• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Australian Politics (2 Viewers)

spiny norman

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
884
Location
Rivo
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
You can't honestly be counting McEwen. Also, given the result of the 1969 election, I'd hardly call that a success story.
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
You can't honestly be counting McEwen. Also, given the result of the 1969 election, I'd hardly call that a success story.
It's the least relevant of the three examples, but it is still factually correct. And laborites treat 69 as a victory in hindsight, what happens if Gough loses in 72? or gets supplanted by Crean or Barnard? You may do so if you see fit but I will not rewrite history, the coalition had three leaders from 66 to 69 and went on to win a majority in the house at the next election.
 

Rafy

Retired
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
10,719
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Uni Grad
2008
Alcopops tax bills

Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009
Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009

Bills passed without requests Senate divided on the third reading: Ayes 32; Noes 31
 
Last edited:

Rafy

Retired
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
10,719
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Uni Grad
2008
Nigel Scullion was late for the division! They are moving to recommit the vote.
 

Rafy

Retired
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
10,719
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Uni Grad
2008
Now a $1.6bn hole in the budget.

Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009
Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009

Negatived at third reading Senate divided on the third reading of the bills: Ayes 31; Noes 32
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
3,492
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Now a $1.6bn hole in the budget.

Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009
Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009

Negatived at third reading Senate divided on the third reading of the bills: Ayes 31; Noes 32
What happened to the 32nd aye?

Not that it would have made a difference...

So Fielding voted against?
 

S.H.O.D.A.N.

world
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
941
Location
Unknown
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
The Greens and Xenophon voted for, as they secured tens of millions in funding for education on harm minimisation. Fielding (last I heard) voted against because Labour didn't ban alcohol ads during sports shows on TV.

He's a bit of a tool.

The other bills currently being crammed through before the 7 week Senate break are:
- The environmental "protection" scheme, which Greens and the Coalition oppose (and Xenophon too from memory), meaning it'll very likely fail, which could trigger an early election.
- Fixing workplace relations after Howard skullfucked them. The Greens support it as they got extra provisions for parents, while Xenophon won't support it until more coverage for small businesses is added, and Fielding wants something else along similar lines to the Greens and Xenophon. Basically, because the Opposition can't be relied on, the bill will probably get even more provisions added that protect the worker, which is ironically the opposite of what the Opposition wants.

In other news, the Greens, Xenophon, and the Nationals all seem to be strongly against the Chinese communist government's attempted mini-takeover of Australia's (and the World's) biggest mining company, Rio Tinto. Enough people from Labour and Liberal (namely Costello) are also against it, as is public sentiment, that'd it'll be a massive stain on the government's record if they let it go ahead. I'm praying they won't. Currently, the government has put off the decision for another 90 days.

In other other news, the Internet filter is dead in the water, as it is at best tied in the Senate, with the Greens, Xenophon, and Liberals against it. Even if the Nationals voted for it (which seems unlikely), it'd fail. Ties in the Senate mean the bill automatically fails.
 
Last edited:

whatashotbyseve

It all counts
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
1,855
Location
Randwick or Rosehill racecourse.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
He is not only a tool, he is a hypocrite.

Aside from that, the government agreed to two of his three demands, why didn't he take his victory and plaudits and move on? Politcally he would have looked very smart this way. Fielding is all give and no take.

Now he has gone for the jugular, and looks like an idiot. Once again Xenophon looks like the only independent with an independent brain.
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
He is not only a tool, he is a hypocrite.

Aside from that, the government agreed to two of his three demands, why didn't he take his victory and plaudits and move on? Politcally he would have looked very smart this way. Fielding is all give and no take.

Now he has gone for the jugular, and looks like an idiot. Once again Xenophon looks like the only independent with an independent brain.
Fielding was elected to the senate a few years ago by doing the unsustainable, he harvested preferences from pretty much everyone but the greens, useful as the christian dems, the aus dems, one nation etc were the key factor was Latham and Howard both thought they had a good chance of getting a defacto extra senator. When it came time to vote however and Fielding needed to pick a side he proved far too sympathetic to the coaltiion and lost ALP support who now preference Greens ahead of him. He had nowhere near the votes to compete with the greens on his own so now he is trying to do anything and everything he can to get in the news cycle. Acting macho in the senate is his way of trying to convince the world he is important.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Seriously, get a job Lentern. Most of the clever people on the forum know the facts you speak of, but theyre never worth writing down randomly on an internet forum. As to your various unsupported stabbings in the dark: get a girlfriend.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
3,492
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
I find it distressing that Iron has only has one more rep box than me when he is clearly so much more awesome :eek:
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Seriously, get a job Lentern. Most of the clever people on the forum know the facts you speak of, but theyre never worth writing down randomly on an internet forum. As to your various unsupported stabbings in the dark: get a girlfriend.
It is not my habbit to get personal but frankly your bitchiness is getting tiresome. I don't know what I have done to get under your skinis it possibly that your university days are drawing to an end and your wondering what justification you'll have for frequenting a student website after that happens? Left to sitting in a dark room bellowing out off key renditions of "this is the end, beautiful friend, the end." I simply say to you, if you aren't impressed by what I write you are not compelled to read it and are welcome to spend your precious time watching Mash instead if that would make you happy.
 

whatashotbyseve

It all counts
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
1,855
Location
Randwick or Rosehill racecourse.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
THE High Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the legality of the Federal Government's proposed $900 tax bonus to 8.7 million taxpayers.

The case has been brought by a law lecturer and former National Party office holder, Bryan Pape, a champion of states' rights.

The High Court will hear the case on March 30 and 31.

The Government plans to begin paying the bonus, part of its $42 billion economic stimulus package, in April.

The court has been advised by the Australian Taxation Office that, if it is to stop printing cheques, it needs to be told by the close of business on April 2.

Mr Pape, who worked as a barrister for 20 years before joining the University of New England in 2000, will argue the case himself.

He has a longstanding interest in constitutional issues, with a particular focus on financial relations between different levels of government.

In a 2005 paper he wrote: "By its use of the appropriation and grants powers the [Commonwealth] Parliament has expanded its authority in its quest to gain absolute power over the states."

Mr Pape said yesterday he was not motivated by the debate over the need for a large fiscal stimulus to address the global financial crisis.

"I'm not an economist," he said. "There's a question of: are you going to have a constitution or aren't you?"

The Government could have delivered a bonus "quite easily, but the way they have done it has problems," he said.

Mr Pape said he had not discussed the case with the National Party and was bringing it as "a concerned citizen, or a better description would be as a concerned lawyer".

He was chairman of the party's New England federal electorate council until last year, and remains a party member.

Mr Pape said if he wins the case, he expects it will affect the Government's ability to fund programs such as computers in schools and road projects.

Although he has criticised such payments in the past as reducing states' rights, the tax bonus is the first spending program he has challenged in court.

"This is an issue where I believe I have standing because I am a supposed recipient," Mr Pape said. "In the past I couldn't challenge any other law because I didn't have standing."

The Government has filed a defence document in which it agrees that Mr Pape has identified an issue appropriate to be heard as a constitutional case.

However, it says its Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act, passed in February, is valid law.

It will rely on five powers under the constitution: the appropriations power; the nationhood power; the external affairs power; the interstate and overseas trade and commerce power; and the taxation power.

Mr Pape's statement of claim says that the tax bonus "is characterised as a gift".

The Tax Bonus Act is "not a law with respect to taxation" and "contains no provision which lawfully appropriates money for the purposes of the Commonwealth," it says.

The Government plans to pay $900 to people whose taxable income is up to $80,000, $600 to those whose income is between $80,000 and $90,000, and $250 to those whose income is between $90,000 and $100,000.
Source: Tomorrow's SMH.

Interesting argument but surely this is a waste of his time and money?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top