The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > An election is not a rubber stamp for three years of legislation > Comments

An election is not a rubber stamp for three years of legislation : Comments

By Andrew Bartlett, published 10/9/2007

Labor's mandate? If Labor wins the election it wants their (yet to be drafted) workplace relations legislation passed by the Senate.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
I agree with the view that the Senate should carefully analyze any legislation which comes before it, assuming that the Labor Party wins, and that they quickly bring forward major changes to Industrial Relations legislation. Any proposed legislation needs to be carefully considered to ensure that it complies with policies which were put before the people for their consideration. If there is some departure between the relevant bill and the policy the Government should have good and cogent reasons for the departure, and those reasons would have to be carefully considered.
I also agree that the 'mandate' concept has been well and truly overworked by both major political parties over the years. However given the intense debate which has occurred in relation to industrial relations I think it is fair to put forward the view that this would be one topic in relation to which the Labor Party would be able to claim a 'mandate', if they win. However it should not be forgotten that the 'mandate' concept cuts both ways. Heaven forbids what will happen if the present Government is returned. It is almost too horrible to contemplate
Posted by herbie, Monday, 10 September 2007 6:16:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I am on record that if Labour is elected it has a mandate in regard of seeking to abolish Workckoices AWA’s. However, it is a different issue when it comes to the Senate (regardless if labour were to control the Senate) as Senators are elected to represent the States. Something Andrew Bartlett also ought to keep in mind when voting for the Aboriginal invasion of recent! The Senate is obligated to scrutinise if the legislation proposed is in fact appropriate for the States they represent and if not they have a duty and obligation to pursue the legislation to be amended to be acceptable to the Senate.
This, is totally ignored currently by Liberal, National, Labour and also some Green and Australian Democrats senators!
Andrew may correctly point out that the Senate has its own position in the parliament but he seems to totally disregard this when unconstitutional legislation came along regarding Aboriginals because it happens to suit his liking’s.
As such, we need Andrew to be consistent and practice what he preaches, all the time!
As for the GST, at Sunday markets items are sold for the same prices as in supermarkets and other stores, just that the supermarkets and other stores are including GST and the markets sellers just keep that GST for themselves! Yet, neither the Taxation Department and/or Treasurer Peter Costello has done anything to deal with this issue. Meaning that those earning an honest income are having to make up the shortfall in taxes! Andrew, where are you........ to pursue this issue, finally?
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Monday, 10 September 2007 6:23:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, I think you may have Senator Andrew Bartlett confused with somebody else. I'm not aware of any other sitting politician who has dedicated himself/herself to the plight of our indigenous friends in the same consistent long-term manner as Andrew Bartlett.

You talk of unconstitutional legislation which I can only guess is in reference to the recent intervention into the Northern Territory. Did you not realise that Andrew Bartlett opposed this legislation? I suggest you check out his blog and get your facts straight www.andrewbartlett.com/blog
Posted by Vicki Stocks, Tuesday, 11 September 2007 4:09:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vicki Stocks as I recall it Andrew himself commented that the Federal Government had the legislative powers to amend their own legislation as it deemed fir and proper. This I make clear is not so. The Commonwealth of Australia when exercising powers within Subsection 51(xxvi) can only pass legislation for all people of the Aboriginal race, not just some of them.
As such, the Commonwealth cannot willy nilly amend its legislation to apply to some Aboriginals and not to others!
And, within Territorial sovereign rights it has no powers to deal with Aboriginals as a race because the States and Territories lost that power since the 27-5-1967 referendum approved the amendment of Subsection 51(xxvi).
To me it is with Andrew the pot calling the kettle black. Sure, I still value that he raises certain issues but in my view he does himself make also gross errors concerning constitutional powers and their limits. I am not the one who will ignore any abuse or misuse of constitutional powers and limitations and view it appropriate to expose the so to say double standards applied.
Considering the time Andrew is in the Senate and considering his involvement in committees I for one would rather have preferred a display of competence in constitutional powers and limitations. After all, if Andrew lacks in that then how can anyone rely upon what he does in the Parliament if he is unknown to what is constitutionally permissible or not?
I have no doubt that if I were to put every member of parliament through a test on constitutional powers and limitations, regardless if they are lawyers or not, then each and everyone will fail the test. And that is of concern as it means we have a political driven government rather then a constitutional driven government! Hence the unconstitutional invasion into Iraq, as an example.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 12:38:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find myself in agreement with Andrew Bartlett's article.

Andrew, I would be intersted to know your thoughts on (now former) Labor Premier Beattie's style of Government in Queenlsand.

He is also a master at claiming mandates to do just about anything from an election which he won only because the Liberal National Opposition was judged to be more incompetent and more pro-business than his own Government.

The obvious example is unpopular forced council amalgamations done at the behest of the Property Council of Australia, which were not put to the electors at the last state election in 2006.
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 1:24:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brains trust debate:
I wonder if the Democrats had not so admirably and illogically
placed a GST on books--we may have discovered what every nation in
Europe already knows--the only result from compulsory medication
of a whole population over an extended period simply creates what is entirely missing in Australia--ie intelligence.
[see decline of japanese iq by 3-6 points in a single decade as an indicator what brilliant minds we allow to bamboozle us.

http://www.fluoridation.com

I imagine that the Fourteen Nobel Prize winners work probably need to disclose their citation methodology[sic]...

Politics by merit,not consensus--thanks.
Posted by mcpherson, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 12:44:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy