Australian Politics Forum - Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › Federal Politics › Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6

Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill (Read 5685 times)

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 84104
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #60 - Feb 15^th, 2017 at 9:37am

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.

« Last Edit: Feb 15^th, 2017 at 11:21am by Grappler Truth Teller Feller »

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #61 - Feb 15^th, 2017 at 9:58am

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #62 - Feb 15^th, 2017 at 11:53am

Quote:

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 Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #63 - Feb 15^th, 2017 at 11:55am

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

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

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

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.

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.

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #64 - Feb 15^th, 2017 at 12:01pm

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.

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #65 - Feb 15^th, 2017 at 12:13pm

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

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.

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.

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38581 Gender:	Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill Reply #66 - 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

Auggie Gold Member Offline The Bull Moose Posts: 8571	Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill Reply #67 - Feb 15^th, 2017 at 12:26pm 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.
Back to top	The Progressive President IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38581
Gender: male

Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #68 - Feb 15^th, 2017 at 12:28pm

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

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.

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?

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #69 - Feb 15^th, 2017 at 12:35pm

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

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

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.

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.

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38581 Gender:	Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill Reply #70 - 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #71 - Feb 15^th, 2017 at 12:58pm

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.

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38581 Gender:	Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill Reply #72 - 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #73 - Feb 15^th, 2017 at 1:08pm

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.

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38581 Gender:	Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill Reply #74 - 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page