Thread: Our Tax Dollars

Originally Posted by garry17

I do concur with your sentiment, but now the question is how? I see little in resolving these issues.

If the people really know what goes on about these politicians, they would be appalled.

One thing I am guessing you did not know is that their pay increase did not only effect their base payment. For example, I would guess you did not connect, when Rudd was elected the opposition made great noise about promises that where supposed to be costed, immediately went to committee. Are you aware that these committees pay the politicians over the top of their base salary rate? Ever wonder where $300 million dollars is absorbed in budget promises that does not produce the product of the promise? Ever wonder what happens to the money the government sets aside for projects that seem to disappear before they actually show something? If you Guessed in the politicians and their mates pockets you would be right, and this not being deducted from their base salary rate which they are payed to simply be voted to Parliament.

These pollies cry poor when they are generating HUGE amount of income that is not preformance based to simply line their own pockets. This is one reason those DAGs (you know the klingons) in the political scene like and promote one party over another. They know that if their party is in, they will be rewarded. if their party is not, they get nothing. Politicians spend a majority of time trying to remain in governance to keep these people happy, not the general public.

But I am sure, both parties have made regulation to ensure that the common man does not hear the real truth about this corruption of the political system in Australia.

I didn’t know that, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. I do know they are “all’ parasites leaching of the tax payer, regardless of what political party they belong too.

I raised concerns how politicians are using 100% of the 10% public ownership of Telstra to guarantee and fund public servant superannuation - a guarantee no one in the public sector get with their superannuation.

I believe that some people do actually understand and comprehend “what’ politicians are all about, but for some unfathomable reason, politicians have convince the people that without them the world will come crashing down. I see Australian’s addiction and absolute reliance on politicians as being very similar to a “Stockholm Syndrome” and until such time as the people wake-up to the facts that we don’t need politicians or their useless “toothless tiger” Departments; then nothing will happen except this endless merry-go-round.

Originally Posted by culldav

I didn’t know that, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. I do know they are “all’ parasites leaching of the tax payer, regardless of what political party they belong too.

I raised concerns how politicians are using 100% of the 10% public ownership of Telstra to guarantee and fund public servant superannuation - a guarantee no one in the public sector get with their superannuation.

I believe that some people do actually understand and comprehend “what’ politicians are all about, but for some unfathomable reason, politicians have convince the people that without them the world will come crashing down. I see Australian’s addiction and absolute reliance on politicians as being very similar to a “Stockholm Syndrome” and until such time as the people wake-up to the facts that we don’t need politicians or their useless “toothless tiger” Departments; then nothing will happen except this endless merry-go-round.

Except far more Government departments that produce nothing for anybody but the politicians.

I feel you are so right, unfortunately the population are so compromised by these parasites, alternatives are not in the air at this present time.

As I always ask "when are the people going to realise that these parasites are there to represent them, not rule them?"

Originally Posted by garry17

Actually very wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Australia
which means only the people can change the constitution with a referendum.

Not only that
No preferential system here.
First of all, most Australian's like the intention of the constitution and would not consider scrapping the entire thing as a good thing. Secondly, what part of the constitution have contravened with the gun buy back scheme? Remember this is not the US constitution and that previous High court challanges, on that very same issue, was unceremoniously thrown from the high court, where constitutional law is upheld in Australia.
changing to a republic requires a referendum to change the constitution, not legislation by the politicians.

On a further note, out of 44 times a referendum has been called for http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/indigen...al_change.aspx
Thus it must be understood that the government can not. in any way, change the constitution, without the peoples consent.


So, you propose the institution of governance by those who hold the lethal power to hold it and not majority rule?

no I don't propose that at all, and I don't think my statement alluded to that as my thought. I merely made a parallel between rotten governments in the mid east and how their people stand up for themselves and our politics where we don't.

Thanks for clearing up the constitutional questions. Just a quick one, how do we force a referendum and what is the process to bring one on ?

I mean I can't just ask for one.

Originally Posted by slipperyfish

no I don't propose that at all, and I don't think my statement alluded to that as my thought. I merely made a parallel between rotten governments in the mid east and how their people stand up for themselves and our politics where we don't.

Fair enough, but you must also remember when drawing examples from such actions that it may not necessarily show what you are alluding too. But your point is valid although maybe a little under-estimating the Australian population (only due to a majority like the institution, not the practise)

Originally Posted by slipperyfish

Thanks for clearing up the constitutional questions. Just a quick one, how do we force a referendum and what is the process to bring one on ?

I mean I can't just ask for one.

There are several ways to have a referendum, and yes if you have the money, you could just ask for one. Although the referendum you hold would in no way change the constitution, as it would be a private referendum.

The basic system of a referendum is

Generally to amend the Constitution, a Bill proposing the amendment must first be submitted to and passed by the Parliament. Between two and six months later the proposal can then be put to Australian voters at a referendum.

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/indigen...al_change.aspx

As you could imagine, any bill brought before the house, that is detrimental to the politicians themselves will be voted down, (thus providing the corruption of the system to continue). BUT you could write I bill directly to the constitution and present it to the house yourself by proxy to the Sargent at arms who will present it to the house at the appropriate time (usually late after the house has risen). this will then go through many processes outside the house, committees and panels. once passed, the process of garnishing support or descent on around the house will begin. At this point each political member will assess to the best of their departments ability to decide on the detriment to them effects of such policy and will either support or desent. This process has legalitiesalalities to the department and not just their opinion of hurt to the department.

Should anything get past these steps, the bill will then be debated in the houses several times and usually watered down. During the debate the wording and so forth is decided, and only then, the bill will be voted upon.

So, it is possible to call for a referendum personally, but without the support of a very vocal public sector of the community, it is extremely unlikely it will happen.

Just a note, the last private bill I know of that did come before the house and was passed took seven years from start to finish.

Originally Posted by garry17

Fair enough, but you must also remember when drawing examples from such actions that it may not necessarily show what you are alluding too. But your point is valid although maybe a little under-estimating the Australian population (only due to a majority like the institution, not the practise)


There are several ways to have a referendum, and yes if you have the money, you could just ask for one. Although the referendum you hold would in no way change the constitution, as it would be a private referendum.

The basic system of a referendum is http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/indigen...al_change.aspx

As you could imagine, any bill brought before the house, that is detrimental to the politicians themselves will be voted down, (thus providing the corruption of the system to continue). BUT you could write I bill directly to the constitution and present it to the house yourself by proxy to the Sargent at arms who will present it to the house at the appropriate time (usually late after the house has risen). this will then go through many processes outside the house, committees and panels. once passed, the process of garnishing support or descent on around the house will begin. At this point each political member will assess to the best of their departments ability to decide on the detriment to them effects of such policy and will either support or desent. This process has legalitiesalalities to the department and not just their opinion of hurt to the department.

Should anything get past these steps, the bill will then be debated in the houses several times and usually watered down. During the debate the wording and so forth is decided, and only then, the bill will be voted upon.

So, it is possible to call for a referendum personally, but without the support of a very vocal public sector of the community, it is extremely unlikely it will happen.

Just a note, the last private bill I know of that did come before the house and was passed took seven years from start to finish.

So Garry basically even though we don't need to legislate changes to the constitution we only need a referendum, it is this referendum that needs to be passed by the very politicians that we want to bring into line.

This to me seems like a clever way to protect the establishment.

Its like watching the left hand while the right hand is smacking you in the face.

Originally Posted by slipperyfish

So Garry basically even though we don't need to legislate changes to the constitution we only need a referendum, it is this referendum that needs to be passed by the very politicians that we want to bring into line.

This to me seems like a clever way to protect the establishment.

Its like watching the left hand while the right hand is smacking you in the face.

Basically yes, it is extremely hard to change the constitution, and impossible if the politicians do not agree.

If you recall the only reason their was a referendum for the republic. The only reason was that there was so much support, that the government had to cave in to popular demand. But they did not actually have the referendum asking if Australia should be a republic, they asked what question should be asked and if it should be asked. great blind there for the public, and a good example of exactly how the government can delay anything they wish to, reguardless of popularity.

From my interpretation reading this; politicians have not changed the constitution in giving themselves the power to work and live outside the laws and rules that Govern everyone else in society. They have just made legislation giving themselves that power?

Therefore, we don’t need a referendum to change our constitution to force politicians to change the legislation to make politicians live and work under the same laws and conditions as everyone else - we just need to change the legislation.

If politicians have enacted legislation that has changed or impacted the “constitution” to give themselves benefits and power without a public referendum, then they have done so illegally, which is unconstitutional.

Therefore, the public just need to demand a reversal of legislation to force politicians to work and live under the same laws and conditions as we do. Why are we not demanding this to happen?