It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Australias Howard Government Gets control of the Senate

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Just announced. For the first time in nearly thirty years a sitting Australian Government has control of both the Upper and Lower Houses of Government.

Queensland Coalition Senator Barnaby Joyce won the final outstanding seat at the end of Senate counting, giving the Howard Government a one seat majority. It means that the Government need not make any deals with the opposition, minor parties or independents to pass legislation into law.

We live in interesting times.




posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   
god damnit, i hoping that wouldnt happen.

does this mean that howard gov can pass ANY legislation they want(considering the majority)??

or is there more to it than that.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Yeah it's bad news alright, the senate will be able to act as a "rubber stamp" for legislation proposed by the house of representatives. Now we just have to wait and see if and how they abuse this ability to rubber stamp legislation.
Basically there are the stages that a bill has to go through to become legislation, this involves several readings and discussions etc. The majority or bills (proposed legislation) originate in the lower house (the house of representatives) and the go on to the upper house (the Senate), who usually check the proposed legislation. But now because they control both houses, the Senate will most likely just agree with any proposed legislation. But then it still must get Royal Assent. So although it is more likely that the legislation proposed in the lower house will be passed by both houses, there is no guarantee that all bills will be approved.
I think this basically sums it up, feel free to correct any mistakes i may have made in terms of the whole process.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 12:13 AM
link   
I think the Royal assent business has largely be reduced through a process to simply having the Queens Representative witness the documents into law. Even the Whitlam Government sacking by Governor General Kerr came as a total surprise to the Queen, because Kerr, selected by Whitlam to be an independent Australian GG acted just as that.

I think that was one of the reasons Whitlam ended up with a Royal title wasnt - recognition of services and as an apology from the Queen (half serious there)

GG is a cross the t's and dot the i's exercise.

I am not sure. Correct me if I am wrong but isnt there some legislation that required not just the numbers but a two thirds majority? Issues to do with major changes to the Constitution of Australia and the Terms of office....ie. An elected government standing for 5 instead of 3 years keep coming to mind.

Or am I out of mine?



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Well we might actually get somewhere now. Get rid of the unions.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by craigandrew
I am not sure. Correct me if I am wrong but isnt there some legislation that required not just the numbers but a two thirds majority? Issues to do with major changes to the Constitution of Australia and the Terms of office....ie. An elected government standing for 5 instead of 3 years keep coming to mind.


I'm not sure about standing for 5 years instead of 3. I'm not sure if you meant this, but when there is to be a change to the wording of the Constitution there has to be a referrendum and for this to succeed it has to get a "yes" vote by a majority or voters in Australia and a "yes" majority in a majority of states (at least 4 out of 6), then it must get Royal assent. In the past these have not been very successful, with only 8 out of 44 getting the "double majority" that is required. On the other hand a referrendum is not required for an interpretation of the constitution but this may only be done by the High Court of Australia.

But all of this is a bit off topic. Is this what you were trying to say craigandrew? If not, just ignore what i've said or remember it for any future discussions about what is required for a change to the Australian Constitution.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Its all good thanks. The best threads are evolving threads.


D

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Well we might actually get somewhere now. Get rid of the unions.


I think we need to keep the unions around. Without the unions, the government and private employers can pretty much do whatever they like, though it appears that the power of the Union has eroded over the years with a few exceptions such as the Teachers Federation.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by D

Originally posted by mad scientist
Well we might actually get somewhere now. Get rid of the unions.


I think we need to keep the unions around. Without the unions, the government and private employers can pretty much do whatever they like, though it appears that the power of the Union has eroded over the years with a few exceptions such as the Teachers Federation.


I think that was his point D.

Unions really do need to be there to "Keep the bastards honest" Which, really I don't see happening for veery long. Being a young australian (27) I am really disillisioned about where our country is at, and terribly sad at our state of affairs here. Seems that the Elections was dictated by economy, and really shuoldn't the first priority of a country be the wefare of its people?

Seems Howard just wants to stay with the 'in' crowd. Sad.

M@



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Yes. I think the swing that the coalition got in the election is a concern. I am 50 & i don,t recall a time when the senate was so one sided. Usually the Democrats could throw a spanner in the works. What is left of Medicare is gone now. Workplace relations is high on the list now the door is open. I am a skilled tradesman with 5 kids. I wouldn,t like to be an unskilled production worker going into the C.E.O. of a big company on my own to ask for a rise. Perhaps my workmates would help me. I remember the days of the 38 hr week fight. They said the country couldn,t afford it. We managed but. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. An oldy but a goody. If i tell my missus & kids that i control the game now, do as you are told, i move the goalposts when i want, i will either become very lonely or very unhappy. Freedom is everything & our personal freedoms are being eroded. This election hasn,t helped that. Who wants to live in fear of being anonymously dobbed in by his neighbour because he goes down the back shed too much. Thats the way i see our country going now. The innocence of Hoges & Strop are gone. I have a full size flagpole flying the Australian flag in my back yard. I love my country. Fight for freedom. Don,t let it be just another word for nothing left to lose. Sorry if i,m a bit off topic boss.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   
I feel for ya wombat. Although we both face different economic situations, we both do agree that we are in some serious trouble. Like I said before we are in a serious state of affairs.

I think the only thing we can do is let Howard know it isn't so great to abuse your previlidges, will be interesting to see what he does with all this power.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 04:13 AM
link   
If he does and we get rid of him in 2007 wanna bet the ALP doesnt go back on anything they put in place......bar cancelling or deferring any ADF contracts that havent cut metal yet.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join