Breaking ! Australian Government tetters on collapse as house speaker stands aside,

neither major party has any credibility these days - but Swan, whatever his faults, at least understands what is needed in sich a volatile global economy.

this surplus obsession shyts me, because we really shouldn't be focussing on that.

but the libs haven't got a clue about how to face the economic times ahead of us - they think ideology alone will pull us through.

 

And I feel like pointing out that this can not result in a double dissolution. That's not what the constitution provides a double dis for.

To get a DD a bill put forth by the Lower House has to be rejected twice by the Upper House, in a certain time frame. It can not be done just because a party loses control of the Lower House.

 

thanks for clearing that up

 

excuse me ,but the DD option is for the GG to decide ,if the numbers fall to the Libs then they can pass legislation correct on the votes. so when that legislation goes to the upper house of reveiw ,then it would confrount a ALP majority ,and be sent back then amendended only to be rejected again.DD time sorry its how it works .DD aren't dependent on the senate being the sorce a no confidence motion on the Government in the lower house means that they can not continue to govern make legislation .!

sorry good try though.

The DD option is effected when there is an impass in the ability of the government to pass legislation ,If the Libs get the numbers then the Parliment ceases to be able to pass supply or other legislation ,and then wham the reserved powers of the Queen of Australias representative comes into play .this crisis developing is truely on the same level as 11\11\1975.

When does a government stop being the government ?

when i can't pass legislation because it can't win a vote ,does it for mke.lets have alook at the constitution and the changes the Fraser giovernment made shall we?

 

I never said it's not for the GG to decide upon. However, it has to meet certain conditions, in the constitution, before the GG can decide to use it. The GG is not above the constitution.

 

Interesting read of the constitution that ,If there is a No confidence motion and a impasse in the lower house the GG can dismiss the government point blank install the government of her choice and call an election .forget about DD's ,dosen't apply.Reserved powers she is the Actual head of state after all.


So it could very well be a repeat of 1975.No Comrade Phil ,calm down comrade phil ,gggoooodddyyy thanks to the Slipper. we get to give Julia a good slippering.

If gillard had any respect for democracy she would face the People like Whitlam did.

Go and get a Mandate Julia ,rightwing Dishonourable Prime Minister of Ausstrallia.Its all over bar the shouting .

If I was GG i would sack its arse.

 

How do you know that the Libs "think ideology alone will pull us through", did you read their minds?
BTW, I wouldn`t put Swan in charge of a piggy bank. These sexy fingered clowns will severely harm the economy in the quest for a surplus. The ALP have surplus envy.

 

It may be possible, not sure, that the govt may face a crisis in the budget session starting 8 May. If that sees a general election then that's it, all over.

The only good thing would be that the Coalition would cruel the electorate so much that at the election following the great landslide the ALP and Greens would be returned with a workable majority and start repairing the damage inflicted by the Coalition.

We'll have to suffer in our jocks for one term only.

 

The government is in disarray?

Let's INVADE! Australia is a MUCH nicer place than anything in the ME.

 

I thought the Liberal regime was pretty good, honestly.

I'll take Howard over Rudd and Gillard any day.

 

Howard, took our guns, passed laws banning free speech, passed laws "overriding" the constitution, etc.

Yeah, he was awesome.

 

I was thinking more in terms of economic policy, but when it comes to speech issues, Rudd enabled Fieldings to push for that internet blacklist. It thankfully didn't pass, but you dodged a bullet on that one.

What free speech did Howard ban?

 

The Howard government passed a sedition law, banning speech against the "good" running of the government. It's so open to interpretation that it's laughable. It's also most likely unconstitutional, which is why I don't think any police force has bothered charging anyone with it.

And the Blacklist didn't even not pass, it was never even put up for a vote.

 

I wasn't aware of this sedition law, but that does sound pretty messed up.

The blacklist may not have come to a vote, but it was apparently serious enough at one point that publishing the list of proposed sites was punishable by law. People were prosecuted for publishing the list -- even though the blocking of the sites hadn't occurred yet.

 

Sucking up to Family First was bloody awful.

Howard and Costello in terms of the economy didn't do much, just let the money from China roll in and used it to bribe the electorate a few times. The sad part is that they did nothing to actually help the economy aside from the Future Fund which was money set aside to pay Commonwealth superannuation.

This is one of the problems I have with the conservatives here, management of the economy. They don't actually do anything. Witness the NBN. For years under Howard and Costello we endured a third-rate technology and it was going to continue third-rate until the present government created the NBN. Now we've got folks whining about it on the one hand saying it isn't necessary (and get this, the argument is, "my internet speed is okay, we don't need fibre....") and on the other hand whining about it taking ten years to get rolled out. Well hello, if it had started under the previous government I'd be able to get PF without any delays by now!

Or maybe not, perhaps that's a pipe dream...

 

This..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law