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

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

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


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.

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


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:


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.

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


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.

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.

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