Federal Election 2010: Which party will support Aviation?

[Jabawocky]

Ozbus

you forgot, Capt Bligh is going to flog off the cash cow of Coal rail to plug a budget hole...........but you can only sell it once

J

Joh did get stuff done even if it was by means not appreciated today.

[Josh Cox]

You old guys , I was still stealing target underwear catalogues and playing nintendo when most of that happened.

Chimbu

Health a state issue, why ?, does it have to be ?, doesn't seem to be working real well in its present format.

OBD, nope, NSW.

I remember this:


Did a google search and found "some other" photos of Pauline I wasn't expecting.....................

[Jabawocky]

play nice.....they were not Pauline it was found......I doubt she was that good looking anyway

[Worrals in the wilds]

Got to be a market for another print run by now

[Fliegenmong]

Sir Johannes "Joh" Bjelke-Petersen, KCMG (13 January 1911 – 23 April 2005), New Zealand-born[1] Australian politician, was the longest-serving and longest-lived Premier of the state of Queensland[2]. He held office from 1968 to 1987, a period that saw considerable economic development in the state[3]. His uncompromising conservatism (including his role within the downfall of the Whitlam federal government), his political longevity, and his leadership of a government that, in its latter years, was revealed to be institutionally corrupt, made him one of the best-known political figures in twentieth-century Australia.

Now, see, I am a fiercely proud Queenslander, but if Joh were alive today he may well be one of these clowns driving around with a 'SilverFern' stuck on his rear windscreen......Howard & Co., from that scoundrel Peter Reith onwards ensured that I cannot envisage a time when I will vote for the Libs ever again...ditto many friends.....some horrendous **** ups with Rudd & Co. sure, Garrett from the start was one .....but mates who were really and truly screwed over by 'WorkChoices', mates who were once rusted on Liberal voters...they now realise how worse off they were.....(They got the back pay ) They well know in VERY REAL TERMS, they will be very much worse off under coaltion IR 'arrangements'

They know Big Tone the Budgie boy is waiting to bend them over...they ain't forgot....and they ain't so stupid to understand that it will not be called work choices....they've already been renamed by Big Tone's side...no amount of "forget what I was...think of who I am now" is going to help those fe*ked over by the association (Coalition) Mr Abbott is so very intrinsically entwined with.......

And while we are here, on this most esteemed of Cane Toad Wheels....has anyone ever asked the (Dis) Honourable Mr Costello, why he sold off so much of the nations Gold Reserves at such low value, claiming gold was dead if he were really so good??.....That is given the sharp rise in Gold shortly thereafter?? Why did he not 'hedge it'? Was the Mr Costello correct? Is gold dead??

[sprocket check]

Fliegenmong:

You don't work for the ALAEA by any chance, do you?

[Josh Cox]

Because the constitution says so

Where exactly ?, if it was so, would not Krudd already be on the front page of the paper being roasted by constituitional lawyers over exactly that ?.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Section 51...or rather what is not put down in s51. States can make laws. Basicly what is NOT in the Federal constitution is state responsibility.

[Josh Cox]

So, the constitution infact doesn't say so, if you see my point.....

Basicly what is NOT in the Federal constitution is state responsibility

I would hazard a guess and say there are many other area's managed federally that are not included in the constitution.

So I do not believe the inference of non inclusion mandates a state responsibility, to date, just not a core federal one.

Is it fair to say the constitution does not prohibit federal control, OR establish as a state controlled item, as suggested by cp ?.

[Horatio Leafblower]

G'day Josh

You're displaying your ignorance here son.

Australia is a Federation of states - the various colonies agreed to make an overarching government structure and give it certain powers.

Section 51 of the Constitution describes those powers.

The High Court has ruled again and again and again that certain things cannot be taxed or administered by the Federal Government, because it is not given that power under Section 51 of the constitution.

The Constitution is not a long document - I recommend you (and all young intelligent Australians) read it

[tinpis]

Sections 51-60

Section 51 – Legislative powers of the Parliament

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-



(xix.) Naturalization and aliens:


(xxviii.) The influx of criminals:

About time they repelled a few innit?


PM's office wanted boat arrival press release to spruik border protection spending | The Australian

[Josh Cox]

Thanks Horatio, have not read it since school, do you think this answer is correct ?:

Question:

Originally Posted by Josh Cox
Health a state issue, why ?, does it have to be ?, doesn't seem to be working real well in its present format.

Answer by Cynical Pilot:

Why? Because the constitution says so.

I am not aware of the the constitution stating that health can not be managed at a federal level.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I am not aware of the the constitution stating that health can not be managed at a federal level.

Yes it does, but you have to understand a fundamental of legal interpretation first.

The legal maxim is expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning that to include one thing is to exclude those things not listed.

If the drafters of the Constitutution wanted health to be a Federal concern, they would have said so.

If the modern generation wants it to be so, there will have to be a referrendum and the constitution altered.

Mind you, the Federal Govt can be quite creative in using other powers to effect control. For example, they have used the "External affairs" power to over-rule the Franklin Dam in 1986 and more recently I recall the Howard Govt using the Corporations power to do something creative (don't recall what it was) that might have been a bit dubious

[notmyC150v2]

Josh,

The constitution does not say what the Federal Government cannot do. It only says what the Federal Government CAN do.

If the Constitution does not provide a power for the Feds to do something, then they can't do it UNLESS the states cede them the power to do so.

This is why there is always huge interest in constitutional cases before the High Court because the Justices interpreting the Constitution have to read it to see if the Govt actually has the power to make the law being challenged.

[terry walls]

I suggest that you also quote Section 96 - which is the power most often used by the Commonwealth to become involved in what Section 51 leaves with the States.

[Josh Cox]

Horatio,

The legal maxim is expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning that to include one thing is to exclude those things not listed.

"Implies exclusion" or actually "excludes" ?

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius: Definition from Answers.com

[Worrals in the wilds]

UNLESS the states cede them the power to do so.

Can you argue that by their agreement, the State Premiers have done exactly that?
s51
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

xxxvii) matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States, but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law;

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Actually , the most famous one of late was Premier Kennet ceding Victoria's industrial relations laws to the Feds.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Horatio,
"Implies exclusion" or actually "excludes" ?
Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius: Definition from Answers.com

OK Josh - you might be right, but I was relying on knowledge that I learnt from Books.

So, since you're so good at finding stuff on the interweb thingy - why don't you go to Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) and find for me one - just one - legally binding decision by a Judge of the High Court of Australia in a question of constitutional law whereby they have found differently to the interpretation I posted supra.

(you'll Google that too I'm sure).

[sumtingwong]

I think Julia's hot.

You were a sick puppy in the West Josh, I see CNS has made no difference.