The IR Law Reforms Fight Begins In Earnest
May 4th 2006, 12:29 pm
#31
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,997
Re: The IR Law Reforms Fight Begins In Earnest
Originally Posted by kiwichild
Hard to say. The High Court consists of a panel of 7 of the most experienced judges in the country. They are however appointed by the federal government and governments do like to stack things in their favour. Some of them will maybe have been appointed by the last federal labour govt, but as they are unlikely to be appointed under 60 and they are compelled to retire from the bench at 70. So as its been 10yrs of the current govt, it's very hard to know what the outcome will be.
All this said, they are 'required' to make an unbiased and independent judgement and not be influenced by political aspects.
All this said, they are 'required' to make an unbiased and independent judgement and not be influenced by political aspects.
Lets see....they could over rule...and then rescind on appeal
Now THAT would make things look good... and still get the desired end result
May 4th 2006, 12:33 pm
#32
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,551
Re: The IR Law Reforms Fight Begins In Earnest
Originally Posted by YoSemite
There is actually no true separation of powers in Australia - so some would say the Gov't can pretty much do what they want regardless of the law
The government cannot do what it likes WHEN the upper house majority is not of the same party as the government. This is the crucial point.
And when a government cannot get it's way a double dissolution can occur (as the Fraser liberals preempted in 1975, ultimately ousting the elected government of the day. This was scandalous though as they blocked the labor govts appropriations bill. Never before or since has this ever been done in Auastralain political history! It's virtually the equivalent of bowling underarm test match cricket. The stuff of cads!).
But then I expect such caddish behaviour from the liberal parasite camp.
May 4th 2006, 1:07 pm
#33
Proudly Deplorable
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: The IR Law Reforms Fight Begins In Earnest
Originally Posted by kiwichild
I seriously think you should consider trying to migrate to Texas. You'd be in your element there 
I even think they still lynch blacks and gays on saturday nights when they're pissed and bored.
I even think they still lynch blacks and gays on saturday nights when they're pissed and bored.
May 4th 2006, 1:14 pm
#34
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,551
Re: The IR Law Reforms Fight Begins In Earnest
Originally Posted by Amazulu
It might surprise you to know I'm not into lynching blacks, even gays.
Don't shock me like that, it's bad for the system
May 4th 2006, 4:40 pm
#35
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Hot sunny Cairns !
Posts: 1,012
Re: The IR Law Reforms Fight Begins In Earnest
Originally Posted by Amazulu
It might surprise you to know I'm not into lynching blacks, even gays.
May 4th 2006, 5:17 pm
#36
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: The IR Law Reforms Fight Begins In Earnest
Originally Posted by Wol
I am no expert on Australian law, but from what I have seen over the years union power got completely out of control and probably peaked in the mid nineties. If no-one had taken them on the place would be even more of a shambles now than it is.
May 4th 2006, 5:18 pm
#37
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: The IR Law Reforms Fight Begins In Earnest
Originally Posted by kiwichild
Agree with the bolded comment. As for unions, there was a positive balance and relatively cordial relationship between unions and employers durin the Hawke 'Accord' years (the 80s)
May 4th 2006, 5:35 pm
#38
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: The IR Law Reforms Fight Begins In Earnest
Originally Posted by Amazulu
I'm happy living here under a Howard goverment. The country has prospered whilst he's been in power.
The other guy is a buffoon & would be a disaster for Australia.
Viva la difference.
Howard is only mildly right wing, not enough for my liking. If he was to:
Smash the unions
Smash the unions
Slash welfare to the bare bones meaning only the people who really needed it got it
Massively cut taxes & all of these stupid tax credits & benefits that bleed this country dry
Massive tax cuts aren't necessarily the answer; remember that the richest people in Australia already minimise their tax using every trick in the book. I don't think they need any more help on that score.
Privatise everything
The privatisation of Australia Post (for example) would be criminally stupid. Privatisation of public transport has been an amushing experiment (but only if you're into sarcasm) and the transfer of former state-owned monopolies to private companies too often results in a privately-owned monopoly offering a lower standard of service at ridiculous prices.
We need look no further than the pitiful history of Wackenhut and its Australian branch (Australasian Correctional Management) for a classic example of how not to privatise an essential government function.
The privatisation of Telstra is a good thing; so too is the privatisation of certain utilities, such as gas and electricity. But we have to draw the line somewhere, and that line starts with government-owned services which currently (and consistently!) out-perform their private sector counterparts.
Like Australia Post, for example...
Radically increase punishment for criminals
build more prisons
recruit more police
increase military spending
allow nuclear power
And before you claim that green technology is a non-starter, I'll draw your attention to the fact that 90% (yes, that's a wopping 90%) of Tasmania's electricity comes from hydro-electric dams. This figure accounts for 60% of Australia's renewable energy.
Build more hydro dams! More! More, I say!
stop illegal fishing
Last edited by Vash the Stampede; May 4th 2006 at 5:41 pm.
May 4th 2006, 5:57 pm
#39
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: The IR Law Reforms Fight Begins In Earnest
Originally Posted by Wol
Socialism is the ideal political system. Everyone works, pays taxes to help those who - through no fault of their own - cannot live to an adequate standard, everyone is nice to one another and workers happily go about their business hand in hand with government.
See anything wrong with this in-depth analysis?
Two words: human nature.
It don't work: socialism has been shown time and time again to be a fairy tale except in very exceptional circumstances.
See anything wrong with this in-depth analysis?
Two words: human nature.
It don't work: socialism has been shown time and time again to be a fairy tale except in very exceptional circumstances.
National Socialism in Germany worked up to a point but we all know what that lead to. (And don't let anyone try and kid you that National Socialism was "Right wing).
You claim that it wasn't right-wing.
Well, I can only say that if you believe...
(a) attempted genocide
(b) racist federal policies
(c) invading other countries
(d) practicing eugenics
(e) sterilising the mentally handicapped
(e) exterminating "undesirables" on the basis of race, sexual preference, personal politics, ethnicity and religion
...are classic hallmarks of a left-wing socialist government, then I have a tower in a famous French capital that I'd like to sell you.
It's going cheap, too!
Hitler's use of the word "socialism" was nothing more than a fig leaf to disguise his true motivation, which was racist xenophobic nationalism.
His nationalised a handful of industries, made some modest improvements to the old-age pension, and introduced free education (which later proved to be free indoctrination into Nazi philosphy.)
That's about as "left-wing" as Hitler ever became.
It should be obvious to even the most superficial student of modern political theory that these policies can hardly be described as uniquely socialist; they are equally compatible with nationalism, and can be pursued without any concessions to socialism of any kind.
As, indeed, they most certainly were.
Like everything else pertaining to the Human Condition, theory and practice are poles apart.
There's usually a hell of a lot to dislike about many of the industrial entrepreneurs that have built up our industry and infrastructure - but we *do* enjoy the results, in the main. We only have to look at the appalling shambles that governments all over the world have made when they try and run things they know nothing about, let alone the cost of them.
No, in my book Capitalism certainly isn't perfect by a long chalk but by Christ it beats the other thing!
There's usually a hell of a lot to dislike about many of the industrial entrepreneurs that have built up our industry and infrastructure - but we *do* enjoy the results, in the main. We only have to look at the appalling shambles that governments all over the world have made when they try and run things they know nothing about, let alone the cost of them.
No, in my book Capitalism certainly isn't perfect by a long chalk but by Christ it beats the other thing!
May 4th 2006, 5:59 pm
#40
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: The IR Law Reforms Fight Begins In Earnest
Originally Posted by YoSemite
There is actually no true separation of powers in Australia - so some would say the Gov't can pretty much do what they want regardless of the law
Just because a High Court judge has been put in place by the government, doesn't mean that he/she is a political puppet.
BTW, would you say that there is no true separation of powers in the UK political system?
May 5th 2006, 12:18 am
#41
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne's Inner North
Posts: 1,003
Re: The IR Law Reforms Fight Begins In Earnest
Originally Posted by kiwichild
Originally Posted by YoSemite
There is no true separation of powers in australia...
Separation of powers is formed by:
Legislative Power - the power to make Laws
Executive Power - the power to carry-out Laws
Judicial Power - the power to interpret and inforce Law
Legislative power is given to every member of Parliament, Executive power is given to the Government, and Judicial power lies with the Courts and Judges.
However....
The Courts and Judges not only interpret the law (through Acts of Parliament) but they also make law through forming precedent. there for courts and judges have both Legislative and Judicial Powers
The Members of Parliament make the laws, but some of the members of Parliament are also members of the Governement meaning that they have both Legislative and Executive Powers
the Government doesn't just have the power to carry out law, and (through parliament) make law; the government also appoints Judges meaning that they have Executive, Legislative and Judicial powers.
The only country with true separation of Powers is the US of A....
Jeez I knew listening to all those Australian Legal System 101 lectures would come in useful!!!!!
