Wayne Swan is re-introducing the alcopops legislation into parliament - that legislation was shot down by the barest of margins, with Steve Fielding's vote being the decider.

In my humble opinion it was a dumb piece of revenue-raising legislation that would just encourage young people to buy spirits by the full bottle, which is hardly an improvement, but actually, the merit of the alcopops legislation is only partially relevant to the topic I'm bringing up here.

If the legislation fails again, it will be the trigger for a double dissolution - an early election.

Federal Labor is riding high in the polls, but I'd bet that they're worried that as the recession bites, they'll take a hit.

So it would be very good for them to have an election sooner, rather than later.

They won't mind a bit if they have an early election. The only other outcome, is that they'll get their tax, which would raise $26 billion over four years (so they say. Says a lot about the state of alcohol consumption in Australia).
Given their recent broadband announcements, I imagine they could use the money. So it's a win-win for Labor.

But, regardless of whether you agree with the legislation, isn't it a bit rich to simply ignore the will of parliament?

In regards to legislation, my view is that regardless of whether I agree with it, if it gets shot down in parliament, you either change it significantly or take your lumps and go home.

Labor is doing neither. They're charging back in, like a pissed off bull.

Look, I'm hardly going to vote for the opposition party while it includes the likes of MPs such as Abbott, Andrews and Pyne.
But as was the case with the Bligh government's contemptuous decision to call an election, this kind of politicking really pisses me off, and causes me to direct my vote to whatever third party I can.

Is this cynical manipulation, and would you punish Labor for it? (And yes, of course Howard did similar things, but that's not what this is about).

More here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25337918-601,00.html

You bet he is.They will go for an early election this year.What they have of do is cut taxes and reduce the size of Govt.It was not until after WW2 did the Great Depression end.People lived in real hardship from the 30's to the 50's and it was not until Govt cut taxes by 33% and it's spending likewise,did the good times return.

The Rudd Govt cannot spend it's way out of recession or borrow it's way out of debt.It is a balanced free enterprise system that creates prosperity.Kevin must secure alternative energy systems,stop preditory pricing and get the banks to pass on interest rate cuts.

We now have less competition in the banks and they are screwing us once again.

re the alco pops thing[they were overpriced before and are more over priced to come[but bying a four pack was plenty to have a good social night out...now its cheaper to buy a botle of straight spirit

but polititions love tax to save us from our selves[its all about revenue raising from those who have no voice[like smokers]who are vilified then taxed,standard opperating procedure for the two party farce

please note the poor get the taxes[noting no tax on whine drank by the rich[thus also no vilification on the whine drinkers,who run the two party farce[what happend to no tax without representation[oh thats usa ..lol

anyhow re the double trouble dis-solution,that wont be re the/revenue raising neo-tax con[that will be re/carbon credits[the greens cant support the low number

[and the libs half know its a con,but arnt rebutting the non-debate we never had on the topic..

[so the double/trouble-disolution comes[and labourites get back in with a mandate to bring in the neo-tax..[for the derivitives/scammers next derivitive/scam..[the_carbon_tax]..lol

and people think they had their say in the demon[mock]racy..via auto-rat-tic demon mokery;..the two/party farce pretends to be demo-c-rat-tic

[people dont know the beuro-roc-rats run the two party farce,for the unspeakable shadow-govt[big buisness and bankers via the media and law societies run by the teutronic zionista builder/burgers and masons

its all a joke[your vote is a defacto power..of atourney..you give as a legal imbisile..for others to take care of your affairs...lol..[ie to tax you and percicute and criminalise your kids]

via the real sepperation[lol]of powers,state fed and council[are we over governed..you bet,..but soon the un is going to bring its carbon tax[globally via the imf,and nothing govt going to do but make it legal,...

for them to tax you into serfdom and perpetual bondage..[while your omnipotant over/lords lord it over you with their free big busins-ness tax egsemptions..[and no doudt further bonus and yet more tax cuts..[for them...lol,..while you get a casual fixed contracted wage,

you think is income..and pay income tax on[its not wage tax its income tax]..but heh with free govt re/education you get what you earned..[demon mockracy]..history...never..learned

Sorry OUG, I find your post virtually unintelligible, perhaps you could try writing it in a more structured form?
I don't think TinTin will use this YET, he will wait for a more advantageous situation, when Mal-mouth has shot himself in the foot in some spectacular fashion, and I suspect that's bound to happen.
I wonder if the Libs have ever had a leader who was more out-of-touch with the general population than Turnbull?
I think Labor will go early, just not yet, and it will probably be a double, to try ridding themselves of the Independents in the Senate, but I reckon that will blow up in their faces in the end, we could easily see MORE Independents elected.
Did you know that if you put both parties last on your ballot, it's almost impossible for them to seize your pref's?
And that it's a crime under the electoral act to publicise that fact during an election?
A bloke in Melbourne was prosecuted for it during the election before last, under Little Jonnie. He did a letter-drop explaining it, and was fined thousands and threatened with gaol. Go Democracy!

I doubt they will call a DD over alcopops. The emissions trading scheme or the broadband rollout would be more likely DD triggers.

TRTL wrote
"isn't it a bit rich to simply ignore the will of parliament?"

You mean the will of one unrepresentative independent dont you?

I figure just taxing alco-pops only transfers teenagers to other spirits as TRTL points out. If the governemnt is serious about alcohol and binge drinking it would tax the whole gamut of products out there. I don't expect this will happen due to the risk of election backlash and Australia's entrenched drinking culture.

That said, the idea that a DD over such an issue is a bit bewildering and looks to be taking advantage of Turnbull's low opinion polling, or maybe they are hoping it goes through with Coalition support given that there is no advantage to the Libs for a DD at this time.

I believe that the re-introduction of the alcopops tax (and it is a tax, with nothing to do with health, as Roxon claims)is very poor form. If it is a ploy for a double dissolution, the Government might just get a surprise if it swinga an early election. Rudd is popular only because he is a populatist and has been able to hide his ineptitude behind cash hand outs. Nothing he promised has appeared. The 75,000 jobs he was going to create have, instead, turned into many jobs lost, and many more to come.

Rudd is popular only when he is compared with Turnbull - and who likes Turnbull?

The Opposition must - if it is not to be seen as totally stupid - oppose the alcopops tax grab again. Apart from trying to get around the democratic right and responsiblity of the Senate to do its job, the Government is being grossly irresponsible on this one, and it deserves to be punished.

I dispute the argument that alcopop drinkers will simply move on to spirits. Alcopops aren't popular because of the taste; they're popular because they're heavily marketed at a particular demographic with the association that alcopops are a cool and elegant "lifestyle" drink which marks the consumer out as a classier person than the drunk who chugs down mixed spirits.

I think it's more likely that alcopoppers will move on to wine and beer, which don't disguise the alcohol content with sugar, and thus will prevent outcomes like the epidemic of teenage pregnancy afflicting the UK, which has been tied directly to the popularity of alcopops.

mikk states: "TRTL wrote
"isn't it a bit rich to simply ignore the will of parliament?"

You mean the will of one unrepresentative independent dont you?"

No, I mean parliament, meaning that unrepresentative independent plus the opposition, and ultimately a majority of our elected politicians (though yes, fielding isn't really a representative given his minority vote).

Our parliamentary system is about a majority which in this case, came through. Regardless of which law is being debated, the onus is on Labor to change this legislation significantly or give up on it.

They lost this one. Thems is the breaks this time. They can't whinge and whine and go for a double dissolution each time they lose by a slim margin.

It worries me to be agreeing with Leigh. Labor needs to be punished, though hopefully not punished enough for the opposition to take government.

As for Turnbull, frankly, he's the best of the bunch in the opposition.

TRTL, we set our democracy up so that the two houses of parliament would be equal and in the event of a dispute arising between them that cannot be negotiatied, the government has the option of asking the people to adjudicate via a double dissolution.

That's what they are potentially doing in this case. I don't see how you can take exception to that. Most governments have a few bills that they put away for a double dissolution. Howard certainly had his.

What's undemocratic about letting the people choose?

I will admit that double dissolution elections tend to get fought on alternate issues to the ones on which they are called, but then that is often the case for elections which are often called a bit early on spurious grounds.

If this government went for an election on the alcopops tax I think that would be a pretty good indication that they think the economy is going to get worse, not better. These days, with minor party candidates, a double dissolution election is also less likely to give them a majority in the senate than it used to. They'd realise that and wouldn't really welcome one.

You'd actually give Fielding a better chance of getting up again in a double dissolution than you would in a normal election. Xenophon would probably be able to drag another one over the line with him. The quota for a senate spot will be only 7.69% of the vote. Heck Pauline Hanson would have a chance if she could get One Nation to give her preferences in Queensland!

"It worries me to be agreeing with Leigh."

If it is so terrible, TRT, don't agree with me. It doesn't worry me one way or the other

Ah, leigh, I've missed your ascerbic.... ascerbicness (yeah, I know this isn't a word).

I see what you're saying Graham, but I take a bit less of a casual attitude toward calling early elections on shaky grounds. You said that elections are often called early on spurious grounds.

I agree totally, but I guess it really ticks me off when they're called early without a decent reason.

I'll settle for a decent reason (even if it's not the real reason) but not something which is evidently a facade (Bligh's early election, being a prime example).

The idea of a double dissolution being called over alcopops tax seems a bit rich. Yes, the government can call a double dissolution - but I'm of the view that such exercises should always be the last resort, thus, if the government really is so dedicated to this alcopops tax, it should be tinkered with.

The independents may indeed have an improved chance, as you say, but it seems clear to me that the government is more interested in preserving its skin against a potentially damaging economic storm, even if that means taking a few extra independents along for the ride.

TRTL,

Its ascerbity.

Having dealt with that important business, to return to the matter of the resubmission of the alcopops tax legislation to the Parliament.

The fundamental issue here seems to me to be the raising of a tax by the use of purported regulatory power in advance of the passage of relevant legislation. Attempted rule by decree. Presumption upon the will of the Parliament by the government. Money has been extracted from the consuming public in the absence of law authorizing it. Due to the nature of such collection, its return to those from whom it has been unlawfully extracted is seemingly impractical. This leads me to ask only one question, given that the rejected Bill was one such as the Senate was prohibited by the Constitution from amending.

How can the government be punished for this impropriety?

I question, in the anticipated circumstances of the resubmission of the legislation and its being rejected yet again, whether the Governor-General may not quite properly refuse a double dissolution despite the Constitutional conditions for one having been met. The wording of Section 57 of the Constitution is that "the Governor-General MAY dissolve ... ", not that "the Governor-General SHALL dissolve ..." both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

For the Governor-General to grant a double dissolution over the rejection of this legislation, in the circumstances of there having been a presumption upon what the will of the Parliament would be such that taxes were collected without lawful authority, could be seen as subverting the intent of the Constitution. Section 61 of the Constitution makes it very clear that executive authority is exercisable by the Governor-General with respect to the maintenance of the Constitution.

She could, in effect say to the government "I will not permit this cynical exercise to inconvenience the public with an early election. Had you waited to collect this tax until you had the legislation passed, or, in the event of it being rejected twice THEN asked for a double dissolution, things would have been different. Get back to work!".

What's wrong with that?

TRTL, I normally agree with you, but not this time. The constitution allows for a DD for a very good reason, and I see nothing wrong with the government of the day using it.

Right now I am glad we have a senate. Rudd seems to be an enthusiastic and energetic leader - a bit too enthusiastic and energetic for my tastes. His actions remind me of a well meaning bull in a china shop. With so many radical big ideas floating about, it is inevitable he is going to clash heads with the senate. A DD over something would not be surprising - although alcoho-pops doesn't look like a likely trigger to me.

If you want to know an attitude that did piss me off, it was over the mandatory filtering scheme. It was 50/50 for a while there, but after the senate saw the strident popular opposition to the idea support fell away, and it now looks like the government could not get any legislation to pass. In that face of that what was the ALP's response? You would think they would drop the idea. But no, when confronted the majority of voters and the senate saying the didn't like the idea, the ALP said they were looking for non-legislative ways of getting the mandatory filter up an running. The attitude seemed to be, if democracy doesn't let us do what we want, just by-pass it. Hopefully it was just a passing phase.

Forrest,

While the only theoretical solution to keeping the Government to account is, as you say, a veto of the legislation by the GG, what chance is there of that actually happening in practice?

Unless Quentin Bryce wants to become a martyr for a cause or to become infamous (like John Kerr), there'd be very little. The Government will claim they are the Executive arm of the state and that will pretty much be the end of the matter (whether their decision be right or wrong).

I very much doubt that this is intended as a trigger for a Double Dissolution.

It simply isn't a vote generating topic. It's a non-issue and not the sort of thing to stir up the average voter.

How many times did Howard threaten the same simply on the basis of having a "mandate"?

People have pretty much made their mind up about it and would see it as simply opportunism and react accordingly.

I think it's a way of putting pressure back on the Opposition to take a real stand and not just automatically gainsay everything the government does.

Better to use the Libs own technique and pressure and bribe a couple of errant Senators.

forrestgump<<The wording of Section 57 of the Constitution is that "the Governor-General MAY dissolve ... ", not that "the Governor-General SHALL dissolve ..." both the Senate and the House of Representatives.>>yeah may is a big word[but aint it funny we arnt a col;ony [suposedly] yet still have the gg who rules on behalf of a british sct ..lol

but anyhow the current gg is the same one that signed beatyies rewrite of the qld constitution INTO AN ACT [act 70 of 20020..lol, so i presume she will be a ruddite loyalist]#

>>.. in the circumstances of there having been a presumption upon what the will of the Parliament would be such that taxes were collected without lawful authority,..could be seen as subverting the intent of the Constitution.Section 61 of the Constitution makes it very clear that executive authority is exercisable by the Governor-General with respect to the maintenance of the Constitution.>>..ok but who consists the egsecutive council section 62..lol

i would get into more detail about the con of the constitution but dont want to be labled a 'T'- errorist[see link]
http://www.progress.org/archive/fold223.htm

quite a bit of discussion on the web about that issue
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=gd&q=constitutional+terrorist&hl=en-GB&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB
only be a matter of time till ruddites adopt the same stance here..lol
we are the 52 second state of us of a[judging by all the yanki cop shows on tv ...lol

I think it's time some people got a grip and had a bit of a reality check.

The real issue behind this was the rising incidence of teenage binge drinking.
This tax was meant to address that perceived problem.

Despite their token mock outrage and opportunism, the opposition is yet to come up with any hint of an alternative.

Yesterday there was talk in the media of vastly increasing the tax on cigarettes as a way of reducing the number of smokers. It's exactly the same solution to a similar problem.

Now it seems that some here are using this as just another excuse for giving the government a backhander and hinting at conspiracies for early elections and looming constitutional crises.

Rache, I'd be interested to see your stats about the rising incidence of binge drinking. When I went looking at stats 12 months ago, this is what I found http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/002775.html.

I'd also be interested to see whether there were any stats kept while the alcopops tax was in effect to show whether the tax was effective. My suspicion is that there would have been a substitution effect with drinkers moving to more lightly taxed alternatives.

Which is why cigarettes is not an apt comparison. As far as I know all cigarettes are taxed at similar levels. There isn't one tax for menthols, another for filters and a third for Camels. If the government was serious about restricting alcohol consumption then it would tax drinks on the basis of their alcoholic content.

Instead, alcopops are to be taxed at a higher rate than their constituent parts. Which makes unmixed drinks, wine and beer cheaper per hit of alcohol.

But if they taxed all alcohol at the same rate they'd end-up picking a fight with too many drinkers and too many vested interests, so they impose an ineffective one on just one segment of the market, to fight a problem that as far as I can see, is no worse than anywhere else.

At the end of the day, does anyone really think that you are going to stop binge drinking?

RobP,

I don't say anything whatsoever about 'vetoing' of legislation by the Governor-General as a means of holding the government to account. No legislation in this respect has yet been passed by the Senate, and the suggestion is that the proposed legislation may face rejection a second time. Should this happen, the Constitution provides a means whereby this disagreement between the two Houses may be resolved, the first step of which is a double dissolution and new elections, SHOULD THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL GRANT ONE. The Constitution also permits her to withhold one.

Should she do so, there would be no question of Quentin Bryce becoming a martyr. The Prime Minister would not be having his commission withdrawn, and the House of Representatives would not be being dissolved. There would be no Constitutional crisis.

All the Governor-General would be seen to be doing would be withholding reward, in the form of the grant of a for other reasons convenient double dissolution, for an impropriety committed with respect to the imposition of a tax. Such refusal would constitute a perhaps overdue reminder to politicians in general that they are but representatives, not rulers, of the community, and that when appointed as Ministers of State they remain as obligated as anyone else to work within the law.

The government would remain free to frame alternative proposals with respect to taxation in general, or indeed, with respect to alcohol taxation in particular, that may get to be passed by the Senate. The government cannot claim to have been frustrated so far with respect to governing, because it has, although unlawfully, in actuality collected, and is still collecting, the revenue in question. It could only claim to be being frustrated if, after having the current Bill rejected a second time, it thereupon submitted new legislation that TOO was twice rejected by the Senate.

It could well then be that by the time that process has been gone through, the time within which the Constitution permits the granting of a double dissolution may have elapsed.

This government is hoist on its own petard.

Forrest,

Whether your interpretation of the situation is right or mine is, is dependent on political factors outside of my or your control. It all depends on how the Government sees itself politically. If, by the Governor-General not granting this alcopops legislation, the Government feels that its executive power is being usurped, it may take it as a hostile act by the GG. And whether she actually meant it as a just lesson for the Government, will be a moot point. It all depends on things like how much the Government has got riding on getting the legislation through and how constrained it feels.

Forrest,

A retraction is in order - I didn't read your post closely enough the first time. OK, I understand you're saying she has the power to not grant a double dissolution election (not the legislation itself).

Even so, presumably the Government is not going to like this too much either, particularly if they're going to look embarrassed or impotent. I don't suppose it's beyond the realms of possibility for the Government to put loads of pressure on her behind the scenes in such a scenario?

RobP,

Most gracious of you, that retraction. I must admit I was puzzled by your earlier apparent thinking that the Governor-General could, or conventionally would, veto legislation after it had passed both Houses. Withholding of assent, or the slightly less final act of reservation of legislation for Her Majesty's pleasure, is not technically a veto, and in any case is most unusual, although provided for in the Constitution.

This discussion has proven most useful. It has made it possible to reveal that the term of office of this government is now very much, within the constraints as to term imposed by the Constitution, 'at the Governor-General's pleasure', as the expression goes. A situation that has been brought about entirely at the government's own hand, and one that, short of resignation, is incapable of remedy on its part.

The Governor-General is now possessed of a Ministry that, from the time that it first (wrongly) purported to be able to collect the alcopops tax by regulatory authority, has been countenancing the conduct of the business of government outside the law. It is continuing in that conduct while it continues to collect the unrefundable impost it unlawfully made upon the public before legislation passed the Parliament, and has shown not the slightest contrition. By both actions and attitude, it has placed its fate, with respect as to just when it will have to face the people at elections, entirely within the Governor-General's hands. For the Governor-General is charged with the execution and maintenance of the Constitution, and by its premature levying and collection of this tax the government is operating outside the law of the Constitution.

Whether those who have aspired to rule by decree will seek to place pressure upon the Governor-General once they realize the position they have placed themselves in, I cannot say. Perhaps they could be so foolish. From the general public, who know that politicians are just as much subjects of the Crown as they are, I suspect the Governor-General would receive largely support, whatever her decision.

GrahamY,
I confess that haven't looked at statistics on the incidence of binge drinking because these things can be misleading.

For example, while there are claims that increasing cigarette taxes has decreased the smoking rate, the overwhelming number of ex-smokers cite health and family concerns rather than cost as their motivation to quit. In this case the tax factor may be a fortunate coincidence but is given almost all the credit.

Increased cost however may result in a lower take-up rate and is probably the best you can hope for.

Would increasing the cost of fast-food cure obesity? Does increasing traffic fines stop speeding? Does the occassional narcotics supplier bust cure addication?

Binge drinking is more a peer issue than a social or cultural one.

My point was really that the significance of the reintroduction of the legislation is being overblown, with talk of double disillusions.

The legislation wasn't defeated because it was somehow administratively faulty.
Fielding voted no mainly because he wanted Rudd to go even further and put warning labels on alcohol and look at sports sponsorship issues.

Politics is more about perceptions than reality.

Being seen to address an issue is politically as important than the issue itself and to block the legislation is also an exercise in posturing. Reducing the cost isn't going to improve the situation either.

rache makes an interesting observation in saying:

"My point was really that the significance of the reintroduction of the legislation is being overblown, with talk of double disillusions.

The legislation wasn't defeated because it was somehow administratively faulty.
Fielding voted no mainly because he wanted Rudd to go even further and put warning labels on alcohol and look at sports sponsorship issues."

Indeed, the significance of the reintroduction of the legislation is being overblown. Its passage or rejection is no longer the issue. The real issue is one of the government having acted outside the law in collecting the alcopops tax without having had the legislation authorizing it first passed by the Parliament. Contempt for Constitutional and Parliamentary process is now the issue. I have already explained the position the government has now placed itself in with respect to 'security of tenure' or the exercise of discretion as to when it may go to the people short of full term.

It is at this point that GrahamY's observation that:

"I will admit that double dissolution elections tend to get fought on alternate issues to the ones on which they are called, but then that is often the case for elections which are often called a bit early on spurious grounds."

may come to be seen as prophetic.

Should it be considered that the continued pursuit of the record levels of immigration currently being experienced is occurring simply to import a voter base likely favouring and big enough to effect a change of the Australian polity to that of a republic, combined with a public perception that the government is totally mishandling the illegal entry issue of secondary movement asylum seeking for exactly that same reason, then you could have a real election issue.

With the current leaders of both major parties both known to favour and desire this change in the face of its recent rejection by the electorate, that would seem to leave Australia stuck with an 'outlaw' would-be rule-by-decree government. Double disillusion indeed.

Unless the Governor-General can propose another Constitutionally valid solution.