crocodile wrote on Feb 14
th, 2017 at 11:02pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14
th, 2017 at 9:44pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 14
th, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14
th, 2017 at 9:12pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 14
th, 2017 at 9:09pm:
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.
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.
Forum
Pages: 
