The latest fortnightly Morgan face-to-face poll has Labor’s two-party lead at 57.5-42.5, up from 56.5-43.5 last time. Labor are up a point to 47 per cent on the primary vote, while the Coalition are down one to 37 per cent.
It’s all happening in New South Wales:
• Bernard Keane of Crikey reports David Clarke is believed likely to survive tonight’s preselection challenge from David Elliott with moderate support. (UPDATE: Clarke wins 50-36) Some interesting background detail from Keane: “The Campbell-Hawke assault on Clarke had its origins in a swift and cleverly executed turnover of delegates in Clarke’s preselection in late 2008 by Hawke, with most of the targets under the belief that Hawke was operating with Clarke’s imprimatur. Instead, Hawke removed or displaced nine preselectors and installed his own nominees, delivering an 18-vote turnaround that transformed Clarke’s preselection from comfortable to very challenging.” Deborah Snow of the Sydney Morning Herald reports former Opposition Leader Peter Collins has come out swinging at Clarke in support of David Elliott, saying Clarke was paying the price for blocking Elliott in federal Mitchell and state Riverstone.
• The quid pro quo for moderates supporting David Clarke is said to include the dropping of a preselection challenge against moderate incumbent Greg Pearce by Richard Quinn, and a smoothing of the way for Robyn Parker in the marginal seat of Maitland in lieu of her failure to retain her upper house position. Whoever gets the nod in Maitland will have things made easier by the announcement this week that Labor member Frank Terenzini will not seek another term.
• Bevan Shields of the Lithgow Mercury reports Orange councillor Sam Romano will challenge Nationals MP John Cobb for preselection in Calare.
• Caryn Metcalfe of the Penrith Press reports Hawkesbury mayor Bart Bassett has been preselected as state Liberal candidate for Londonderry.
• Macarthur preselection victim Pat Farmer reckons the people of Camden are begging for him to represent them in state parliament. According to Matthew Ward of the Macarthur Chronicle, his main rivals for Liberal preselection would be Camden councillor Michael Cottrell and former Camden councillor Rob Elliott, with “possible candidates” including Camden mayor Chris Patterson or, if Patterson, won’t run, Citi Cycle Classic organiser Paul Hillbrick. Reports suggests it is Patterson’s for the taking if he wants it.
• Hamish Coffee in comments advises Brent Thomas has defeated Right faction colleague Greg Holland for Labor preselection in Hughes.
• Not sure how much it was in doubt, but the ABC reports Damian Hale will seek another term in Solomon.
As the provision is meant to be about dispute between the two houses it wouldn’t make much sense at all otherwise. After the Senate has agreed to a set of amendments why should the amendments not be allowed to be included in future iterations of the bill? What would the purpose of those words in the Constitution be?
It could be that the Senate agreed to those amendments but require further amendments to be able to support the bill in totality. It would then make sense to allow the Government to reintroduce the bill with those amendments and suggest further amendments to the Senate for their consideration as the next negotiating step.
[Whatever you, I or Harry Evans thinks, the High Court would end up ruling on the matter.]
Correct me if I’m wrong but that would only be after the DD election from memory which would be highly confusing as the High Court could invalidate the reason/legislation for an election but not the election itself.
[It is arguable that the Senate did not agree to the amendments, the Senate sitting as a Committee of the whole agreed. ]
Yes, but then the Senate adopted the report of the committee of the whole. This means the Senate agreed to the proceedings of the committee of the whole and the amendments agreed to by the committee.
Have the Labor Hacks in here accepted Abbotts in it for the long haul now that Garretts been forced into submission?
[Australia is unusual that our Parliaments consider legislation as committee of the whole . Most other conjtries delegate the committee stage of the bill to legislative sub-committees.]
Could you expand upon that please.I dont undertsand what you mean.
ta
[That’s not the point of this discussion.]
So you decide the point of the discussion?
I think the vast majority of people in Timor, Tibet, Kosavo, etc do not give a fourpenny about politics, all they want to do is live their lives, make a living and care for their kids. They could not give a crap about independence or who governs them.
Yet if you can get weapons from somewhere and fight for independence, killing thousands in the process, you can then become a political leader.
Its bollocks. What is oppression? Who defines it?
Vichy-ism is a coward castle, one from which you preach often. Your aguments are fallacious. We are talking about independence for regions.
I suppose you would support and armed uprising in Nth Qld to form a separate state?
[Australia is unusual that our Parliaments consider legislation as committee of the whole . Most other conjtries delegate the committee stage of the bill to legislative sub-committees.]
In most countries, after bills are introduced they’re referred to a committee for detailed consideration. These committees are a small group of members of the parliament and are specialised in particular fields (e.g. economics) In this phase, amendments to the bill are considered and made or recommended. The bill then returns to the plenary chamber for final approval.
In Australia, the detail work on amendments happens in the chamber with the chamber sitting as a ‘committee of the whole’.
Itep, read the first par of Section 57 and it is all about whether the House agrees to Senate amendments. The bill was rejected twice, so the Senate never agreed to any amendments on which the House could express a view.
First Collingwood thrashing of the year 🙂
[In Australia, the detail work on amendments happens in the chamber with the chamber sitting as a ‘committee of the whole’.]
So why do we have commitees at all then if Parl is considered a comittee as a whole?
I am a tad confused
Mark Reilly on Seven Nooz is running the poor downtrodden installers the victims of the changes to the Rebate.
Hypocrites as they and Barcelona Tonight have ben at pains to expose the shonks etc.
ruawake@206
Shh – you’ll give Toothy ideas 🙂
Diogenes, it would only be after the joint sitting passes the legislation. The PMA case makes it clear the High court will consider the validity of legislation after the joint sitting, not before, and it will not re-open the matter of the election. That’s settled constitutional case law.
The High Court has not ruled on the meaning of the amendment provisions in Section 57 as there has only ever been one joint sitting. As I said, doesn’t matter what I, Itep or Harry Evans think, the High Court will end up ruling on whether the Senate did or did not agree to amendments.
[They could not give a crap about independence or who governs them.]
I can only suggest you read some 19th and 20th century history. The desire for national independence has been one of the driving forces of world history ever since the French Revolution.
[I suppose you would support and armed uprising in Nth Qld to form a separate state?]
If the people of NQ genuinely wanted to secede from Australia I would support their right to do so. If they were forcibly prevented from excercising their right to independence I would support their right to resist. Fortunately this is a hypothetical scenario. In East Timor, Tibet, Xinjiang, Kurdestan and various other places it is not hypothetical.
[read the first par of Section 57 and it is all about whether the House agrees to Senate amendments.]
Yes, but that can be read as just being one of the possible ways the two Houses disagree.
The second part: “again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate” relates to the entirety of the first part ” the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree”. This means that the House can include amendments which have been ‘made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate” before they were ultimately rejected or before they were failed to be passed.
The use of words ‘made, suggested or agreed to by the Senate” further strengthen an argument that the third readings of the bills do not need to be agreed to necessarily.
The fact that the House could not express a view on the amendments is completely irrelevant to whether the amendments were in fact ‘made, suggested or agreed to’ by the Senate. In fact, when the Senate votes on an amendment, the motion that is put is “that the amendment be agreed to”. If that vote is in the affirmative how can you possibly make the argument that the amendment was not agreed to.
[Na. He just an Aussie Tea Partiest … You know .. A sort of Nescafe Noobiest!]
What flavour of beer is Nescafe? A bitter? Lager? Light?
Pseph.
Dont forget Irian Jaya!
[ As I said, doesn’t matter what I, Itep or Harry Evans think, the High Court will end up ruling on whether the Senate did or did not agree to amendments.]
I understand this point but of course I think my argument is more compelling than suggesting the Senate did not agree to amendments it voted to agree to :).
In any case, I agree with your overall assessment that the Government will not be able to get together a separate CPRS trigger solely based off the new bills in time for a DD election.
[Don’t forget Irian Jaya!]
Quite so.
[If the people of NQ genuinely wanted to secede from Australia I would support their right to do so. If they were forcibly prevented from excercising their right to independence I would support their right to resist. Fortunately this is a hypothetical scenario.]
Another Libertarian. Welcome.
[If the people of NQ genuinely wanted to secede from Australia I would support their right to do so. If they were forcibly prevented from excercising their right to independence I would support their right to resist.]
Thanks for the confirmation that you support armed insurrection. 😛
The word ‘suggested’ also supports my theory. Two of the bills CPRS (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill and CPRS (Household Assistance) Bills were bill the Senate could not amend and could only ‘suggest’ amendments.
These amendments were suggested by the Senate and agreed to by the House of Representatives, at which stage the bills were negatived at their third reading.
It is clear that these bills could be presented at a joint sitting with the amendments ‘suggested’ by the Senate.
#139
[ Peter Young, coming from you, it’s a compliment. Cheers. ]
Repeat previous comment.
BTW – It wasn’t intended as a compliment. However, you take it anyway you like – as I am sure you do most of the time.
[Thanks for the confirmation that you support armed insurrection.]
In certain circumstances, of course I do. So must any democrat. Is it really your position that people and nations must accept any degree of oppression without resistance?
ru
Many Tibetans are a bit miffed about this.
[Tibetan people are denied most rights guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the rights to self-determination, freedom of speech, assembly, movement and expression.]
I suspect many Chinese aren’t all that chirpy about it either.
If the Chinese took over the Australian government would you condemn my “armed insurrection”?
Afterall the Chinese are our new “leaders” and what I would be involved in would technically be illegal. You’d happily sit back condemning people for not accepting their new way of life and fighting against colonisation?
Pathetic.
Psephos – support for armed resistance is absolutely allowed. WW2 occupied nations, Vienam etc. North Queensland is a bit tricky – we have an indissoluble Commonwealth under the Constitution. So the only way North Qld can secede is if a national referendum changes the Constitution. Apart from that the law of treason applies – I seem to recall some recent discussion on this but I think its still in place.
Sorry about this, but more Odgers Senate practice.
“The joint sitting is empowered to consider amendments proposed by one House and not agreed by the other. To take effect these amendments must be affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of senators and members of both Houses. The wording of this provision concerning amendments presents some difficulties of interpretation, concerning which see C.K. Comans, ‘Constitution, section 57 — further questions’, Federal Law Review, 15:3, September 1985, p. 243. The provision does not allow the government to submit to a joint sitting completely new provisions which have not previously been considered by the Senate, as this would amount to de facto unicameralism for any legislation following a simultaneous dissolution. The provision refers only to amendments agreed to by the Senate and amendments proposed by the House in substitution for Senate amendments prior to the dissolution. It may be doubted whether the provision allows the submission of amendments to a bill to which the Senate agreed where the Senate subsequently rejected the bill at the third reading.”
As I said, the High Court will end up ruling on whether the Senate did or did not agree to amendments, but you then have the problem the House never considered the amendments.
Thanks for your consideration Anthony. I have nothing new to add so I won’t go on :).
Psephos@209
[First Collingwood thrashing of the year 🙂 ]
Enjoy it while it lasts. Round 2 will be fun 👿 …
[In certain circumstances, of course I do. So must any democrat. Is it really your position that people and nations must accept any degree of oppression without resistance?]
As usual you misrepresent – we are not talking about nations, we are talking about regions that have zero chance of existing on their own. If you want basket case “nations” propped up by the UN until they get sick of it, fair enough.
Timor and Irian Jaya would be better off being part of a democratic Indonesia – you cannot dispute this. Or would you prefer a few more decades of death?
[As I said, the High Court will end up ruling on whether the Senate did or did not agree to amendments]
I highly doubt it would get to this stage. In the absence of certainty the Government would surely just present the original CPRS bills and use its numbers to make the Wong-Macfarlane amendments at a joint sitting. They wouldn’t risk the whole package to a High Court decision.
Collingwood are only losing by 10 points at 3/4 time. That bloody hubris!
ru
[Timor and Irian Jaya would be better off being part of a democratic Indonesia – you cannot dispute this.]
Of course you can dispute it. The Timorese and Irian Jayans seem to disagree with you and who are you to tell them what is best for them?
No Itep, the Wong-Macfarlane amendments are exactly what the High Court would rule on as to whether they were amendments agreed to by the Senate and could therefore be presented at a joint sitting. There is absolutely no doubt the government can put the bill to a joint sitting and pass it if it has the numbers. The question you’re raising it what amendments can be put at a joint sitting.
[So why do we have commitees at all then if Parl is considered a comittee as a whole?]
Committees serve a range of roles in scrutinising legislation, educating MPs etc. For instance, bills are referred to committees often. Community stakeholders then make submissions to the committee and give evidence before the committee (by being questioned). This allows the members of the committee to learn of potential problems with the bills.
After this stage the parties can go away and think about possible amendments to the bill which are then considered by the whole chamber.
Committees also inquire into matters of public concern, for instance, suicide, cervical cancer, fertiliser marketing etc. These inquiries might bring to the attention of the Government things that can be fixed with new laws or might help parties to develop new policies.
These are all things that are too cumbersome to be managed by the entire chamber. For example, it’s far easier to scrutinise the management of a government scheme in a small committee phase than to have a witness attend the entire Senate chamber for questioning.
Fourth Windies thrashing of the year.
Great stuff about the DD. Q1: will Kevin Rudd go for one or won’t he? I reckon he is leaving his options open till the best moment to suit his purpose. And why shouldn’t he. I’m waiting for the Mice to start telling him he must go to the people because Australians have lost confidence in him, he doesn’t have a mandate for whatever, the polls are agin him, etc.
[Of course you can dispute it. The Timorese and Irian Jayans seem to disagree with you and who are you to tell them what is best for them?]
OK so leave them to their own devices. Many explosive.
[Timor and Irian Jaya would be better off being part of a democratic Indonesia – you cannot dispute this.]
That’s a matter for the people of East Timor and West Papua to decide for themselves. If I was a West Papuan, I might well agree that the present autonomy status for the province is sufficient given its very low level of development. But I’m not a West Papuan and neither are you, so it’s not for us to tell them what their status ought to be. Do you really not grasp the basic principle of national self-determination, which has been recognised, at least in theory, under international law since 1945?
I don’t support every self-declared secessionist movement. I don’t support the insurgency in southern Thailand, for example, because I think it’s really a campaign to impose radical Islamism on people who’ve shown no real desire to secede from Thailand. But where there is genuine denial of the right of self-determination, outsiders have no moral right to tell oppressed peoples that they can’t rebel against their oppressors.
Thanks LTEP
I had often meant to ask this question.
🙂
What other countries follow our system?
Yes Antony, I’ve reread the part specific to the joint sitting and you’re right on that. In which case, in my view, the Government would be best pressed to risk the High Court challenge.
[I don’t support every self-declared secessionist movement.]
Just the ones you approve of?
[What other countries follow our system?]
I have to admit I’m much more aware of countries that don’t. Perhaps the UK or Canada?
In a lot countries every bill is automatically referred to a committee for a period lasting up to 6 months. This is why when the Government complains about unnecessary delays for committee inquiries it’s almost never particularly convincing.
That’s apart from the CPRS of course. That’s been through so many committee processes there’s virtually nothing new to learn.
[Just the ones you approve of?]
Well of course. What other answer can there be? It seems you have recognised the indefensibility of your position and can now resort only to silly word-games. Feel free to try again when you’ve got something halfway intelligent to say.
What secessionist movements have achieved their aims? Not many or less, How many hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost?
ruawake @ all over the place
Somewhere back there you said that “I think the vast majority of people in Timor, Tibet, Kosavo, etc do not give a fourpenny about politics, all they want to do is live their lives, make a living and care for their kids. They could not give a crap about independence or who governs them.”
Timor is a country I know rather well, and I also know a lot of Timorese. Your statements about people there being detached from politics and not caring about independence are ignorant rubbish: it’s a highly politicised society. And the reason people were and are so keen on independence is that they were shockingly oppressed during the Indonesian rule: it is hard to find anyone there who didn’t have a relative killed or tortured.
As Gandalf said to Grima: “The wise speak only of what they know … A witless worm you have become. Therefore be silent, and keep your forked tongue behind your teeth.”
Jesus wept!
I watched TTH try and try and try to provoke a response over the last few hours yet getting no where. Intelligent debate was doing the usual back and forth and this was good to see.
Reminded me of the “ole days’
And then …
ru
I think the good people of the United States of America would disagree with you.
What?
As a Han Chinese myself I read the exchange between Psephos, Ruawake and Diogenes about Tibet with interest. Tibet was a country, it was conquered (not for the first time) by the Mongolians during the Qing dynasty. The emperors of the dynasty sent arm forces, and a governor general (Unlike the GG in Australia, this person had real power to control the military and everything else in Tibet) to Tibet. Dalai Lamas were respected but not regarded as the ruler. In fact, one Dalai Lama was arrested by the Qing army and subsequently died on the way to be tried in Beijing for treason. During the 19th centuries the dynasty was in dire trouble after having to face a massive uprising and being invaded left, right and centre by countries that I shall not name. Naturally the grip on Tibet loosened to an extent that it was almost under self-rule. The subsequent Nationalist goverment was fightingg one war after another and seemed content with maintaining some kind of in-principle control of Tibet. Tibet was recaptured in 1950 after its army was roundly defeated by the PLA. None of the government since Qing dynasty ever gave up sovereignty over Tibet.
Was Tibetan harshly treated? Yes, but so was the rest of the Chinese population during the Cultural Revolution. In fact, the minority groups were treated somewhat better than the Han Chinese. Are they being tortured? I really cannot see it. There are now everything one would associate with civilisation in Tibet (Hospitals, Universities, etc). None of these existed during the current Dalai Lama’s reign. There are compulsory volunteers in their thousands every year going to Tibet, we are talking about doctors, engineers, professionals…Tibetans can have more children than Han Chinese, they have massive concessions with regard to nearly everything in life. Does this appear like an ethnic group under torture to you? Claims of Tibetan independence is irrendentist in nature and seems to be a weapon that “Western” countries whields whenever they want to whack China.
As a side note, TTH@226 is not worthy of a reply due to its completely ridiculous nature.