pm:

Ah, you now move the goal posts away from a single vote to an outcome when all Senate votes on an issue are counted. That latter thing is called democracy.

Democracy is a broad term that can mean almost anything. Is Britain not democratic because they have unelected House of Lords? Is America more democratic than Australia because they elect their head of state or State Governors?

What's more important to me in an Australian context is accountability, knowing who the buck stops with. This, in my view, is democracy, not the blame game and shifting from Commonwealth to State and blah like we do now. I certainly don't advocate a dictatorship, and I'm not reasonably calling for the abolition of the Senate. In UK you know full well that the Government is responsible for everything; you can't blame the House of Lords or any one else; it solely is the responsibility of the Government.

I am referring to Australia.  I'm not fixated in interest with what happens elsewhere as I have no say in that.

Aussie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 1:14pm:

I am referring to Australia.  I'm not fixated in interest with what happens elsewhere as I have no say in that.

Which is in one view, very shallow-minded. We should learn from other countries and other countries should learn from US.

This is my latest policy position on both the House and Senate, which would appease both myself and my detractors:

1) the House term is five years (non-fixed);

2) the Senate has equal powers to the House; but is chosen differently: every six years, the people of two States choose their senators (in full); i.e. VIC/QLD; SA/NSW etc...

3) The Senate is reduced in size to one-third of the House, not one-half, so that ballots aren't so big, considering the people are choosing their senators in full.

From a 'States' Rights' point of view, having two States elect their senators separately from the rest of the country focuses the Government's attention on those States, since there are different needs in each State. Every five years, the people would vote for the 'Government' as one country.

Of course, if one doesn't really care about the Federation, then the foregoing is moot. I think this is best way to accommodate a longer House term whilst maintaining the Senate as it is without many changes.

bump...

Auggie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 11:53am:

Quote: Dear God - you are lost here, aren't you?  Her Majesty, in our Constitutional Monarchy, can delay the introduction/signing of legislation by her (him) for six weeks - but has no choice but to sign.  I'd hardly call that Royal assent, would you?  The Monarch cannot reject legislation. It seems as though you are lost. This is exact text of our Constitution with regard to the assent of Bills. 58. "When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure."..... 59. "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the dissallowance is so made known." 60. "A proposed law reserved for the Queen's pleasure shall have any force unless and until two years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent the Governor-General makes known, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, that it has received the Queen's assent." Challenge me on constitutional matters at your own peril. I know it better than anyone in this forum.

The reality is that Her Majesty can not, under any circumstances, reject legislation.  What you need to learn, amongst other things, is that many written things are subject to interpretation, and the interpretation is that the Monarch cannot stop legislation, but only delay it.

Now - WHEN precisely, does any piece of Australian legislation go to the Queen for final judgement?

NEVER! 

Your 'knowledge' of constitutional matters is over-run by reality.

I told you before - get out of your book learning and get into the real world.  I have no concerns over taking you on over theory and practice.  You lose every time.

Now if you wish to impose a government of yourself on the Australian people, and actually dictate a different interpretation of these issues - let's see it.

Until then the Crown can not reject legislation, but can only postpone it.

Now - I could argue facts with you all night, but I have to go to bed.

Auggie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 12:13pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 9:30am: Auggie wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:14am: I don't want the senate abolished. It should be there. I want a Senate that should be able to propose and suggest amendments. It would only be able to delay bills for one year, or even two, like in House of Lords. One year is a lot of time in politics and public opinion can change during that time. I think a one year delay is sufficient scrutiny. Second, I'm definitely not fascist. If you read my other posts on a variety of issues i am and considered myself to be a liberal. My point about Zimbabwe is that people refute my argument by implying that without an equally powerful senate, Australia would descend into chaos. I actually believe we would believe have better government in the long term under a pure Westminster system. I think we'd be far better off residing as much power as possible in the hands of those most directly affected - the people - than in the hands of party controlled houses.  Your point about a senate delaying fits with what I outlined to you about Her Majesty.  I don't think that is sufficient, and it effectively neuters a senate. The simple fact is that, as explained many times by many people here - if a government in the House has solid and reliable policy to put forward for the genuine best benefit of this nation AND its people, and not just for some self-appointed elite and their insider crony mates, a Senate would have no trouble passing it. You would do better getting out of the clouds here and addressing the real issues - such as the absurd re-definition of a 25 year old as a 'youth' as a means of saving money, or the ludicrous idea of lowering company taxes, thus benefiting the owners of companies (not necessarily their shareholders) while doing nothing to actually generate employment opportunity.  Or ridiculous bribes (nothing more than that) of increased childcare subsidies, thus promoting the farce of the mandatory dual income family as the yardstick for any social and economic endeavour by the 'working class', while unemployment is raging like a bushfire near Wellington last weekend. This government has NO idea, and it is only the Senate that is currently holding them back from both savage slashing of those with nothing and bribes to those who have no genuine need. The policies you're talking about such as the re-definition of a 25 and lowering company taxes, etc. aren't CATASTROPHIC policies by any stretch of the imagination. If you have a left-wing ideology, then these policies disgust you. I don't actually think that these are really bad policies, even though I don't support the childcare subsidies. In the case of the Senate 'holding back' policies; they're only doing so because they're the cross-bench. It's naive to think that political parties don't have political agendas like the two-major parties. You may think that NXT held back the policy because it's a bad policy, but someone else might think that he held it back to tout his own political agenda. It's a matter of perspective. We can debate the merits of each individual policy, but I think we agree that they are not catastrophic. I'm sure that many people support the current Liberal policies. But, I would be making the same argument for a policy I disagree with. The party has been elected to implemented its agenda. Of course, if the policy clearly infringes on the civil liberties of the people, then we as people have the moral obligation to protest and redress for grievances. In the case where the government is implementing an agenda that is in line with its party principles and platform, then they should be allowed to do so, and then be judged by the people at the following election.

**rolls eyes*  So now the only requirement for a piece of change to existing legislation is that tit is not 'catastrophic'?

Not 'catastrophic' to whom?  The beneficiaries of it?  Of course not .  To the economy as a whole - perhaps not - but it does not meet (in this case) the test of 'doing no harm', while demonstrably doing no good.

The long term harm to a society, in the case of lowering company taxes (which they only marginally pay anyway), is to create a further division between carefully selected income groups, while doing nothing for the future of the country as a whole and its prosperity for all equally.  That road is the clear way to social upheaval and eventual revolution.

The immediate harm it does is to generate nothing for the general population while exacerbating the social and economic differences within this nation.

Auggie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 12:13pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 9:30am: Auggie wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:14am: I don't want the senate abolished. It should be there. I want a Senate that should be able to propose and suggest amendments. It would only be able to delay bills for one year, or even two, like in House of Lords. One year is a lot of time in politics and public opinion can change during that time. I think a one year delay is sufficient scrutiny. Second, I'm definitely not fascist. If you read my other posts on a variety of issues i am and considered myself to be a liberal. My point about Zimbabwe is that people refute my argument by implying that without an equally powerful senate, Australia would descend into chaos. I actually believe we would believe have better government in the long term under a pure Westminster system. I think we'd be far better off residing as much power as possible in the hands of those most directly affected - the people - than in the hands of party controlled houses.  Your point about a senate delaying fits with what I outlined to you about Her Majesty.  I don't think that is sufficient, and it effectively neuters a senate. The simple fact is that, as explained many times by many people here - if a government in the House has solid and reliable policy to put forward for the genuine best benefit of this nation AND its people, and not just for some self-appointed elite and their insider crony mates, a Senate would have no trouble passing it. You would do better getting out of the clouds here and addressing the real issues - such as the absurd re-definition of a 25 year old as a 'youth' as a means of saving money, or the ludicrous idea of lowering company taxes, thus benefiting the owners of companies (not necessarily their shareholders) while doing nothing to actually generate employment opportunity.  Or ridiculous bribes (nothing more than that) of increased childcare subsidies, thus promoting the farce of the mandatory dual income family as the yardstick for any social and economic endeavour by the 'working class', while unemployment is raging like a bushfire near Wellington last weekend. This government has NO idea, and it is only the Senate that is currently holding them back from both savage slashing of those with nothing and bribes to those who have no genuine need. The policies you're talking about such as the re-definition of a 25 and lowering company taxes, etc. aren't CATASTROPHIC policies by any stretch of the imagination. If you have a left-wing ideology, then these policies disgust you. I don't actually think that these are really bad policies, even though I don't support the childcare subsidies. In the case of the Senate 'holding back' policies; they're only doing so because they're the cross-bench. It's naive to think that political parties don't have political agendas like the two-major parties. You may think that NXT held back the policy because it's a bad policy, but someone else might think that he held it back to tout his own political agenda. It's a matter of perspective. We can debate the merits of each individual policy, but I think we agree that they are not catastrophic. I'm sure that many people support the current Liberal policies. But, I would be making the same argument for a policy I disagree with. The party has been elected to implemented its agenda. Of course, if the policy clearly infringes on the civil liberties of the people, then we as people have the moral obligation to protest and redress for grievances. In the case where the government is implementing an agenda that is in line with its party principles and platform, then they should be allowed to do so, and then be judged by the people at the following election.

No - the Senate is holding back legislation' (read carefully the differences between legislation, law and Law and include regulation) BECAUSE they are the Senate and are doing their job.

"The party has been elected to implement its agenda.".

Totally incorrect - they have been elected for any number of reasons, but ONLY to put their already committed to agenda forward UNDER the system we now enjoy.  That includes when they set about changing their 'core' promises and bringing in every other thing they have not even discussed - they are subject to review, and when that review is rightly pursued - their policy is rejected.

NO elected government here has dictatorial power - and never will have.

There is NO carte blanche for any elected government here to pursue anything it has not clearly declared in its policy platform leading up to election.  There are NO 'core' and 'non-core' promises - and there are NO 'commissions of audit' to rubber-stamp a party's policy.

They may ONLY proceed on the issues that the people have voted on - and that is not just some ephemeral concept such as 'improving the economy' and 'creating jobs and growth'.

There is NO Divine Right of Elected Government here, and there never will be.

Sorry, laddie - but the PEOPLE need to vote on the hard core issues - they are not open to government to choose - and that includes chopping social security and all the other rot this lot are trying to put across like the used car salesmen they are in reality, all of which they

I think we are all well aware of where you are coming from now, sonny - you can now pack up and go.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 11:22pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 11:53am: Quote: Dear God - you are lost here, aren't you?  Her Majesty, in our Constitutional Monarchy, can delay the introduction/signing of legislation by her (him) for six weeks - but has no choice but to sign.  I'd hardly call that Royal assent, would you?  The Monarch cannot reject legislation. It seems as though you are lost. This is exact text of our Constitution with regard to the assent of Bills. 58. "When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure."..... 59. "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the dissallowance is so made known." 60. "A proposed law reserved for the Queen's pleasure shall have any force unless and until two years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent the Governor-General makes known, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, that it has received the Queen's assent." Challenge me on constitutional matters at your own peril. I know it better than anyone in this forum. The reality is that Her Majesty can not, under any circumstances, reject legislation.  What you need to learn, amongst other things, is that many written things are subject to interpretation, and the interpretation is that the Monarch cannot stop legislation, but only delay it. Now - WHEN precisely, does any piece of Australian legislation go to the Queen for final judgement? NEVER!  Your 'knowledge' of constitutional matters is over-run by reality. I told you before - get out of your book learning and get into the real world.  I have no concerns over taking you on over theory and practice.  You lose every time. Now if you wish to impose a government of yourself on the Australian people, and actually dictate a different interpretation of these issues - let's see it. Until then the Crown can not reject legislation, but can only postpone it. Now - I could argue facts with you all night, but I have to go to bed.

1986. The Australia Act was given the Royal Assent personally by the Queen.

The reason for such a rare event is that onerous legislation that is too hot to handle by the GG or even require intervention is a rarity in itself. Don't doubt the constitutional reserve powers. They are real, can be used and will be should the right circumstances ever appear. The events of 1975, divisive as they were is testament to it.

Using extreme examples such as Royal assent is only useful in demonstrating that many parliaments cannot do as the wish with complete impunity. It doesn't solve the problem of crappy legislation such as some that are not budging in the senate right now. As far as I'm concerned the senate is doing what it is paid to do. Most of the time they have been right.

A situation where bills can simply sail through even though the consequences may be awful and then re-legislate to undo the damage at  a later date is just plain dumb.

The simple lesson is to frame decent, well explained and beneficial legislation the first time around and this thread wouldn't even exist.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 11:28pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 12:13pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 9:30am: Auggie wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:14am: I don't want the senate abolished. It should be there. I want a Senate that should be able to propose and suggest amendments. It would only be able to delay bills for one year, or even two, like in House of Lords. One year is a lot of time in politics and public opinion can change during that time. I think a one year delay is sufficient scrutiny. Second, I'm definitely not fascist. If you read my other posts on a variety of issues i am and considered myself to be a liberal. My point about Zimbabwe is that people refute my argument by implying that without an equally powerful senate, Australia would descend into chaos. I actually believe we would believe have better government in the long term under a pure Westminster system. I think we'd be far better off residing as much power as possible in the hands of those most directly affected - the people - than in the hands of party controlled houses.  Your point about a senate delaying fits with what I outlined to you about Her Majesty.  I don't think that is sufficient, and it effectively neuters a senate. The simple fact is that, as explained many times by many people here - if a government in the House has solid and reliable policy to put forward for the genuine best benefit of this nation AND its people, and not just for some self-appointed elite and their insider crony mates, a Senate would have no trouble passing it. You would do better getting out of the clouds here and addressing the real issues - such as the absurd re-definition of a 25 year old as a 'youth' as a means of saving money, or the ludicrous idea of lowering company taxes, thus benefiting the owners of companies (not necessarily their shareholders) while doing nothing to actually generate employment opportunity.  Or ridiculous bribes (nothing more than that) of increased childcare subsidies, thus promoting the farce of the mandatory dual income family as the yardstick for any social and economic endeavour by the 'working class', while unemployment is raging like a bushfire near Wellington last weekend. This government has NO idea, and it is only the Senate that is currently holding them back from both savage slashing of those with nothing and bribes to those who have no genuine need. The policies you're talking about such as the re-definition of a 25 and lowering company taxes, etc. aren't CATASTROPHIC policies by any stretch of the imagination. If you have a left-wing ideology, then these policies disgust you. I don't actually think that these are really bad policies, even though I don't support the childcare subsidies. In the case of the Senate 'holding back' policies; they're only doing so because they're the cross-bench. It's naive to think that political parties don't have political agendas like the two-major parties. You may think that NXT held back the policy because it's a bad policy, but someone else might think that he held it back to tout his own political agenda. It's a matter of perspective. We can debate the merits of each individual policy, but I think we agree that they are not catastrophic. I'm sure that many people support the current Liberal policies. But, I would be making the same argument for a policy I disagree with. The party has been elected to implemented its agenda. Of course, if the policy clearly infringes on the civil liberties of the people, then we as people have the moral obligation to protest and redress for grievances. In the case where the government is implementing an agenda that is in line with its party principles and platform, then they should be allowed to do so, and then be judged by the people at the following election. **rolls eyes*  So now the only requirement for a piece of change to existing legislation is that tit is not 'catastrophic'? Not 'catastrophic' to whom?  The beneficiaries of it?  Of course not .  To the economy as a whole - perhaps not - but it does not meet (in this case) the test of 'doing no harm', while demonstrably doing no good. The long term harm to a society, in the case of lowering company taxes (which they only marginally pay anyway), is to create a further division between carefully selected income groups, while doing nothing for the future of the country as a whole and its prosperity for all equally.  That road is the clear way to social upheaval and eventual revolution. The immediate harm it does is to generate nothing for the general population while exacerbating the social and economic differences within this nation.

Unfortunately the above rant is way off. The company tax cuts are urgently needed and should pass. The trouble is that Morrison and Malcolm are completely incapable as ministers to even understand and explain the reasons why. Except for the capture of foreign taxable earnings and a token donation for the limited liability status there really is no logical reason why there is a corporate tax at all.

Quote:

NO elected government here has dictatorial power - and never will have. There is NO carte blanche for any elected government here to pursue anything it has not clearly declared in its policy platform leading up to election.  There are NO 'core' and 'non-core' promises - and there are NO 'commissions of audit' to rubber-stamp a party's policy. They may ONLY proceed on the issues that the people have voted on - and that is not just some ephemeral concept such as 'improving the economy' and 'creating jobs and growth'. There is NO Divine Right of Elected Government here, and there never will be.

You've just proved my point. If the Government has NO carte blanche to pursue anything outside of its policy agenda (which I outlined by the way previously - that political parties play a role in checking the actions of the government), then the Senate being as strong as it is, is, in actual fact, not needed to prevent any such a situation.

That's why I said that the 'Westminster system lends itself to responsible government' because of the fact that IN PRACTICE the Government is the 'majority-party in the House of Representatives' and that the confidence of the Executive branch (Ministers of State drawn from the Parliament) is dependent on the party room (in the case of the Liberals) and the caucus (in the case of the Labor party). Therefore, any dictatorial policies, would be struck down by the party and would most likely result in Ministry changes. This explains why countries with a Westminster system that don't have strong upper Houses haven't fallen into tyranny or have passed policy 'carte blanche.'

As I have said, my argument has never been that the Senate should be abolished. Ideally, I would like it to be elected by the people (in rotations) and to consist of minority of groups. My view is based on the fact that lower House - i.e. the Government is closer to the people due to the composition of its members and that the Government within the framework of 'responsible government' should have the power to ULTIMATELY push forward its agenda so that they have full accountability. By all means, the Senate can review legislation, scrutinize and even make recommendations. Senators can appear before Q&A and criticize the Government, etc.

I support a House of Lords system where the House of Reps must pass the Bill twice, once in each session (one sitting year of Parliament), and if rejected by the Senate in each session, then the Bill is presented to the GG for assent, unless the House direct to the contrary. IMO, a lot can happen in one year: public opinion can change swiftly; Ministries can change; scandals can happen; all of which affect the Government's credibility. Also, by the time the second vote comes around, the Government has to think long and hard about whether or not it passing the Bill is going to cost them an election or popularity. I think this is a sufficient check on the Government; and ultimately if the Government is determined to push through its agenda, then it should be able to (given that we can be sure no Government would pass dictatorial policies due to the fact that it won't go contrary to the party platform). In Britain, a rejection by the House of Lords, often results in the Government completing abandoning the Bill, even though it could push it through.

Quote:

The reality is that Her Majesty can not, under any circumstances, reject legislation.  What you need to learn, amongst other things, is that many written things are subject to interpretation, and the interpretation is that the Monarch cannot stop legislation, but only delay it. Now - WHEN precisely, does any piece of Australian legislation go to the Queen for final judgement? NEVER!  Your 'knowledge' of constitutional matters is over-run by reality. I told you before - get out of your book learning and get into the real world.  I have no concerns over taking you on over theory and practice.  You lose every time. Now if you wish to impose a government of yourself on the Australian people, and actually dictate a different interpretation of these issues - let's see it. Until then the Crown can not reject legislation, but can only postpone it. Now - I could argue facts with you all night, but I have to go to bed.

The original argument you made, as I understood it, was that the Queen didn't 'physically' have the power to veto legislation made by the Commonwealth Parliament AND that 'the reason why the situation in the UK regarding a weaker upper House' doesn't apply to Australia is because Her Majesty has veto power in Britain.

By your logic - that in practice the Sovereign doesn't exercise that power except by and with the advice of the Executive Council; then the same argument can be made in the UK, where the Sovereign doesn't veto Bills except on the advice of the Privy Council (Queen in Council). In both cases, the Queen must act on the advice of the Government. In fact, some people argue that the Queen's discretionary powers are theoretically more powerful in the 'Colonies' than in Britain itself.

Therefore, based on that conclusion, there are no formal 'checks and balances' on the Government in Britain, except for the institution of the Westminster system and parliamentary party democracy. Not to mention the media, and universal suffrage as a means to hold Government to account.

Ultimately, any point of view regarding specific policies is based on the substance of the Bill/Act in question. In the United States, the Supreme Court has the power to strike down legislation based on 'substantive Due Process, which determines if the Bill violates human rights. Britain and Westminster democracies have no such tradition or legal precedent because it is contrary to idea of 'parliamentary sovereignty' or as I like to say 'parliamentary SUPREMACY', which dictates that the Parliament can pass any law it wants. As I said before, this is within the context of the Westminster system in which the Ministers of State are members of the lower House, therefore being responsible to the lower House (but in practice responsible to the party room or caucus). That is the check on Government power.

In the case of the United States, the check on the Legislative was initially meant to the be the 'veto' but has evolved over time to include the Supreme Court. But this is an entirely different matter.