Support NeoGAF

[CrazedProfessional]

I can hear Tony Abbott's voice during a DD election now..
"Ah now Disney had ah Wreck it Ralph, the Australian people now have ah Block it Bill. He is damaging families, damaging the economy and giving boat people hope."

 

[Yagharek]

As someone with a lifelong disability, this budget is a disgrace.

I wish there could be a DD.

It's a war against the poor and needy.

Yeah I'm annoyed as it is, but aside from some close family losing jobs out of this (eventually), I've gotten off reasonably scott free.

If I were in your position I'd be livid though.

 

[Jintor]

I'm not personally concerned now since I'm leaving the country for a year or two, but when I come back universal healthcare and newstart are going to be real pains in the arse.

 

[Arksy]

Interestingly the House of Lords blocked Supply in 1909 which led to two general elections and the Parliament Act which significantly curbed the powers of the House of Lords.

The budget in question was Asquith's "People's budget." which introduced significant social welfare programs and taxes on the wealthy.

Had this had happened a hundred years prior, no doubt there would have been a war.

 

[chicko1983]

Don't be a Liberal voter or a Labor voter. Be a Good Policy voter.

A good policy to me may not be the same as you. Liberal offer more beneficial policies for me, and you can't split your vote, so I vote Liberal.

Or this.

I think you (as in people in general) also have to think beyond 'the economy' with your voting. Have a social conscience.

In an ideal world there would be a referendum on every policy put forward by the government. However, in a two party system where the policies of the two parties differ only marginally, and neither are definitively more socially conscientious than the other, it makes it pretty hard.

Its not like there are two completely different political parties - one only has economic policies and the other only has socialist policies. In my opinion, with the lesser of two evils to choose from, I may as well vote for the one which benefits me more.

To say (not saying you did say Yagharek!) that I don't have a social conscience or a lesser social conscience than someone else because I prefer to vote for a party which has better, for me, economic policies is incorrect. Look at my earlier comment.

Can I vote for a political party who is pro "work for the dole", which I agree with, but forces employers to hire "work for the dole" employees full-time after a certain amount of time? To me that is the socially correct way of operating but a party offering that policy doesn't exist.

 

[mjontrix]

I live in Frankston, Melbourne. For those not familiar lets just say the place has a reputation. These budget changes will turn this place into a slum, let alone my birth state Tasmania. What the fuck are these cunt sacks thinking.

They're thinking with their wallets.

And the Führer's will.

 

[Jintor]

In an ideal world there would be a referendum on every policy put forward by the government. However, in a two party system where the policies of the two parties differ only marginally, and neither are definitively more socially conscientious than the other, it makes it pretty hard.

Its not like there are two completely different political parties - one only has economic policies and the other only has socialist policies. In my opinion, with the lesser of two evils to choose from, I may as well vote for the one which benefits me more.

I don't know, I have my doubts that if Labor had retained power they would offer a budget that fucks the poor as much as this one does.

 

[hidys]

You are correct, ibut the analogy kind of falls down.

In approx 1435(don't quote me on the year) the Commons (as it was known then) argued in front of the Lords the Bishops and the Royals that since they were the ones who represented those who paid taxes, it was their sole power to levy taxes and authorise spending. (Edit: It wasn't so much as an 'argument' as a flat out demand otherwise the Commons would rise up and have their heads).

That is reflected in the current UK constitution, the American Constitution, the Canadian Constitution and ours. This is a principle that has been running unbroken for around 700 years.

The issue is that the upper chambers of the UK, the US and Canada were designed as aristocratic houses which weren't there to represent the taxpayer. They were there sort of as a ruling house institution.

That isn't particularly well reflected here where we set out from the beginning to create a state based upper chamber based on proportional representation. (The American Senate became this later on with direct election of Senators and we copied their second purpose as a state representative body).

Interestingly the House of Lords blocked Supply in 1909 which led to two general elections and the Parliament Act which significantly curbed the powers of the House of Lords.

The budget in question was Asquith's "People's budget." which introduced significant social welfare programs and taxes on the wealthy.

Had this had happened a hundred years prior, no doubt there would have been a war.

That is interesting. I believe that the House of Lords is not as powerful as it once was but still it is such a ridiculous institution to keep around.

The Senate in each system (except for the UK) has the ability to block or amend parts of the budget, if not supply entirely.

Regardless I do not believe the Senate should be able to force an election (which is the only real option if a government can't pass a budget).

Also the Senate does not have the power to amend money bills, only to pass or reject them.

 

[Shaneus]

A good policy to me may not be the same as you. Liberal offer more beneficial policies for me, and you can't split your vote, so I vote Liberal.

I don't think you get what I'm saying. It's okay to vote Liberal if you agree with their policies (obviously), but don't be "a Liberal voter" just because. That kind of statement comes off like you'd vote for them regardless of what policies they put up.

As someone with a lifelong disability, this budget is a disgrace.

I wish there could be a DD.

It's a war against the poor and needy.

Yup :/

As an aside, I wanted to get a thorough working knowledge of what a DD is, so I did a quick Google search. Love the Google auto-fill:

dem trends

 

[Arksy]

Regardless I do not believe the Senate should be able to force an election (which is the only real option if a government can't pass a budget).

Also the Senate does not have the power to amend money bills, only to pass or reject them.

Sorry, you are right and I did amend. The Senate can only reject budgets wholesale. Whether you agree or disagree with this power is a different discussion and one that I'm a bit torn on for a number of reasons.

I don't see the problem however of being able to force a referendum, passing the choice down to the people is an excellent way of resolving a political dispute. My point was that the elected representatives of this country, whatever side they sit on, regardless of their government or not, should be the ones who get to decide the budget.

Throwing your hands up and allowing the budget through, because that's the budget, I feel is an abrogation of their duty.

Edit:

Let me put it this way, assume that there was a minority government (like the last government, for the sake of reference). Would it be just as wrong if the crossbenchers backed the opposition in blocking the budget?

 

[hidys]

I don't think you get what I'm saying. It's okay to vote Liberal if you agree with their policies (obviously), but don't be "a Liberal voter" just because. That kind of statement comes off like you'd vote for them regardless of what policies they put up.


Yup :/

As an aside, I wanted to get a thorough working knowledge of what a DD is, so I did a quick Google search. Love the Google auto-fill:

dem trends

I know I and everyone else has been using the term double dissolution, but is still the case for supply bills that they have to be rejected twice or is once enough in their case?

 

[mjontrix]

As an aside, I wanted to get a thorough working knowledge of what a DD is, so I did a quick Google search. Love the Google auto-fill:

dem trends

Now try an image search. You'll be amazed what people come up with.

 

[Arksy]

I know I and everyone else has been using the term double dissolution, but is still the case for supply bills that they have to be rejected twice or is once enough in their case?

Convention dictates that the moment a supply bill is rejected the government is supposed to resign and dissolve parliament and head to a general election to receive a mandate.

 

[hidys]

Sorry, you are right and I did amend. The Senate can only reject budgets wholesale. Whether you agree or disagree with this power is a different discussion and one that I'm a bit torn on for a number of reasons.

I don't see the problem however of being able to force a referendum, passing the choice down to the people is an excellent way of resolving a political dispute. My point was that the elected representatives of this country, whatever side they sit on, regardless of their government or not, should be the ones who get to decide the budget.

Throwing your hands up and allowing the budget through, because that's the budget, I feel is an abrogation of their duty.

Edit:

Let me put it this way, assume that there was a minority government (like the last government, for the sake of reference). Would it be just as wrong if the crossbenchers backed the opposition in blocking the budget?

Governments are always determined in the House of Reps so if crossbenchers in that house reject a budget than it is fine because in that circumstance the house no longer has confidence in the government. I see the Senate as a house of review which while having the power to amend or reject bills passed by the lower house should not be determining who the government should be.

 

[hidys]

Convention dictates that the moment a supply bill is rejected the government is supposed to resign and dissolve parliament and head to a general election to receive a mandate.

So we need to stop saying double dissolution then? EDIT: Actually didn't Whitlam call a DD in '74 when Sneddon threaten to block supply? EDIT2: Actually Whitlam called it before Billy Sneddon actually got to vote on supply.

 

[Arksy]

So we need to stop saying double dissolution then?

Um, that's a good question........

I mean this is Westminster convention, so it's a convention in the UK (where it would be a HoC election because the upper house isn't elected.....Canada (same thing, no elected upper house)....and NZ (which has a unicameral parliament).....

I suppose it would have to be a DD because it's the Senate that's blocking supply. You're not going to resolve the issue by just vacating the house.

 

[roosters93]

Clivey in question time today

I can hear Tony Abbott's voice during a DD election now..
"Ah now Disney had ah Wreck it Ralph, the Australian people now have ah Block it Bill. He is damaging families, damaging the economy and giving boat people hope."

You could be one of his speech writers, impression is on point!

 

[hidys]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/may/14/albo-explains-the-budget-video

Here is a video of Anthony Albanese explaining the infrastructure portion of the budget. He does little drawings and everything.

 

[wonzo]

Well unless the ALP want to cause a constitutional crisis then yes, they should let the budget through.

Oh no, I'm sure the soon to be poverty stricken youth and single parents would be utterly horrified at the thought!

Liberals will be watching the polls on this budget. There is no way they wont compromise if their 2PP vote bombs to wii u levels.

Given some pre-budget polls have the ALP with a higher primary vote I kinda think it's a bit late for that.

 

[Elaugaufein]

So we need to stop saying double dissolution then? EDIT: Actually didn't Whitlam call a DD in '74 when Sneddon threaten to block supply? EDIT2: Actually Whitlam called it before Billy Sneddon actually got to vote on supply.

Double Dissolution refers to the dissolution of both the House and the Senate simultaneously* , not to the double rejection of a bill.

*As distinct form a normal election where only the House is dissolved (and half the Senate for the next Senate period is up for election but that's done as a matter of convenience).

 

[hidys]

Oh no, I'm sure the soon to be poverty stricken youth and single parents would be utterly horrified at the thought!


Given some pre-budget polls have the ALP with a higher primary vote I kinda think it's a bit late for that.

Should Whitlam have been dismissed like he was in 1975?

 

[Shaneus]

Fuck, if only Labor was headed by Albo right now :/

 

[hidys]

Double Dissolution refers to the dissolution of both the House and the Senate simultaneously* , not to the double rejection of a bill.

*As distinct form a normal election where only the House is dissolved (and half the Senate for the next Senate period is up for election but that's done as a matter of convenience).

But would both houses be dissolved automatically in this event?

 

[hidys]

Fuck, if only Labor was headed by Albo right now :/

There isn't a day that goes by where this doesn't cross my mind.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

As someone with a lifelong disability, this budget is a disgrace.

I wish there could be a DD.

It's a war against the poor and needy.

Please understand, the government just couldn't afford to retain a Disability Discrimination Commissioner. Graeme Innes' exorbitant salary was leaving a legacy of debt and deficit for our children that was too much to bear.

I can hear Tony Abbott's voice during a DD election now..
"Ah now Disney had ah Wreck it Ralph, the Australian people now have ah Block it Bill. He is damaging families, damaging the economy and giving boat people hope."

Oh god lol.

 

[Elaugaufein]

But would both houses be dissolved automatically in this event?

Practically yes. The executive controls the lower house , so there's no benefit in dissolving only the lower house. The executive also lacks the power to dissolve the senate without a double dissolution. So if an executive measure is blocked in a non-hung parliament situation its either going to lead to a dissolution of both houses or nothing.

 

[wonzo]

Should Whitlam have been dismissed like he was in 1975?

If it means having the same standard apply to Tony Abbott in 2014 (aka the now) then sure.

 

[hidys]

If it means having the same standard apply to Tony Abbott in 2014 (aka the now) then sure.

Keep in mind that if an election were called in those circumstances, Abbott would almost certainly win.

 

[pupcoffee]

GAF your GIF/meme skills would be appreciated as this all goes viral, if anyone has the will/time Couldn't hurt to actually get some QUALITY stuff out there.

 

[hidys]

Practically yes. The executive controls the lower house , so there's no benefit in dissolving only the lower house. The executive also lacks the power to dissolve the senate without a double dissolution. So if an executive measure is blocked in a non-hung parliament situation its either going to lead to a dissolution of both houses or nothing.

Cool just wanted to be sure.

 

[wonzo]

Keep in mind that if an election were called in those circumstances, Abbott would almost certainly win.

 

[hidys]

I've explained earlier in this thread that such an action would only come at extreme political cost. It only worked for Fraser because Whitlam was deeply unpopular, far more than Abbott today.

 

[hidys]

Also why the fuck are the Greens against the deficit levy? Haven't they wanted a more progressive taxation system since forever?

 

[Arksy]

I think Abbott would win, but that's not the point.

The point is that this budget isn't what's promised, so it's right in principle to ask the people for permission to go ahead with it.

 

[wonzo]

I've explained earlier in this thread that such an action would only come at extreme political cost. It only worked for Fraser because Whitlam was deeply unpopular, far more than Abbott today.

Still not seeing it considering the complete freefall of the Liberal party in the polls.

 

[Jintor]

Also why the fuck are the Greens against the deficit levy? Haven't they wanted a more progressive taxation system since forever?

This I don't know. I assume it's out of some kind of misguided attempt to appeal to high income earners who don't really vote for them anyway.

 

[hidys]

Still not seeing it considering the complete freefall of the Liberal party in the polls.

Wouldn't call the current polling a "freefall." Labor is clearly in front but it is by no means a landslide. They would have a far better chance of getting back into office if they went to an election in three years.

 

[Arksy]

This I don't know. I assume it's out of some kind of misguided attempt to appeal to high income earners who don't really vote for them anyway.

There are a lot of high income earners who vote Greens....!

 

[Piecake]

American here. So does a proposed budget along with all of its policies actually get passed without issue in Australia? Just curious because I don't think we have approved a budget and can barely pass any policy in like 10 years.

 

[pupcoffee]

I think Abbott would win, but that's not the point.

The point is that this budget isn't what's promised, so it's right in principle to ask the people for permission to go ahead with it.

This is the core value here.

Though it would give Labor easy pickings during the dumb pre-next-next-election slander war (like the Julia/Rudd embarrassment Liberal focussed on) A hypothetical forced election so early IS a public moral crushing disgrace whether Abbott wins it or not and is something Abbot would never live down. Not that Labor should need such a thing to make Abbott look bad... but it'd be iconically bad, I guess is what I'm saying, which helps a lot in media wars.

 

[Jintor]

There are a lot of high income earners who vote Greens....!

Right, but that's not who I'm saying the Greens are trying to appeal to with this deficit thing... I'm saying maybe they're appealing to the high income earners who aren't voting greens.

I don't know, it was a half-thought I just threw out there

 

[hidys]

This I don't know. I assume it's out of some kind of misguided attempt to appeal to high income earners who don't really vote for them anyway.

Labor seems to have shifted its position to "we don't like it, but we're really not that bothered by it" and the Greens position is "well we're against it but please don't ask us more than that!" I suspect both parties are pretty divided internally on the matter.

There are a lot of high income earners who vote Greens....!

I think we have a winner.

 

[Candescence]

Also why the fuck are the Greens against the deficit levy? Haven't they wanted a more progressive taxation system since forever?

Though there has been some internal debate over it, Millie pretty much came out and said that they think the levy is a smokescreen for Abbot to claim he's taxing the rich before giving them handouts later, and that the Greens want permanent, meaningful reform.

And to be fair, they're right, it is kind of an obvious patch-job to try and make it look like everyone is 'pitching in', when it'll still be the poor and middle-class who will suffer, while the rich don't pay jack shit.

 

[Jintor]

It is kinda small and it does lapse after four years

 

[Arksy]

American here. So does a proposed budget along with all of its policies actually get passed without issue in Australia? Just curious because I don't think we have approved a budget and can barely pass any policy in like 10 years.

We had a constitutional crisis in 1975 where our Queen's representative threw out the sitting Prime Minister after the opposition party blocked appropriations in the Senate. It was a pretty drastic crisis with a lot of long lasting fall out.

It has sort of made parties on both sides pretty unwilling to let it happen, so most budgets get debated rather robustly and then passed in the Parliament but with very few threats to actually block it.

 

[Elaugaufein]

American here. So does a proposed budget along with all of its policies actually get passed without issue in Australia? Just curious because I don't think we have approved a budget and can barely pass any policy in like 10 years.

Every year. Though given the political tone introduced recently I wouldn't place any strong bets that's still going to be the cast in 10 years time. We don't have the House vs Executive conflict since our Executive is our House but our House vs Senate conflict could easily become worse because its not unusual for neither major party to hold power in the Senate outright.

 

[CrazedProfessional]

You could be one of his speech writers, impression is on point!

I ah am not getting into specifics roosters, I am not getting into specifics but ah if this budget is blocked and blocked it might be then Australians should be worried. They have every right to be worried and ah Labor has the responsibility of putting that worry at ease. They must pass these budgetary measures in order to ah respect our mandate which frankly should have been respected since we formed government.

 

[Dryk]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/may/14/albo-explains-the-budget-video

Here is a video of Anthony Albanese explaining the infrastructure portion of the budget. He does little drawings and everything.

NOT TRAINS

 

[hidys]

Though there has been some internal debate over it, Millie pretty much came out and said that they think the levy is a smokescreen for Abbot to claim he's taxing the rich before giving them handouts later, and that the Greens want permanent, meaningful reform.

And to be fair, they're right, it is kind of an obvious patch-job to try and make it look like everyone is 'pitching in', when it'll still be the poor and middle-class who will suffer, while the rich don't pay jack shit.

I frankly think this is ridiculous. As a non party of government (even if you believe they will one day be a party of government it won't happen soon)you have the option of supporting policy or rejecting it. This might not be exactly what they want but it is pretty close. They can still support it while criticizing it for not being big enough/permanent and attack Abbott's other budgetary measures.

 

[Arksy]

Every year. Though given the political tone introduced recently I wouldn't place any strong bets that's still going to be the cast in 10 years time. We don't have the House vs Executive conflict since our Executive is our House but our House vs Senate conflict could easily become worse because its not unusual for neither major party to hold power in the Senate outright.

Just to clarify, we use the Westminster system, so yeah our cabinet sits in our House of Representatives.

Otherwise, a centrally planned spending budget is convention now, I don't think we'll ever get rid of it. It's something both sides will keep doing even if there is another crisis.