Yep, the commonwealth is a federation of states. Overriding state law requires a change to the constitution. Section 51 I think it is. Another reason why the ACT and the NT should really be states and not territories.
Another reason why the ACT and the NT should really be states and not territories.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 83
Money to be appropriated by law
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law.
Indeed. And I can tell you now the issues under the umbrella 'Children' are a very murky area with a fair bit of overlap between State and Federal responsibility. Hence my original question.No. Only if it's an area of law that the Commonwealth has the right to legislate for.
LOL, yep. I could see why Tony-Shorten-jong-un-Australian-Abbott would love to have a 4 year term of absolute rule over the entire continentMaybe all the States should be territories and we may get some consistent legislation throughout the country.
Last time I looked marriage was not a compulsory thing for hetrosexuals to engage in.
There is no evidence whatsover that homosexuality is a genetic or congentital condition , merely supposition based on social anecdotes.
I suppose the argument could be that if homosexuals are indeed deluding or play acting, they are therefore hetrosexuals and entitled to marry, the sticking point being the communion of opposite genders.
I don't necessarily think that marriage is a Right, it's a recognition by society of a relationship. Society has the right to recognise relationships if it chooses or not recognise them either.
Everyone has the right to freedom of association, and no one is telling gays that they can't choose their partners, but the gay lobby will assume that if they can marry then they should have a right to raise children, which I don't believe the majority would approve of.
Indeed. And I can tell you now the issues under the umbrella 'Children' are a very murky area with a fair bit of overlap between State and Federal responsibility. Hence my original question.
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
(xxii) divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants;
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
(xxii) divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants;
I presume you are quoting the Federal Constitution ?
That states pretty clearly that the Federal government has the right to legislate for parental rights and therefore a plebiscite question on gay parenting is well within the powers of the Federal government.
Agree ?
Yes, the Constitution.
No. Read the whole sentence. Those enumerated powers are subject to the first part of the sentence "and in relation thereto".
So we need to define "matrimonial causes" ?
So if gays can get married the Federal government can determine their parental rights ?
From the ABC's live politics page,And while we're on the Constitution how does the postal vote get around this pesky section.
Finance Minister Mathias Cormann has a plan to try and avoid, or at least thwart, a legal challenge to the postal plebiscite on same sex marriage.
He says he has the authority to release $295 million for the postal vote without approval from the Senate, who want a free vote in Parliament instead.
This can only occur in urgent circumstances. There would be a legal argument as to whether a postal plebiscite could be considered as urgent.
Thanks mate. Really appreciated.There's this...
That would seem to be the constitutional basis for the Family Court.
It would actually be interesting to see why it was that marriage and divorce were given to the Commonwealth, considering that section is pretty much lifted from the US Constitution which leaves marriage as a state issue.
From the ABC's live politics page,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-08/politics-live-august-8/8783824
Its fricken ridiculous.If this postal rubbish goes ahead it will be the end of this Liberal government. Whichever way it goes they will lose. Aside from it being a farcical slap-in-the-face to Australian democracy, the losing side will never accept the legitimacy of the outcome. And the cost, f**k me, $295m up in smoke for a novelty survey. I've been wondering whether Heinz or Rosella make the best tomato sauce, maybe that can be included in the questionnaire.
Hopefully the HC smacks it down.
I love how fiscally prudent the same sex marriage crowd have become, with the prospect of a plebiscite at hand.
Give back your $900 plasma televisions, and withdraw your support of an unrealistic 50% renewables target, which functions only to make electricity expensive.
Here is a cost saver for you. Wait until 2019, where if the polls are correct, Electricity Bill will be PM, and will get the same sex marriage business done for you, right on the floor of parliament.
Here is a cost saver for you. Wait until 2019, where if the polls are correct, Electricity Bill will be PM, and will get the same sex marriage business done for you, right on the floor of parliament.
The right hold all the power in the Liberal party, somehow they have been able to convince Turnbull that the compromise is a plebiscite but that they still won't be forced to support the plebiscite even if the public vote in favor. The Libs policy is essentially to spend $200 million on a vote and then say "we'll think about it". Complete myth that they're the better economic managers as they hand out $30 million to Foxtel without any paper trail.Overhang and McLovin,
I think the postal plebiscite proposal is both dumb policy and $wasteful. It has been spawned by a compromise after the internal ructions within the Liberal caucus.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?