Senate passes Carbon Tax

errr...no. Pay attention - I will try to explain it to you.

The key words in that section are the ones you are ignoring - "subject to this Constitution"

The GG may only act subject to this Constitution.
She may give or withdraw assent at her discretion, subject to this Constitution

She MAY NOT act arbitrarily and block legislation just because a few Alan Jones fans want her to. It doesn't work that way. There must be a basis in law to invoke the powers of s58.

But don't believe me - here are the words of Paul Hasluck. He knew a bit about the caper:

It is not that the Governor-General (or the Crown) can over-rule the elected representatives of the people but in the ultimate he can check the elected representatives in any extreme attempt by them to disregard the rule of law
http://www.gg.gov.au/res/File/PDFs/Queale Memorial Lecture.pdf

So - sorry champ. Alan Jones has been playing you for a fool again. You really need to stop listening to the shock-jocks.

 

I really hope that commie bob will still be around when we repeal this insane tax..then we can shove his own words back down his throat.


The people dont want a carbon tax...

 

Will never be repealed.

 

It looks like these "people" you are talking about will just have to stop whinging.

We have a price on carbon and there is nothing Big Tony can do about it. Especially since he will probably be looking for a new job come Christmas.

His shock-jock politicking has failed. He is toast.

 

Once the libs take power next election i expect a few people to eat a bit of humble pie

 

The Libs may win the next election. If Turnbull is made leader again - they will probably definitely win.

Whatever happens though - Abbott will not be Prime Minister. His days are numbered

 

And, ... the carbon tax will not be repealed, no matter who the leader is.

It aint gonna happen effy, sorry.

 

commie bob for PM, I agree....

Why don't you whinge at the counter of Woolworth or Coles, where it matters? It is there, where every Australian is ripped of, thanks to our cooperatives, backed by our governments, what ever color....

Carbon Tax is a necessarity to get the emissions down. Quite simple! Even a three year old will understand....

 

You can't explain something you clearly do not understand. The GG is not bound by the constitution to give royal assent to any particular piece of legislation.The key words are 'give or withhold assent AT THEIR DISCRETION'.
I know you have trouble understanding even simple statements, but just think for a minute, if the GG is required to give assent to every piece of legislation, what is the meaning of the word 'withold' and why is it there?

s58 clearly states the GG does not have to give assent, they can return the legislation to the parliment with amendments, or they can withold assent and reserve it for the sovereign's assent. This has happened 15 times in the past and assent has been withheld and the bill returned to the parliment with amendments 14 times. There is also no time line given for assent so the GG should do the right thing and not give assent to the carbon tax until after the next election.

Your quote from a lecture give by Paul Hasluck only supports what I am saying.

 

Heh!!

So you are trying telling us that our Constitution gives some unelected official absolute discretionary power to override the will of the Parliament!!

Are you sure?!?!

Go back and read my explanation again. You are talking nonsense. THe G-G can only act within the law. She is not a dictator


I refer you again to Paul Hasluck's paper:
Although it may be highly unlikely to arise in practice, it is theoretically possible that if the Governor-General were presented with a Bill, agreed to by a majority in both Houses, that was clearly contrary to some provision of the Constitution, he could return it to Parliament pointing out the conflict.
...
It is not that the Governor-General (or the Crown) can over-rule the elected representatives of the people but in the ultimate he can check the elected representatives in any extreme attempt by them to disregard the rule of law
http://www.gg.gov.au/res/File/PDFs/Queale Memorial Lecture.pdf

Unless you can explain to me why you think the Carbon Tax is illegal under the Constitution - there is nothing the G-G can do about it.



You are wrong. 100% wrong. You do not understand what you are talking about, and you are fooling nobody. I am trying to help you avoid sounding like an idiot. It seems you don't want my assistance. That is your problem.

 

The "right thing"? The "right thing" according to whom?

The citizens of Australia elected their members of parliament.

Those elected members have voted on the bill.

The "right thing" has been done.

Now, you're suggesting that an unelected "rubber stamp" should have the power to overturn our democratic process?

You must be joking.



EDIT: I don't necessarily support the tax, by the way, so my view is purely an objective one.

 

The right thing would be to put such sweeping and all pervasive changes to our tax and economice system before the people of Australia at an election.
Those elected members you speak of are nothing but political party bootlickers who only do what they are told by their party masters. Especialy Labor members, they will always obey their party masters over and above the people of their electorates. The Australian people have been rail-roaded into this carbon tax by a group of elected members of parliament acting contrary to their repeated assurances before the last election.

 

The "people of their electorates" elected them.

They didn't have to.

 

The GG is the soveriegns representative in Australia. Paul Haslucks opinion given in a public lecture is not authoritive so stop trying to rely on it.
As I have pointed out to you the GG has on numerous occassions in the past withheld assent from bills put before them.

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.

but subject to this constitution means they cannot act contrary to the constitution. It does not mean they must give assent! That would be contrary to all the rest of the wording in the paragragh and contrary to the wording in the following paragraph.

Although it is highly unlikely, and would be against convention, the GG most certainly can withhold royal assent from a piece of legislation put before them. Has I have pointed out to you already, it has happened 29 times in the past.

 

True, but they must elect someone and it doesn't change what I said. Labor politicians obey their party masters and to hell with their electorates.

 

Yep, I can't disagree with you there.

Good morning to Mr de Bruyn.

 

Heh!

It is hilarious how you keep trying to pretend the words "subject to this Constitution" are not there!


Trust me. s58 does not make the G-G a dictator with powers above the Parliament. You are talking bollocks.

It means he may not withdraw assent unless there is a legal reason for doing so.

No it wouldn't. You need to learn how to read legislation before entering into discussions like this

Really!!

Show us an example where a G-G has arbitrarily blocked legislation passed by both houses. Just one will be fine.

 

Ha!!!

Silly me. I just though a bloke who held the job for 5 years may have some idea of what his powers were. Obviously you know better!


Are you telling us Hasluck was talking bollocks when he said:
It is not that the Governor-General (or the Crown) can over-rule the elected representatives of the people but in the ultimate he can check the elected representatives in any extreme attempt by them to disregard the rule of law

How did he get the job?!?!?

 

Are you sure the GG is not elected? As for my understanding, the GG is elected by parliament to represent the Queen and crown. Are you sure about your facts here?

Just in case you are not aware, Australia is in a monarchy. YES, that does mean, that at this present time, the queen can overrule the Australian Parliament. That means, the Queens representative can over rule parliament. There are many reasons that the GG does not on many occasions, but the GG Has in the past returned poorly form laws to the parliament to be rewritten or reconsidered.

If you are so aware of constitutional law and parliamentary law, perhaps you can see this refers only to one single part of the GG responsibility and ability by law. The reason that the GG will continually return a law is, that not only can the queen over rule parliament she can dissolve it, which is in the GG's direct ability. However, should this occur without great support from the rest of the commonwealth the monarchy stands to be removed from not only the Australia's representation, the monarchy would most likely fall. even though the Queen would seem ceremonial, she does still retain ultimate power in the monarchy.( so to speak)

However, even after pointing out how wrong you seem to have you stance upon the GG, there is actually nothing the GG WILL do about it. IF, and only IF it was to be considered Illegal, that will have to be tested in court. Unfortunately for all involved, there is no legal issue to be had.

Perhaps, instead of attempting to insult the people with this far greater knowledge of your Australian legal system, you could actually provide better substance for debate.

 

Heh! It's hilarious how you keep trying to pretend the words "...he shall declare according to his discretion" are not there and the words "...that he withholds assent" are not there and the words "...that he reserves the law for the Queen's Pleasure" are not there. They all say the GG doesn't necessarily have to give their consent.

Never said it did. You either misunderstand what I said or you are trying to put words into my mouth or you misunderstand the role of the GG. Probably all of they above.

[QOUTE]It means he may not withdraw assent unless there is a legal reason for doing so.[/QUOTE]

Here you once again demonstrate your lack of understanding of the GG's role by repeatedly using the frase 'withdraws assent'.

Will 29 examples be enough? In each of the cases below the GG withheld assent to the legislation put before them. Most, but not all, eventually did get assent but the important point the list demonstrates is that the GG does not have to give their assent to any particular piece of legislation put before them.

Reserved for Sovereign’s Assent:

Customs Tariff (British Preference) Bill 1906 (failed to receive Royal Assent)
Navigation Bill 1912 (Act No. 4 of 1913)
Navigation Bill 1919 (Act No. 32 of 1919)
Navigation Bill 1920 (Act No. 1 of 1921)
Navigation Bill 1925 (Act No. 8 of 1925)
Navigation Bill 1926 (Act No. 8 of 1926)
Navigation (Maritime Conventions) Bill 1934 (Act No. 49 of 1934)
Navigation Bill 1935 (Act No. 30 of 1935)
Judiciary Bill 1939 (Act No. 43 of 1939)
Navigation Bill 1942 (Act No. 1 of 1943)
Royal Style and Titles Bill 1953 (Act No. 32 of 1953)
Flags Bill 1953 (Act No. 1 of 1954)
Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Bill 1968 (failed to receive Royal Assent)
Royal Style and Titles Bill 1973 (Act No. 114 of 1973)
Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Bill 1975 (Act No. 33 of 1975)

Bills returned by Governor-General with recommended amendments:

Commonwealth Electoral Bill 1902
High Court Procedure Bill 1903
Life Assurance Companies Bill 1905
Customs Tariff (British Preference) Bill 1906
Seamen’s Compensation Bill 1911
Navigation Bill 1912
Customs Tariff Bill 1921
Customs Tariff Bill 1926
Excise Tariff Bill 1927
Income Tax Bill 1931
United Kingdom Grant Bill 1947
Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Bill 1975
Taxation Administration Amendment Bill 1983
Veterans’ Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985

 

Read the words. ALL the words. Not just the ones you want to read.

The section says:
...he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution...

- the G-G may use discretion subject to the Constitution.


That is what it say. That is what it means.

Stop trying to argue about things you don't understand

You have been suggesting that the G-G may arbitrarily refuse assent to a Bill that has been passed by both houses of Parliament.

She cannot.

That is bollocks

Stop trying to argue about things you don't understand

Yes - and in each case it was withheld subject to the Constituion. Not by the arbitrary decision of the G-G

The important point the list demonstrates is that the GG does not have to give their assent to any particular piece of legislation put before them where a Constitutional or procedural reason exists justifying the withholding of that assent.

The G-G MAY NOT withhold assent on purely arbitrary reasons as you are suggesting

Yes - and in every single one of these, the bills were reserved for the Sovereign's assent due to legal or procedural matters subject to the Constitution (you will note all or these relate to either trade, navigation or the Privy Council - meaning there would have been some overlap with old British Law - hence the requirement for referral to the Crown)

The G-G MAY NOT withhold assent on purely arbitrary reasons as you are suggesting.

[/QUOTE]
Why is this list relevant? You were not suggesting the GG propose amendments. But even if she did - they could only be amendments relating to legal or procedural matters - not the actual intent or content of the Act



Stop trying to argue about things you don't understand

Just try to get this one tiny fact into your brain - no matter what Alan Jones or Andrew Bolt tells you, the G-G cannot do anything about the Carbon Tax. The G-G does not have the power to do anything about the Carbon Tax.

Do you understand?

 

Yes. I am sure

The GG is appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Executive. In practice - the PM chooses the GG and the Crown appoint on this advice


The GG is NOT elected by parliament

Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy. Not a Monarchy. There is a difference

Constitutional monarchy (or limited monarchy) is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the parameters of a constitution, whether it be a written, uncodified or blended constitution. This form of government differs from absolute monarchy in which an absolute monarch serves as the source of power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy

The Queen (or her representative) are part of Parliament. Not above Parliament

No. The Queen cannot overrule the Australian Parliament. The Queen is part of Parliament.

The last British monarch who thought he could overrule Parliament would have been Charles I. Parliament cut his head off. They tend not to attempt it any more.

The Queen could in theory under s59 try to annul a law passed. The High Court would probably stop it since the things have changed since s59 was written - mainly the Australia Act and the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act

No the Queen's representative cannot overrule Parliament

Exactly. So could you please tell us what is poorly formed about the Clean Energy Bill 2011 that would require it to be returned to Parliament?

No. Neither the Queen nor the GG have the power to dissolve Parliament

"Better substance for debate"?!?!?!

What?!?! Like you have done?!?!

 

Chalk and cheese. Yes, the Queen has the power not to accept the person the PM introduced as the person to take office. However, as in the speaker of the houses, a sitting of both houses of parliament are especially brought together to vote on representatives to be set before the Queen and voted on majority. OBVIOUSLY the PM gets their own way unless someone wants to cross the floor.

Oh I am so sorry, pedantic at play. Perhaps you should follow your own rules of linguistic skill and point out that the GG and Queen are part of the parliamentary process.

Does not mean it is not possible, does it?

LOL, do you really know the electoral process? perhaps you are aware that the only person who can dissolve parliament is the GG or the Queen? Do you know WHY the PM goes to the GG to call an election? Do you know who sacked the labor party in the 70's? Even if you consider it simply a traditional ceremony, the fact is the PM does not have the ability to dissolve parliament.

LOL, I see with your far greater knowledge, you can not read. I answered this in my first post. BUT just so you can have the answer again.

Obviously, as I have read your entire post and even though you avoid things in attempt to try and show how intellectual you are, I have not.

 

The GG is NOT elected by parliament. The GG is appointed by the PM. You are wrong.

Yes - you were right to correct me - of course I meant that the GG may not arbitrarily dissolve Parliament. But neither the GG nor Crown may over rule Parliament.

I'm glad you understand that the GG may not arbitrarily block legislation passed by both houses. Adultmale had claimed the GG could. That was the issue this conversation was adressing.

 

And I still maintain that the GG could refuse assent to a piece of legislation put before them. The constitution makes this very clear with the use of the words "at his discretion" and "withhold".

The Hon. Sir Harry Gibbs AC GCMG QC
...in addition the Governor-General may have the following reserve powers:

to refuse to accept the advice of the Prime Minister to dissolve both Houses of Parliament simultaneously; to refuse to assent to a proposed law; exceptional circumstances would be necessary to justify the exercise of this power.

Susan Downing
Law and Bills Digest Group
23 January 1998
The Reserve Powers of the Governor-General

....the power to withhold assent to Bills that Parliament has passed and contrary to Ministerial advice (i.e. the power of veto)

It is quite clear that the GG can withold assent from a bill put before them if they so choose.