bump...

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



**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.

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


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.

Quote:


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.

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.