Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
It’s so telling when the self-proclaimed “numbers” person drifts into politics and starts using words like “utterly inane” and “nonsense” to describe matters other than statistics.
Then why put the question to me?! I think "it's so telling" that you put the question to me not once, but twice, second time suggesting that I was dodging it.
Anyone who completed Year 6 Social Studies would be familiar enough with the Australian political system to know that all this talk about the Commonwealth using nationhood power, S 96 and vertical fiscal imbalance to do an end run on the Constitution and seize a State power is just rank nonsense. It has the tenor of an eight year old enumerating the reasons why unicorns
do too exist!
Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
And the government doesn’t need to make a law that can be stopped by the Senate, to achieve the outcome.
We'll tender that as Exhibit A. Absolutely mind boggling that you apparently believe that.
So, how precisely does the Commonwealth acquire control of health, prevent the states from issuing public health orders, finance S 96 grants if not by legislation? Military fiat? Führerbefehle? Magic wand?
Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
And a spending bill that originates in the Senate can be blocked by the government in the House.
Tender Exhibit B.
Spending bills cannot originate in the Senate. The Constitution is manifestly clear on this.
53. Powers of the Houses in respect of legislation
Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. ...
It's the first sentence! But yeah, what would the "numbers" guy know about politics?
Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
We are living in an authoritarian state, now. If you could get your head out of the numbers for a moment, you’d see that many Australian are being told, on pain of criminal liability, that they can’t visit their families and friends and can’t travel more than a specified number of kilometres from home. There are police and ADF members on the streets enforcing those restrictions. It suits Scotty that a lot of the consequent ‘blowback’ hits the state premiers rather than him.
The Commonwealth coerces the states, financially, all the time. And the government doesn’t need to make a law that can be stopped by the Senate, to achieve the outcome. And a spending bill that originates in the Senate can be blocked by the government in the House.
The Commonwealth has enough power to take over and run the response on a nationally consistent basis. Its failure to do so is a political decision, plain and simple. It’s probably a blessing in disguise though, because we can only speculate what a clusterf*ck it would be if Scotty or what’s-his-name on the other ‘side’ stepped up.
Yes, sure, why not. I suppose that there's an alternate reality somewhere out there where the Federal government seized health powers from the states without any push back from any of the parliament, the states or the courts; managed to change funding allocations and to fund S 96 grants without having to rely on legislation; etc, etc. It is not this reality.
The problem is that no matter how many times you stamp your foot and say that unicorns are real, in this reality, they're not.