Senate passes Carbon Tax

Yes. That is what it means.

That was the policy taken to the election.

Yes - a 3 year fixed price period was agreed with the Greens after the election. Yes, I know Tony likes to call this a "Tax".

So?!?!?

And these occaisions were?

I think all Australian expect to be lied to by the Prime Minister. It has happened for many years:

"The Australian Government knows that Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons and that Iraq wants to develop nuclear weapons." "Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons-uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in Iraq"
4 February 2003

"The Government's position remains that we were advised by Defence that children were thrown overboard, we made those allegations on the basis of that advice, and until I get Defence advice
to the contrary I will maintain that position". 9 November 2001

"Nothing can alter the fact that I have in my possession an ONA report that states baldly . . . that children were thrown in the water." 8 November 20

At least Gillard has told no lies that have implicated Australia in war crimes - as one of her predecessors did.

 

That does not answer my question.

Do Australians consider it is acceptable because Gillard set the standard?

 

No garry you didn't "take me to task".

Let's see some of the incorrect things you stated:

Wrong.

And the amount of seats won DOES NOT SHOW the amount of VOTES received, which is the whole point.

Completely wrong.

Wrong.

That's the TPP, so again, wrong.

That "figure" was the two party preferred vote. Again, wrong.

Wrong.

And... wrong again.

I quoted the TPP vote, and said, the ALP got more votes, and the Coalition won more seats. That statement is ENTIRELY ACCURATE.

No you did not "own" me garry. You just demonstrated you have no frickin idea wtf you are talking about most of the time.

 

Yes, I am not sure I wish to continue, I think you will find the reason for that here,
http://www.politicalforum.com/austr...ng-shades-things-come-aust-5.html#post4767858

Now, I do not expect any response other than stringent attempt to complain and insult, But is occurred to me I do not wish to associate to such people. I think they should be shunned by the world, unfortunately many good people will get the wrong impression. But it is the likes of these type of people they must work so much harder then others to gain respect of other nations.

Other than that, you seem to wish to return to the origin of your debate, to what ends I do not know. You continued attempts to insult and win some point by manipulating figures and quotes to attempt to show, whatever it is you are trying to justify. It is that it is obvious that you have nothing more, but your mannerisms and vocal outbursts show exactly that I do own you, as you can not leave it alone.

As with your attempts to insult and argue a point we agreed on in another thread demonstrates

Thank you, but I have explained myself as to why I am ending this, I did have fun until it occurred to me, your mindset.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT.

 

Ohhhh, bailing out garry! Weak!

I merely restated, in a nice easily readable list, all your incorrect "facts" about our electoral system.

Without even knowing your race, I am racially discriminating against you! Brilliant!

Really don't have a leg to stand on do you garry?

I've figured out what you sound like now. A google translator! Same sort of bad sentence structure, miss placed words and poor grammar.

 

Thank you for your input and another example of your bigotry

 

Just an observation buddy and you're welcome!

 

Just a thought, do you really represent a decent cross section of the Australian community?

No wonder, the World is stating Australians are racist.

 

Ohhhh, ouch! But again obviously you're neither Australian nor live in Australia. Who were those MP's you had private conversations with again? Who is being "deceptive" again?

 

So, no answer.

Oh, I have already answered that.

I release you from your bonds, YOU ARE RIGHT. I do not wish to have anymore conversation with you for the reasons explained.

Thank you for your input.

 

Does "one person" represent a "cross section" of a country of 22 million people? Do you need an answer to that question garry?

Oh how patronising. But no garry, in almost every single one of your posts you accused me of "deceiving" people, lieing, etc, etc. All of which was of course bollocks, but not only that, it was hypocritical too!

I asked:

To which you replied:

So, you are not Australian, you don't live in Australia and from your question of whether I am representive of Australians it appears that you have never even been here.

So, who were these ALP MP's you spoke to garry? Come on.

Or was this, in fact, a lie?

 

once again we get nothing but your opinion. Once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the topic by using incorrect terminology. Once again you try your ploy of trying to scew the debate by interpreting what I say then commenting on your own interpretation as if they were my words.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 58 Royal assent to Bills
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.

s.58 talks about laws presented to the GG. It says that they have a discretion to assent or withhold assent to those laws. However, their discretion is tempered by the phrase, 'but according to this Constitution'. What does this mean? This is not clear but the section is talking about laws and we know for a law to be legal it cannot be in contravention of the consititution, it cannot be in discord with the constititution. As you have already stated, and I agree, the GG cannot give assent to a law that is in discord with the constitution, so therefore the GG has no 'discretion' toward such laws. So what is it they have discretion towards? We know they have no discretion toward a law in discord with the constitution which only leaves 'legal' laws. If they must give assent to a 'legal' law as you claim, and they cannot give assent to an 'illegal' laws, that would mean they have no discretion at all. But the word is still there, they must have discretion somewhere. It is plain that the GG has discretion to assent or withhold assent to legal laws only.
This ability to withhold assent is given s.58 as well as arguably in the 'reserve' powers'.
We await your reasoned argument in response, with creditable references.

 

No - that is not "plain" - it is in your imagination

s58 does not give the GG any such power. That is why your own source descibes the power to withhold assent as a doubtful reserve power. A reserve power with no precedent and one which would be impossible to enact in the situation you are suggesting

Read your own source. Carefully this time.

 

So you can't provide a reasoned argument in support of your opinion.
So you can't provide any creditable third party references to support your opinion.
So you can't refute what I have said with a reasoned rebuttal.
So you can't refute my references with a reasoned rebuttal. All you have done is cling desparately to one word in just ONE of my references while ignoring the rest.
Fail, fail, fail and fail again.
All you have been doing is bleating your own personal opinion without any explanation of why you have such an opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but by continueing this you have gone beyond foolishness, you are now making a complete idiot of yourself. Are you really so stupid that you cannot see that you have lost the argument.
I will not post on this topic again unless you can come up with something more substantial than your own opinion.

 

I have provided a reasoned argument in support of your opinion. You wrote:

This is not possible. Unless GG wants the Bill amended in some way and returned to the House - what you are suggesting is not allowed by by s 58 of the Constitution

YOU have provided creditable third party references to support your opinion. Read your own source. Carefully this time.

It does not say that the power of veto is prescribed by s58. It says it is a doubtful reserve power

The fact you cannot understand it, doesn't mean I haven't done it

Yes words are troublesome, aren't they. Like the ones "subject to this Constitution" in s58 that you keep pretending are not there.

The GG does not have dictatorial powers. She MAY NOT overrule the will of the Parliament.

The evidence has been shown to you. It is all there in s58. That you don't understand it - it's not my fault


But you want more opinion?

You have been shown the opinion of Paul Hasluck:
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 or the customary usages of Australian government
http://www.gg.gov.au/res/File/PDFs/Queale Memorial Lecture.pdf

but apparently, you say he doesn't count because ...well...he actually WAS a Governor-General...whatever,


You have shown us yourself the opinion of Susan Downing who described "the power to withhold assent to Bills that Parliament has passed and contrary to Ministerial advice (i.e. the power of veto)" as a doubtful reserve power. She DID NOT say it was a power prescribed by s58.

Or you could look at the opinion of Anne Twomey - who states very clearly in this paper:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1007341&

that the GG CANNOT arbitrarily withhold assent


It is also conceivable that in extreme circumstances a discretion might be exercised by the Queen or her representative to refuse royal assent. However, convention would prohibit such a discretion being exercised on policy grounds alone. It could only be legitimately exercised to uphold fundamental constitutional principles such as representative and responsible government, and then, only in circumstances where the matter could not be dealt with by the courts. The willingness of Australian courts to draw constitutional implications that act as a limitation on legislative power to impinge upon the system of representative and responsible government, and the increasing preparedness of British courts to consider the validity of legislation, mean that very little, if any, of that discretion could be legitimately exercised today.

ie..."subject to the Constitution". NOT on the arbitrary whim of a Governor General.



Now - you wrote:

Would you like to explain to us what the extraordinary circumstance may be that would allow the GG to exercise her powers under s58 to do this? What is the fundamental constitutional principle being threatened that is out of the juristiction of the High Court?

 

Indeed words can be troublesome, like 'at his discretion' and 'or withhold assent' which you kept ignoring. But you are now pretending you didn't read my post where I gave my considered opinion of the meaning of the words 'subject to this constitution'. I have never pretended those words are not there, that was a lie wasn't it? I have refered to them many times, I just have a differing interpretation.

Hurray!! Took you awhile to find that didn't it. No, Anne Twomey doesn't state that very clearly at all. You obviously didn't read it through. She states very clearly that the issue is unresolved with many differing opinions.

 

...he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name...

THe GG cannot make arbitrary decisions on a whim. They must have a basis in law. Don't try to pretend the words are not there. They are.


This is why Twomey wrote:
It could only be legitimately exercised to uphold fundamental constitutional principles such as representative and responsible government, and then, only in circumstances where the matter could not be dealt with by the courts.

This is why the source that you posted yourself (but did not understand) did not identify the power of veto as a power prescribed by s58.

Co back and read your own source. Carefully
And read the Twomey paper. Carefully

You don't have a considered opinion. You are completely ignorant about this subject and it shows by this childish refusal to actually try to understand why you are wrong.

An incorrect interpretaton.

...he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name...

THe GG cannot make arbitrary decisions on a whim. They must have a basis in law. Don't try to pretend the words are not there. They are.

Try actually reading - CAREFULLY - the references that have been provided for you

What exactly is unclear about:
It could only be legitimately exercised to uphold fundamental constitutional principles such as representative and responsible government, and then, only in circumstances where the matter could not be dealt with by the courts. ?!?!?!

What bit don't you understand?

No she does not - stop trying to pretend that you read or understood the paper. You are fooling nobody.


She very clearly concludes:
The willingness of Australian courts to draw constitutional implications that act as a limitation on legislative power to impinge upon the system of representative and responsible government, and the increasing preparedness of British courts to consider the validity of legislation, mean that very little, if any, of that discretion could be legitimately exercised today.

That is not saying "that the issue is unresolved with many differing opinions."
Nothing like it. The lies you are now telling are pathetic. Do you really think you are fooling anyone?

 

I quess you must have missed it, so here it is again;

s.58 talks about laws presented to the GG. It says that they have a discretion to assent or withhold assent to those laws. However, their discretion is tempered by the phrase, 'but according to this Constitution'. What does this mean? This is not clear but the section is talking about laws and we know for a law to be legal it cannot be in contravention of the consititution, it cannot be in discord with the constititution. As you have already stated, and I agree, the GG cannot give assent to a law that is in discord with the constitution, so therefore the GG has no 'discretion' toward such laws. So what is it they have discretion towards? We know they have no discretion toward a law in discord with the constitution which only leaves 'legal' laws. If they must give assent to a 'legal' law as you claim, and they cannot give assent to an 'illegal' law, that would mean they have no discretion at all. But the word is still there, they must have discretion somewhere. It is plain that the GG has discretion to assent or withhold assent to legal laws only.
This ability to withhold assent is given s.58 as well as arguably in the 'reserve' powers'.

Please explain why you disagree with my reasoning above.

You have been bleating this line from the start but you have not given any reasoning, like I have above, why you hold this opinion. You also have not given any reasoning why "according to his discretion......assents or withholds assent" actually means they have no discretion. Reasoning mate, you are not providing any. Tell us what discretion is s.58 giving the GG?

Yes that's her opinion but in the same paper there is;

"Neither the written Constitutions in Australia nor the largely unwritten United Kingdom Constitution give clear answers to these questions. Not even those closely involved with the procedure for giving royal assent seem certain of the answers".

Guess you must have missed that bit, eh? And;

"Brazier has also argued that the power to refuse assent continues to exist because the royal prerogative is part of the common law, and common law powers ‘do not become extinct merely through lack of use’. As it has not been abrogated by statute, it continues to exist".

Must have missed that bit too. And;

"If one takes the view that the Queen or her vice-regal representative is not required to act on the advice of the House(s) of Parliament in giving royal assent, then this opens up greater scope for discretion. That discretion may be personal or may be exercised upon the advice of Ministers".

Missed that too didn't you? Or are you just pretending these and a few other statements are not there.

You have also avoided mentioning this quote;

Ian Ireland and Kirsty Magarey
Law and Bills Digest Group
23 January 1998
The powers accorded to the Governor-General in the Constitution are considerable. The Governor-General may:

....assent, withhold assent, reserve for the Queen's pleasure, or return with recommendations for amendment, a law passed by both Houses of the Parliament (section 58 )

 

There is no sense in continuing this debate.
The fact is there is no clear answer to the quetion, "Can the GG withhold assent to a law that has passed both houses of parliment", just a range of differing opinions. Those opinions range from no chance, to maybe in certain circumstances, to yes they can. The power has never been tested so we won't know until the day a GG tries it on.
I believe s.58 gives them the power to withhold assent at their discretion. Convention is that they assent to 'legal' laws but I still think the bottom line is, they could still withhold assent if they chose to.
I won't change my opinion until someone presents a reasoned argument which concludes the constitution does not give the GG the power to withhold assent to a law put before them or concludes that the constitution forces them to assent. No one (other than myself) has tried to put forward any reasoned explanation of what the words "at his discretion" in s.58actually mean.

 

You got that right

No - you have found no opinion that states "yes they can" arbitrarily withhold assent.

That is why you are wrong.

You wrote:

and we are still waiting for you to explain on what basis the GG would do this.

The GG DOES NOT have arbitrary dictatorial powers to overrule the Parliament.

And you are completely wrong.

If you actually understood the opinion of Downing you posted you would see that opinion shows very clearly you are wrong.

And again - you are completely wrong. The paper by Twomey states that very clearly

It could only be legitimately exercised to uphold fundamental constitutional principles such as representative and responsible government, and then, only in circumstances where the matter could not be dealt with by the courts.

"at his discretion" means exactly what it says. The GG may use the powers of s58 at their discretion BUT subject to the Constitution.

As Twomey wrote:
It could only be legitimately exercised to uphold fundamental constitutional principles such as representative and responsible government, and then, only in circumstances where the matter could not be dealt with by the courts.

 

Discretion to apply the powers of s58 subject to the Constitution.

Not discretion to act as a dictator and overrule Parliament.

Stop trying to cherry pick. The questions Twomey is discussing at this point relate to vice-regal acts upon the advice of Ministers.

The final conclusion of the paper was:
The willingness of Australian courts to draw constitutional implications that act as a limitation on legislative power to impinge upon the system of representative and responsible government, and the increasing preparedness of British courts to consider the validity of legislation, mean that very little, if any, of that discretion could be legitimately exercised today.

No - I didn't miss it. I read it and understood it.

What does Brazier's opinion about UK law have to do with anything? Do you understand that the UK does not have a written Constitution?

Stop cherry picking and quoting out of context. It is dishonest.

Stop cherry picking and quoting out of context. It is dishonest.

The discussion relates to Royal assent in the UK. If you read further down that section you will find:

The position is different in the Australian States. This is because laws that subvert the Constitution or the system of responsible and representative government are capable of being held invalid by a court....Accordingly, the appropriate check upon an Australian Parliament that enacted legislation aimed at subverting or destroying representative or responsible government would be the courts rather than the refusal of assent by the Governor.

Read the whole document and stop cherry picking. It is dishonest.

Show me a link for this in its correct context and I will show you what you have misunderstood.


The GG Cannot arbitrarily overrule Parliament - and certainly not for cheap political reasons as you suggested here:

 

"Brazier has also argued that the power to refuse assent continues to exist because the royal prerogative is part of the common law, and common law powers ‘do not become extinct merely through lack of use’. As it has not been abrogated by statute, it continues to exist".

Ian Ireland and Kirsty Magarey
Law and Bills Digest Group
23 January 1998
The powers accorded to the Governor-General in the Constitution are considerable. The Governor-General may:
....assent, withhold assent, reserve for the Queen's pleasure, or return with recommendations for amendment, a law passed by both Houses of the Parliament (section 58 )

And for what it's worth - Wikapedia
Typically these powers are:

to grant pardon;
to dismiss a Prime Minister;
to refuse to dissolve Parliament;
to refuse or delay the Royal Assent to legislation. To withhold the Royal Assent amounts to a veto of a Bill. To reserve the Royal Assent in effect amounts to a decision neither to grant nor refuse assent, but to delay taking a decision for an undetermined period of time

You have yet to explain your reasoning. So what does 'but subject to this constitution' mean? and why do you think it means what you think it means?
You have yet to answer my question, what discretion does s.58 give the GG? and why do you think what you think.
I have given you my reasoned explanation why I think s.58 allows the GG to withhold assent. You have not given us a similar reasoned explanation of why you think s.58 does not allow the GG to withhold assent.

Yawn

 

Brazier is talking about the royal prerogative in the UK - where there is no written Constitution.

In Australia - a arbitrary power of veto has been abrogated by statute - the Constitution. s58 where the GG may use discretion subject to this Constitution

Yes - subject to this Constitution. Not arbitrarily on a political whim.

Subject to: - Being dependent or conditional upon something

The GG may act with discretion - but this discretion is dependent upon the provisions of the Constitution.

eg. If a Parliament passed a bill through both houses to ban all future elections - the GG could use her discretion to withhold assent because there is a Constitutional basis to do so (although it would probably be subject to a High Court challenge before it got anywhere near the GG).

She does not have the power to arbitrarly withhold assent on a political whim.

 

Don't stop there, tell us what provisions of the constitution their decision to assent or withhold assent would be dependent on. Tell us what provision of the constitution requires the GG to give assent to any particular law.

So they have discretion to assent to an unconstitutional law? I don't think so. The GG would not have discretion in such a case. That is what "but subject to this constitution" means, they do not have discretion toward an unconstitutional law. Go back and re-read my reasoning why s.58 gives them the power to withhold assent.
At least you did try to explain yourself this time.

 

Read the Twomey paper again:


It is also conceivable that in extreme circumstances a discretion might be exercised by the Queen or her representative to refuse royal assent. However, convention would prohibit such a discretion being exercised on policy grounds alone. It could only be legitimately exercised to uphold fundamental constitutional principles such as representative and responsible government, and then, only in circumstances where the matter could not be dealt with by the courts.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1007341&