The Turnbull Government

[McLovin]

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 24 senators from a combined population of 650k people? No thanks.

It is s51 of the Constitution, and s109 gives Commonwealth legislation precedence in the areas it can legislate.

A non-binding, non-compulsory, postal plebiscite. WTF is the point. We have compulsory voting for a reason. The Westminster system is representative, not direct. There is no need to poll the electorate, unless Constitutionally mandated.

 

[SirRumpole]

Another reason why the ACT and the NT should really be states and not territories.

Maybe all the States should be territories and we may get some consistent legislation throughout the country.

 

[McLovin]

And while we're on the Constitution how does the postal vote get around this pesky section.

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.

That's the bit that separates us from tin-pot dictatorship where the president's kids can raid government coffers to buy a new Ferrari or a holiday home in Switzerland.

 

[Ves]

No. Only if it's an area of law that the Commonwealth has the right to legislate for.

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.

But hey, it's easier to just suggest a 'plebiscite' for anything that you disagree with than it is to know how the system actually works.

 

[PZ.]

Maybe all the States should be territories and we may get some consistent legislation throughout the country.

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 continent

 

[overhang]

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 guess you also believe that people fake eczema and just scratch their body for no reason, do you also believe that autism is all acted too and just due to environment? Anyone with any common sense is aware that sexuality isn't a conscious process, do you really think that so many gays would have killed themselves for being gay if they could simply hit a switch and change?

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.

I think marriage is a right, it's not just a cultural norm but a legal contract and same sex couples should have the same right to enter that contract. Should have society had the right to decide if women should vote? If the indigenous can marry whites? You are stawmanning by suggesting this is about children, this isn't some hidden agenda to secretly grant same sex couples rights to steal your children.

 

[McLovin]

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.

There's this...

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;

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.

 

[SirRumpole]

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 ?

 

[McLovin]

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". I'd go further and say the section only deals with children during divorce. It doesn't permit the Commonwealth to decide who can or cannot have children.

 

[SirRumpole]

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 ?

 

[McLovin]

So we need to define "matrimonial causes" ?

Matrimonial causes are reasons for divorce, back when divorce was a naughty word.

So if gays can get married the Federal government can determine their parental rights ?

No. It can do things like determine who has custody of children when a gay couple get divorced.

 

[drsmith]

And while we're on the Constitution how does the postal vote get around this pesky section.

From the ABC's live politics page,

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.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-08/politics-live-august-8/8783824

 

[Ves]

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.

Thanks mate. Really appreciated.

 

[Logique]

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.

 

[McLovin]

From the ABC's live politics page,


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-08/politics-live-august-8/8783824

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 (and yes, it's a survey not a plebiscite – it's being conducted by the ABS, not the AEC). 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.

 

[moXJO]

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.

Its fricken ridiculous.
$295 mill, it just boggles the mind.
Libs will be gone after this. I'd laugh if they try and claim "fiscal responsibility" again.

 

[overhang]

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.

And to the contrary I love how fiscally reckless the conservatives have become, all of a sudden $100 million doesn't matter to something that could be completely fruitless because the Libs won't even enforce a binding vote. I think it's stupid to waste over $100 million only to have Libs not listen anyway.

 

[McLovin]

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.

Isn't that exactly what they're doing? Which is why the government can't get the plebiscite through the parliament and is trying to get its postal survey off the ground.

 

[Logique]

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.

 

[overhang]

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.

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.