PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

CoodaShooda 14th Dec 2017 04:30

LeP

I marvel at your ability to twist context into other dimensions.

I have no argument with SSM.

My interest, as stated at the start, is the effect the changes will have on other groups, directly or otherwise.

Crownstay01 14th Dec 2017 05:16


Originally Posted by De_flieger (Post 9988261)
Crownstay01 No, the vocal minority was the spineless politicians on both sides of parliament, and a highly vocal subset of the Christian lobby that at best, represented a narrow, fearful and archaic branch of a diverse group that largely rejected their views.

I agree, I was being facetious. As I expected, the so-called "silent majority" turned out to be neither.

le Pingouin 14th Dec 2017 06:38

CS, degrees of harm are exactly how decisions about competing rights are decided. The rights of the couple to be married versus the rights of the civil celebrant. What harm is brought on the civil celebrant by marrying a same-sex couple?

Twist context? You're the one twisting and turning - you refuse to see that civil celebrants have always been affected by having to conform to the legal definition of marriage, regardless of their personal views.

CoodaShooda 14th Dec 2017 12:08

LeP
Happy to agree to disagree. 🤡

Traffic_Is_Er_Was 14th Dec 2017 12:33


Originally Posted by De_flieger (Post 9988261)
Crownstay01 No, the vocal minority was the spineless politicians on both sides of parliament, and a highly vocal subset of the Christian lobby that at best, represented a narrow, fearful and archaic branch of a diverse group that largely rejected their views.

They were not the vocal minority I was referring to.

le Pingouin 14th Dec 2017 19:49

Nonetheless, they were the vocal minority who insisted on having the survey, rather than having a straight Parliamentary vote. Presumably they were hoping for some sort of "silent majority" effect brought about by FUD.

You did rather leave yourself wide open there Traffic.

Ethel the Aardvark 9th Feb 2018 11:08

Is Dutton lining up to topple Turnbull and take on the leadership?
What a disaster if the rumours are true!

Hempy 9th Feb 2018 12:46

Interesting how the ALP haven’t lowered themselves to political point scoring over Barnabys philandering. One can only imagine the Conservative outrage it if it was an Labor pollie in the same position.

Ethel the Aardvark 9th Feb 2018 14:58

You would of thought that someone would ask the question if the poor kid will be an Aussie or a Kiwi.
The new Lib Senator Molan looks a lovely piece of work and the libs over in WA whilst conferencing on Rottnest have been throwing each other to the floor in a pythonesque manner.
Is this the future of right wing politics in Oz. tut tut I say.

WingNut60 9th Feb 2018 15:12


Originally Posted by Ethel the Aardvark (Post 10047061)
Is Dutton lining up to topple Turnbull and take on the leadership?
What a disaster if the rumours are true!

You'd have to suspect that making him Minister for Everything was intended to tie him up and out of the way.
The Liberals have recent experience of what it's like to have an unpopular PM up front.
So it'll depend on whether the flinty-eyed right are prepared to keep tolerating Malcolm or whether they just can't exist without the bloodshed and toe-cutting.

30/30 Green Light 9th Feb 2018 21:18


Originally Posted by Hempy (Post 10047187)
Interesting how the ALP haven’t lowered themselves to political point scoring over Barnabys philandering. One can only imagine the Conservative outrage it if it was an Labor pollie in the same position.

Glass houses, stones. No #metoo# on the horizon here.:}

jack11111 16th Feb 2018 02:10

Power struggle Down Under
 
According to the ABC (Australia):
"The crisis inside the Federal Government has worsened, with Barnaby Joyce lashing out at Malcolm Turnbull."

How long before Barnaby is back to the back bench? It's starting to look like politics Chicago style.
Will Malcolm travel to see Trump before this local problem is solved?

Stay tuned.

galaxy flyer 16th Feb 2018 02:30

Not my country, not my problem. More folks should take that stand, too.

GF

Bankstown Boy 16th Feb 2018 02:34

Yes ... maybe ... except for the inconvenient fact that Barnaby is leader of a different party to Malcolm.

I suspect that this theatre (it's hard to describe it as anything else as no laws have apparently been broken) is to cover up for the ongoing saga that likely 3-4 member of each main party in both houses are probably holding their seats in direct contravention with the express findings of the High Court interpreting the Constitution.

Poor fella, my country.

Hydromet 16th Feb 2018 07:31

BB, I suspect you may be right. If it's not that that they're covering up it will be something else.

Captain Dart 16th Feb 2018 07:41


Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 10054543)
Not my country, not my problem. More folks should take that stand, too.

GF

Of course it’s not your problem, galaxy. About as much as, as an Aussie, US politics is not my problem. I’m surprised that you even took the trouble to post.

ZFT 16th Feb 2018 07:50


Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 10054543)
Not my country, not my problem. More folks should take that stand, too.

GF

Interesting - do you honestly believe that? (I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you although taxpayer funded shags does seem a bit too much)

Fliegenmong 16th Feb 2018 12:06

Not my country, not my problem. More folks should take that stand, too.

Oh Ha ha ha!! .....good one GF....You'll surely chime in on another country's business when it suits you!!....methinks you're not really liking the idea that the rest of the world is seriously confused as to why so many school shootings occur.....not liking the scrutiny?

galaxy flyer 16th Feb 2018 17:22

Fliegenmong,

I said “more folks should take that stand”; didn’t I? Australia seems quite capable of sorting out their politics without my input. Wish you’d act the same.

GF

Octane 17th Feb 2018 01:06

I'm a little curious how it's possible/ why would you nominate a Senator to be acting PM?

Foxxster 17th Feb 2018 09:36


Originally Posted by Octane (Post 10055628)
I'm a little curious how it's possible/ why would you nominate a Senator to be acting PM?

Simply because he is leader of the national party that is in coalition with the liberals to form government. The deal is the nationals support the liberals and the leader of the national party gets to be deputy pm.

Foxxster 17th Feb 2018 09:43


Originally Posted by Bankstown Boy (Post 10054544)
Yes ... maybe ... except for the inconvenient fact that Barnaby is leader of a different party to Malcolm.

I suspect that this theatre (it's hard to describe it as anything else as no laws have apparently been broken) is to cover up for the ongoing saga that likely 3-4 member of each main party in both houses are probably holding their seats in direct contravention with the express findings of the High Court interpreting the Constitution.

Poor fella, my country.

Yes the last 9 months or so has been a disgrace. All we have had discussed is same sex marriage, the ridiculous ongoing citizenship saga which involved Barnaby as well as many others with more STILL to come, and now this relationship saga.

Clearly if affairs were to result in MPs losing their jobs, we would lose many of them. We won't mention an recent ex PM who slept with not one but two married men on her way up the ladder. One was before she entered politics, one after and was a minister. He was married with two small children at the time. And yet this ex pm then goes on to give a speech about mysogeny.

Octane 17th Feb 2018 09:56

Foxxster,

"Simply because he is leader of the national party that is in coalition with the liberals to form government. The deal is the nationals support the liberals and the leader of the national party gets to be deputy pm." I know all that..

Perhaps you didn't understand my question? The PM is going overseas, Bishop is overseas and Joyce is "taking a rest". The PM has nominated a Senator I've not heard of before to be acting PM. That's what I was referring to...

Foxxster 17th Feb 2018 10:41


Originally Posted by Octane (Post 10055914)
Foxxster,

"Simply because he is leader of the national party that is in coalition with the liberals to form government. The deal is the nationals support the liberals and the leader of the national party gets to be deputy pm." I know all that..

Perhaps you didn't understand my question? The PM is going overseas, Bishop is overseas and Joyce is "taking a rest". The PM has nominated a Senator I've not heard of before to be acting PM. That's what I was referring to...

Sorry misunderstood. Well Barnaby clearly would have acted but with his issues he is out, and on leave. Bishop is deputy liberal leader so would have been next pick but she is going overseas as well, so she is out. Next would probably have been the treasurer so not sure why he did not get it. Maybe they want to use him to deflect labors attack as he can be quite effective at that. But could also do that as acting pm. Cormann is the leader in the senate so perhaps trumps the treasurer in seniority? Anyway he is a senior member so with nobody above him available it fell to him. Apparently as you mention it is unusual for a senator to get the gig. I believe this is only the fourth time it has happened so not completely without precedent.

PLovett 17th Feb 2018 10:47


Originally Posted by Octane (Post 10055628)
I'm a little curious how it's possible/ why would you nominate a Senator to be acting PM?


He WAS a Senator but is now a Member of the House of Representatives.

Edit: OK I now understand what the reference is about. In the absence of a coalition PM the role goes to the Leader of the National Party. In their absence the role goes to the Deputy Liberal Party leader (in the present case the Foreign Minister - Julie Bishop) and in their absence the job goes to the Senate Leader (in the case Mathias Cormann) and Foxxster has beaten me to the explanation.

Foxxster 17th Feb 2018 10:52


Originally Posted by PLovett (Post 10055979)
He WAS a Senator but is now a Member of the House of Representatives.

He is still a senator. In fact he is leader of the government in the senate as well as being finance minister. My guess is his position as leader in the senate trumps the treasurer Morrison which is why he did not get the acting pm gig.

Fareastdriver 17th Feb 2018 11:41

----------------and I thought British politics was complicated.

Bankstown Boy 17th Feb 2018 11:42


Originally Posted by Foxxster (Post 10055899)
Clearly if affairs were to result in MPs losing their jobs, we would lose many of them.

We probably also shouldn’t mention that the current leader of the opposition famously dumped his wife for the daughter of the (then) currently sitting Governor General (our actual head of state).

Mmmm ... bunch of losers, the lot of them.

Ken Borough 17th Feb 2018 12:34


currently sitting Governor General (our actual head of state)
Incorrect, although the monarchists try to push that myth. Australia's actual Head of State is Elizabeth II, known as the Queen of Australia but also, and more widely understood, the Queen of the United Kingdom. The Governor-General is the representative of the Head of State.

SOPS 17th Feb 2018 14:22

The whole of the Canberra swamp is a total embarrassment, we should sack the lot of them and shut the place down for 12 months and see how we go.Then we can think about how we start again. They are all a bunch of trough swilling fcuk heads.:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

galaxy flyer 17th Feb 2018 14:30


Originally Posted by Ken Borough (Post 10056080)
Incorrect, although the monarchists try to push that myth. Australia's actual Head of State is Elizabeth II, known as the Queen of Australia but also, and more widely understood, the Queen of the United Kingdom. The Governor-General is the representative of the Head of State.

Didn’t Gough Witlam come a foul of that argument?

SOPS

Funny, we have the same, but everyone seems to care. Shut ‘em both down.

GF

yeah, I know, not my country.

radeng 17th Feb 2018 18:25

Barnaby Joyce has just followed the example from the 'mother of Parliaments', or has everyone forgotten John Major and Edwina Currie?

Mr Optimistic 17th Feb 2018 22:25

No, but I was trying very hard to. Thanks for that.....

parabellum 17th Feb 2018 23:49


Incorrect, although the monarchists try to push that myth.

Surely not the Monarchists Ken, don't you mean the Republicans?


Forgotten the name of the female politician who got a wrap over the knuckles for knocking off her official government driver!

Bankstown Boy 18th Feb 2018 05:12


Originally Posted by Ken Borough (Post 10056080)
Incorrect, although the monarchists try to push that myth. Australia's actual Head of State is Elizabeth II, known as the Queen of Australia but also, and more widely understood, the Queen of the United Kingdom. The Governor-General is the representative of the Head of State.

Actually it’s not as simple as you make out. Australia’s constitution makes no reference to a “Head of State”.

There is a body of case law that suggests that the GG is the effective Head of State and the Queen of Australia (to use her a actual title) is our Sovereign who retains, in effect, only recall powers over the GG.

After a good bit of ‘to-ing’ and ‘fro-ing’ over the last few decades, the Queen’s royal household list her as our Sovereign; with all reference to Head of a State expunged.

In practice, and in effect, the GG is our Head of State, only subject to the recall provisions under s.2 of our Consitution.

Ken Borough 18th Feb 2018 07:58

I don't think the real Bankstown Boy aka P J Keating would accept one jot of the nonsense just espoused.

Here's direct copy and paste from the Australian Constitution:


A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
It is abundantly clear that the Governor-General is not the Head of State: just the representative.

WingNut60 18th Feb 2018 10:33


Originally Posted by Ken Borough (Post 10056760)
.......It is abundantly clear that the Governor-General is not the Head of State: just the representative.

I don't think that is "abundantly clear", otherwise there would not be quite as much conjecture from a great many learned opinions.
However it does seem to be that way, on the preponderance of opinion.

In effect it's just another title and matters not, one way or the other.
If Australia should one day decide to shed the shackles then both positions will become redundant in their current form and we'll have the opportunity to have our own Trump.

layman 18th Feb 2018 11:09

https://www.peo.gov.au/teaching/parl...-of-state.html

"Australia is a constitutional monarchy and our head of state is the Queen."

* 'peo' is the Parliamentary Education Office.

Bankstown Boy 18th Feb 2018 22:52


Originally Posted by Ken Borough (Post 10056760)
I don't think the real Bankstown Boy aka P J Keating would accept one jot of the nonsense just espoused.

Here's direct copy and paste from the Australian Constitution:

It is abundantly clear that the Governor-General is not the Head of State: just the representative.

I feel so much better now that I have been outed as “not-the-real-bankstown-boy”. It’s such a relief to finally be Told who I am not. Thanks Ken! :ok: now all I need to do is work out who I am, can anybody help?

Returning to the topic at hand. That handy cut and paste of s.2 of the constitution makes it “abundantly” clear why constitutional lawyers have a job.

You see, it doesn’t mention a “Head of State”. The GG is, subject only to the recall power of our Sovereign, the one that carries all of the power and makes all of the decisions. This is no different to most forms of government. To use a simple example, the US President is their Head of State but is similarly subject to recall powers under their constitution.

This is an issue which has vexed our Courts since at least 1907. Many people and organs of our own government belief and state that the Queen is our Head of State. I could mount an argument for either proposition convincingly.

It is not, however, as abundantly ckear as you seem to think; not withstanding your (personal) belief that the only boy that ever came from Bankstown would (apparently) think so too.

TWT 26th Feb 2018 05:27

Parliament security bollards damage 5 cars, review ordered - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Outsourcing an enquiry into incidents that happened on their own property at more than $27k. And then obfuscating, passing the buck. Outrageous waste of taxpayer's money :ugh: Par for the course, unfortunately ...


All times are GMT. The time now is 19:57.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.