Evil fascist law now OK

I recently mentioned an experience I had of being criticised in the Senate by a Labor Senator back in 2004 for supporting “fascist” and “evil legislation”. This incident came to my mind again when Labor announced that they will maintain the Building and Construction Commission if they win the election, as this was the subject of the “fascist legislation” I supported.

Indeed, the measures which I supported in June 2004 – after a lot of negotiation and modification and somewhat reluctantly, but none the less willingly and with my eyes open (even though it was 2 o’clock in the morning when the legislation was passed) – had far more protections in place than what is the case with the now, as the Coalition later used their control of the Senate to make it far more hardline.

It reminds me once again that, as with their recent adoption of a long-standing Coalition measure requiring secret ballots before striking and accepting part of the Coalition’s even longer standing policy of gutting unfair dismissal protections, Labor has an amazing ability to suddenly advocate a position that they would have ferociously and vociferously attacked me for if I’d voted for it in the Senate any time in the last ten years.It is also another reminder of how valuable it is to have an independent voice in the Senate that will adopt balanced positions on the basis of evidence and rational principles, rather than blind ideology or political expedience, positioning or pressure. Family First have already shown they can’t handle important balance of power issues, while the Greens are busily courting large trade union donations and positioning themselves as more union than Labor.

Please like & share:

28 Comments

  1. I think the problem here for the Democrats in Unions recognising the efforts of Democrats on matters that deal with honesty and fairness they just dont want to.Thats maybe why a person like myself that actually helped workers and unionists and maybe the AlP itself gets loaded by how Griener used some of my words against Barry Unsworth at an election in N.S.W. I sort of like Barrie now and I had no intention of being used in that manner..and a whole lot of matters where I just feel used up by them.The Burrows woman doesnt appeal to me either or the Secretary giving up his job for a chance at election from ACTU. State and Federally I think you could say ,the ALP will shit on you personally about the wishy washy Democrats when in fact it is plain jealousy,which they cannot forgive themselves for.The Greens just will not surrender that the Democrats as a party simply tries a different tack,involving the possible,and only begrudgingly recognise the Democrat imprint.The Greens are good at some issues whereas there are other ways to insure the same real result takes place.Power is what they want..whereas the Democrats recognise the limitation of the empowered human being ,the illusions of grandeur,was at times something Don Chipp had confronted regularly and disturbingly..Your much publicised drinking problem there for a while was a minor candle burning the illusion.When all else fails blame the media..which I will do without much of even a tear on their behalf..I think …many are rotten cowards.It is amusing me at the moment the openness re restaurants and health problems perhaps,compared to what happened to Pan Pharmaceuticals.Labor goes on in this state N.S.W. supporting Nurses and Doctors in a way that isnt valid compared to what is possible re the Wellness Industry.I have many personal issues here,and, vendetta instincts,are not outside the province of my reasoning,in relationship to the big C to surgical and analysis of procedure to often in review by medicoes.

  2. You can’t blame the Greens if the Unionists want to throw money at them. Accepting money from donors does not automatically place you in their debt, or in thrall to their policies.

    “an independent voice in the Senate that will adopt balanced positions on the basis of evidence and rational principles, rather than blind ideology or political expedience, positioning or pressure.”

    The Democrats sold out on the GST, as we all remember well. The Greens still have their credibility intact (IMHO). Thank God somebody in Canberra does.

  3. Except, ghandi, the Greens have been very vocal about other parties taking campaign donations from vested interests and from companies they have decided are beyond the pale.

    There’s no reason why the Greens are any more or less immune to influence than any other political party.

    I see Bob Brown is saying today that they won’t be handing back funds from the ETU, despite the behaviour of some of their leaders.

  4. ‘gandhi’, dear sir or madam, I cannot disagree with you more.

    Howard did have the integrity to stand up before the voting public and announce that he intended to introduce a GST, which he had argued for since he was the high interest rate treasurer. One of the very few things I admire him for was his persistence on his favourite subject. His favourite subject, not mine.

    The voting public voted FOR this proposal to be introduced.

    Why?

    Pass.

    Half of the Democrats were bitterly against the GST, as I had & have been against the general concept after the UK introduced their VAT and prices there exploded over about the following two years. I could no longer afford to order my hobby materials.

    If the unruly rump of the Democrats had not forced the change to Howard’s tax on ALL transactions, I would have not just lost my dearly beloved yacht, owned after a working lifetime of yearning for, and lost when the GST reduced my spending power by about $1,850 pa over & above sales tax expenditures (receipts kept somewhere) but I would have also had to eat 10% poorer quality (or quantity of) food.

    That would have been the end of a passably comfortable life, for me and for a huge number of others, and I bless the Dems almost every day for that legislature block, even though at the time I was angry too.

    It took time for me to realize their actions actually reduced the pain of that damn-ed tax. Yes they could have blocked it, but at what cost? The Australian public had said they accepted the idea. I doubt that even the most anti-GST Democrats could have lived with the consequences of blocking the public’s voted intent.

    As an aside, I have a passing desire to compare the repeating obscene budget surplus, (which compares well in kind with the grossly inflated CEO salaries currently being paid,) against the cumulative personal loss of income borne by all individuals in this country through the GST. We are each and everyone a tax payer now, to the end of our days and beyond

  5. You’re wrong ghandi.

    Some of the Democrats votes for the GST some didn’t, Andrew was one of those who voted against it – displaying independence of thought and integrity of action despite party room pressure.

    Perhaps one can’t blame the greens for having money thrown at them, but one can and should blame them for accepting it regardless of where it comes from.

    Bob Brown’s acceptance of the money from the ETU flies in the face of his own past rhetoric and displays an alarming willingness to put politics ahead of principle.

    He’s not someone I’d trust with the balance of power in the senate.

  6. Howard said the GST was dead and buried, never ever to be resurrected.

    If I remember correctly, the very principled Brian Harradine refused to give Howard the numbers, so Howard went a-courting the Dems.

    The public were begging and pleading with the Dems not to let Howard bring it in, but Meg Lees didn’t hear and succumbed to his advances.

  7. You have correctly pointed out that the object of gaining power is the only overriding basis for movable ALP policy positions this year – understandable after so long in opposition. IMO however this metoosim and low risk attempt to not “spook” the punters is fraught with danger. They were on a real point of difference with the IR stuff and should have laughed off the union hoon and pressed on with the issue that has gained traction. The Libs will draw them in to a tangle of intricacy if their not careful.

    More reassuring is the knowledge that nary a skerrick of anything other than rational balanced hopeful logic has ever influenced our beloved senator – the true Saint Joan of modern politics?

    Although the dems record of balance of powerism is certainly preferable to anything resembling a green agenda of social and economic chaos – those privileged doctors wives will quickly say – “hey this wasn’t supposed to mean me too just that lot over there” if green agendas get an airing. The value of the greens and dems is that their agendas eventually have to be considered by the mainstream, albeit in a timeframe too slow for them, and taken up in some form or other – that is their great contribution but that is also the limit.

    Howard certainly did say the GST was dead and brined, and it was revived, well so what’s new, about from Beatified Bartlett, all of us have done the same thing at times, I’ll defy anyone to honestly say they have never said something to meet the needs of the time or situation they are in.

    And yes Marilyn your absolutely right the 1998 Election had from memory 1st preference around 50.5 to 49.5 two party preferred. Are you suggesting that the from of parliamentary representation we now have where proportional voting is to be replaced by absolute vote only? Goodbye all minors?

  8. Thanks for the compliments Ken – even though they were delivered with a large pile of sarcasm.

    You’re right Ken, there are limits to the role of a minor party. Mind you, there also should be limits (albeit different ones) to what a major party can do as well. That’s why checks and balances are so important – which brings us back to the crucial role of smaller parties and an independent Senate.

    There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with saying someting “to meet the needs of the time or the situation”. What is wrong is when what you say is deliberately dishonest or deceiving.

    I don’t profess to be perfect, but I do think being intellectually consistent and honest is very important in public life. That doesn’t mean never changing your mind, but it means being honest when you have and being able to explain why.

    That to me was the big problem for the Democrats with the GST – not the policy view some people decided to adopt in supporting it, but the refusal to acknowledge that doing so involved a major shift from what had previously and repeatedly been promised and implied.

    Certainly a key reason why I voted against the GST was that the final package did not meet a number of specific promises, nor sufficiently address other concerns that had regularly been raised both before and after the election – and there was not sufficient reason why these could not be fulfilled.

  9. In response to gandhi, apart from noting that I voted against the GST, I agree with your comment that “Accepting money from donors does not automatically place you in their debt, or in thrall to their policies.”

    Having been on the receiving end of attacks from the Greens for my party receiving donations far smaller than what we’re talking about here, perhaps you could say the same thing to them.

    According to Green party website, “Donations erode the Australian democratic process.”

    Green MP Lee Rhiannon has said “Political donations can distort the political process. Access is power, and money buys access to politicians in our country. This means large donors can influence governmental decisions, which benefit them and their companies.”

    Apart from noting the double standard, I actually agree that our electoral donation and disclosure laws need major reforms. I think it is the size of the donation which is the biggest problem, rather than the donation itself. There’s a big difference between a $5000 donation and a $50 000 dollar donation – both in impact and influence.

    Much of the improvement in disclosure laws over the last 30 years has been due to the Democrats, and it’s no surprise that they were substantially weakened by the Coalition as soon as they got control of the Senate.

  10. The feigned moral outrage about Dean Mighell and the ETU is a staggering sign of the extent to which Howard’s business-friendly values and attitudes have come to dominate public discourse.

    What is Mighell supposed to have done? Well (1) he boasted that his union had obtained wage increases for its members using actual or threatened industrial action, which until recently was widely believed to be a trade union’s core business, and (2) he did it using language that is commonplace in the building industry (I speak as somone who had daily contact with members and staff of the Master Builders Association for many years). And these things are now regarded as so beyond the Labor pale that they won’t even be tainted with the ETU’s money? This isn’t Coalition-lite, it’s Coalition-clone.

  11. In my view, “evil” legislation is any kind of legislation that is enacted beyond constitutional powers!
    As a Senator your first duty is to ascertain if a Bill presented to the House is within constitutional legislative powers! If it is not and you support it nevertheless then you must be deemed to support “evil” legislation regardless if the ALP or any other political party supports it then or later.

    As such, as you claim to have supported this legislation could you kindly point out within which constitutional powers this legislation was enacted?
    Surely, you ought to have no problem in doing so, where it occurred some 3 years ago and as such ought to have had sufficient time to work this out, or perhaps you never did? Perhaps you could not care less about it?

    It is all right for you to complain about others but surely then you ought to accept criticism and be frank about matters?
    Perhaps, you can point out to me when there was a successful referendum held to provide legislative powers in regard of the legislation you supported?
    Also, what on earth gave the Commonwealth of Australia constitutional powers to provide for a Building and Construction Commission?
    Then issue is not if there were MERITS in having such a commission, rather if it was constitutionally permissible. If not then anything else falls by the wayside, so to say.

    Or will it be that you will again refrain from giving a proper response to this posting as you simply failed yourself to check out the facts first?

    It does not matter if the ALP may wish to retain such a commission or not as if it ain’t constitutionally within their powers it will have to go, regardless which political party is in power!
    For the record I never was involved in the building industry and as such it does not affect me in that regard, just that I totally dislike someone to rob me of my constitutional rights by using backdoor ways to amend or is perceived to amend the constitution by default!

  12. Ken (8) says “Are you suggesting that the from of parliamentary representation we now have where proportional voting is to be replaced by absolute vote only? Goodbye all minors?”
    We don’t have proportional voting, we have preferential voting which is how a party like Family First can get a Senator elected on the basis of a miniscule vote. Proportional voting would likely see a Senate made up of the 2 majors, Greens and the Nationals, with anybody else finding it difficult provided there is a minimal threshold vote required eg 5%
    Many countries have proportional voting and it seems to often result in a diversity of parties forcing coalitions to form government. Proportional voting would not be the end of minor parties.

  13. OMG! The GST debate is so last century! It was nearly TEN YEARS ago, people and everyone has moved on apart from the Democrats and their detractors.

    But yes, the Greens and FF are totally beholden to union and church respectively. The need for a party not beholden to sectional interests, as advocated by Don Chipp is clearer than ever.

    It IS just bloody depressing that Australians are so bloody minded about voting for the said sectional interests, hoping to feather their own nests rather than look at creating ‘a good and safe country for future generations’, to quote Don again. Maybe I am ‘last century’ after all! :)

  14. I dont think it is last century 10 years ago.I remember trying to figure out what Meg Lees was up to and ,whilst I didnt like the GST at all and is a bludge for the Government..Meg and the Democrats have now proven how difficult it was for them,and,Meg suffered the most.This disgusting man ,Howard has moved on via another election to the one coming up.I doubt very much all the activism as mouthing off by opponents of the GST at Parliamentary level, would of meant a decisive rejection ,played out somehow,in the government backbench and Senate,that, the Liberals werent allowed to govern thus an election.Donations to the Liberals would of then been seismic.

  15. OFTEN PEOPLE HAVE OBJECTIONS BUT THEN DROP OF LIKE FLIES. ON THE OTHERHAND A PERSON LIKE MYSELF FACING UNSURMOUNTING OBSTRUCTIONS NEVERTHELESS AGAINST THE ODDS FIGHT ON AND SUCCEED.

    For example, on 2 November 2001 I commenced to challenge the validity of the writs for the purported 10 November 2001 federal election and FAILED TO VOTE. I did never deny not having voted but made all along clear that the writs were defective and unconstitutionally issued and in any event Section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 was unconstitutional for so far if obligated anyone to vote. First I was convicted, the magistrate refusing to give a reason of judgment, but on appeal I succeeded on all constitutional grounds UNCHALLENGED!

    Not a single parliamentarian bothered to deal with this issue, not even the Joint Standing committee on electoral matters, and I was left on my own to successfully fight the federal government lawyers!

    Now, the ort is that the Government nevertheless continues to pursue people for FAILING TO VOTE ignoring I won the 5-year legal battle that had raged on!

    As Author of the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books I hold it essential to show to the Readers why Section 245 is unconstitutional, as I proved in Court. I have included the various statements by the Framers of the Constitution that people may not show up as they may not desire to vote, etc.
    In April 1897 the Framers of the Constitution refused to make registration and voting compulsory. In 1915 the then Federal Government aborted a referendum to make voting compulsory. In 1923 however a Private Members Bill was passed even so constitutionally no legislative powers for this existed.
    I wonder why Andrew, as a Member of Parliament allow this kind of unconstitutional conduct to continue with thousands upon thousands being fined for not voting despite this being unconstitutional? Surely, Andrew ought to show that he is not as like “them” but display the stamina to address issues!

  16. Actually we haven’t forgotten the GST at all as it is attached to almost everything we do, most things we buy, petrol, houses, – everything is dearer and wages are going backwards as are services.

    Of course corporate profit is going up and up.

  17. The fact that houses and petrol are dearer has very little indeed to do with the GST. Next time you look at your grocery bill, and note the number of items of food you did not pay GST for, then thank the Democrats.

    Critics of the GST keep blaming the Democrats and forgiving the Liberals and Labor – the latter only opposed it out of political convenience. Given that Howard had won, very honestly in this case, an election faught on the GST issue, he had a mandate to deliver it. The Democrats similarly had a mandate to deliver on their promise.

    Had the Dems decided to block the whole thing, there would have been a double dissolution. Howard would likely have won it, given that he had just won anyway – a joint sitting of parliament would have followed and there would be GST on everything.

    It’s worth thinking about. It’s not as if the Dems had magical powers.

    So, to sum up, I’m quite happy with the GST.

    Now what were we saying about fascist evil laws? Oh that’s right. Crazy unionist Labor-party hacks. Yes, I notice THEY are quiet on the GST front now that the ALP has accepted it.

  18. i am against any law that excludes people or groups from FAIR process. are the laws fascist? YES=no questionSSS – just because some one or group is a ‘social terrorist’ does NOT mean that the gov should use harsh or fascists laws as a counter measure i.e., the gov has become an instrument of terror.

    the key issue is that EXCESSIVE force & laws [esp’ in the media] denies the rights of small players at a most basic level.

    it is for this reason that i think oz is NOT worth dying for or in.

    greed is god & form rather than content is the dominant mode of thought for most oz people [via social conditioning via the media].

    arrogance & revenge is the dominant mode of motive that drives changes in oz laws.

    i do NOT like most adults – i like kids [&the reverse].

    kids get them selves crucified by teachers who are captive to our social history [as written by the ‘victors’] & slop served up as knowledge. most kids KNOW that the stuff they MUST learn is drivel – this is true at uniSSS, especially in the social sciences.

    these areas are very ‘in-ertial’, as guru status & money & guilt form a powerful BLOCK to evolution in ideas.

    i have little respect for our pollies on either side of the fence.

    so, “a terrible beauty”, per peter watson, 2000 seems to be the long term fate of the human species. the human species seems bent on a path of perpetual war, genocide & long term absolute tyranny. this festers in ‘faith’ of fundamentalists of any breed.

    fudamentalists take the FUN out of funDAmental, at a global level.

  19. Aron, it’s not so much the GST, it’s the credibility and faith that were lost with it.

    People were looking to the Dems to keep the bastards honest, on this one big issue, their test of faith, they did a deal, that even Brian Harradine wouldn’t touch, with the government.

    For people like me, that may have stayed with the Democrats afterwards, had they listened to the public, it would have meant a lot.

    You say the Dems had a mandate to deliver on their promise – what about their promise to the public, to keep the bastards honest on a never ever GST?. It’s obvious that the Dems felt that their promise to work with the government of the day, was more important to them than keeping faith with the public of the day.

    A double dissolution would not have been the end of the world, at least Howard would be blamed for the GST now, and not the Dems.

    14/5/99 (7:30 Report)

    “JOHN HOWARD: It’s always a live option if you have a double dissolution trigger, yes, of course it is.

    But we don’t need another election.

    We’ve just had one – on the GST – and I made full disclosure.

    I mean I looked everybody in the eye and said, “This is what I’ll do when I’ll get elected.”

    KERRY O’BRIEN: Then you’ve taken it back to a senate that wasn’t elected at this election?

    JOHN HOWARD: Yeah, but I mean, I think that’s a fairly corny argument.

    Well, if that is the only objection then the Senate that was elected at the last election ought to pass it the second time round.

    KERRY O’BRIEN: Except that unfortunately for you, the same people who put you back into government also put in a Senate that would appear to continue to be hostile to a GST?

    JOHN HOWARD: But governments are formed in the Lower House and if we’re to have a political process that works, it has got to be possible for a party that makes full disclosure to get its mandate implemented…

    KERRY O’BRIEN: It’s hardly a screaming mandate if you scramble back by a few thousand votes and less than 50% of the vote overall?”

  20. Um, yes, fair enough Deborah – though I note that the Dems actually did promise to pass the GST, only with food, books and tourism exempted. Books were a very sad compromise, but not having tourists pay the tax was not a bright idea IMO.

    I think ultimately, and what you are admitting is that it all came down to showmanship.

    Anyway, Dems like Andrew voted against it for their own reasons – after all, it was an economic decision that had very good arguments for and against it, so it was reasonable that the Dems acted as they did. If only the people in the other parties (ALP, Coalition and Greens) had had the courage to follow their conscience and vote for and against on its merits rather than for the shake of party and appearances.

    One thing I’ll say in Howard’s defence, and I don’t have many to say on that score, is that he took the GST to an election and won. It’s just a tax, after all. Perhaps I went a bit overboard saying I liked it – I like it as much as I do any other tax, which is not much these days now that my tax dollars are going towards financing state-sponsored terrorism around the world.

  21. I was never a supporter of Don Chip but what I understood the man to stood for was “to keep the Bastards Honest”, and he was referring to politicians to be the bastards!
    Regardless of what might be argued against Cheryl Kernot, I had great respect for her. Don’t ask me why, just that she came across, to my wife and I, in a very good manner,
    It was the Democrats who gave us the GST, that would fix all the taxation problems. After all, had they voted against it we would not have it then introduced.
    Go to a Sunday market, and you find stalls displaying their goods, often at the same prices as a department store does, just that at the market they do not have the overhead cost as extensive, no GST is generally paid by the vendors, meaning millions of dollars missed out on taxation in that regard. The bleeding hearts of Politicians could not care less about it as the Payee taxpayer makes up the shortfall.
    And, we have already ongoing the new argument that after all despite the fix all GST tax system we have so many problems that we need another “fix”.
    Basically, what politicians are saying is that they are after more tax, but excuse it by trying to make it simpler. Well simpler to rob us and not simpler in taxation, as they keep making more and more laws. Come to think of it, the Framers of the Constitution held that taxation laws and Appropriation Bills would only last for the financial years they are enacted for. OK, no paying taxes then unless every year new taxation laws are introduced. Now, that might just give the Government an almighty headache that they will stop making those mountains of tax laws. We may no longer get this nonsense as if we get tax reduction as there is no tax at all unless a new law is enacted commencing the start of the financial year. OK, we need Andrew just to raise this issue in Parliament and the question is will he do so when he gets paid out of Consolidated Revenue and needs therefore tax dollars coming in! GST-extra next?

  22. Mr. G.H.S.H. seems to of taken over,and not only is he an expert on Constitutional Law ,sociology,other matters,but the very tolerant Senator Bartlett…..Who at times,I am quite sure, is tolerating me..in total acceptance.Would the man who thinks he, Senator A.B., is there just to provide a service to his,[ you G.H.S.H.], knowledge base,do something other than suggest he,[G.H.S.H.] is the only person of relevant insight,so much so, why doesnt G.H.S.H. just walk into Canberra and tell it how it is to Howard!? I cannot suggest I am a expert on any matters the man has introduced,but to expect Senator Bartlett to forget he is a State Senator,as a simple way of explaining it,that is taking in the necessary moments for Queensland, in the Federal Senate..Queensland hasnt got a Upper House!? I think Andrew is a very hard working Queenslander,and does not owe his political career to the perceived failings of the Constitution,or any form of revenue raised by the GST. If the man who has questioned the authenticity of the Senator has any relevant and real points that need to be observed, by anyone interested he has done so.However, I do not necessarily accept his troubling experience over the Constitution and matters GST,reflect badly on the Senator hosting the postings.

  23. Everyone has their bible Phil, we should be graetful that Mr GSHSH has the detaield knowlkedge of the soruce of authority for all actions ever undertaken

  24. in the history of people, what is THE grate tragedy in “a terrible beauty”, per peter watson, 2000?

    the great tragedy is that ADULTS kill the SPIrit & soul of kids on an inter-generational basis.

    why? greed, arrogance & revenge.

    there have been many titles given to GURUS in human social exCHANGE systems e.g., queen, king, duke, count, lord, chief, and various ‘lesser’ social status RANKsss.

    the trilogy is the common feature of the human species as long as social records can record.

    people often put their kids as being divine, above other people in their social sphere/circle. thus, a ‘prince’ is the son of a king & queen – often the prince will become king along genetic lines: put king:=: any title of social rank or divide e.g., ‘doctor’=title.

    this is a major error, of huge size.

    i stART with the idea that:

    ALL PEOPLE ARE OF EQUAL VALUE ON THE GLOBAL STAGE.

    thus, any person in meet is of equal social value, in the absence of any data or info. it very hard not to have a pos or neg or both bias due to our unique social history.

    there is no such thing as history as defined in the text books – ALL history is a self history, based on facts & events as served up on the ‘valid’ records, & personAl memories of local plays in a game.

    the reason i like kids far more than adults is simple: kids know less but they know QUALITY & are far more tolerant of difs in people [e.g., looks, colour, dress, smell, height, weight, sex, and so on.

    our social systems of rank & status are grossly unfair e.g., in religous organs.

    ‘priests’ assume they KNOW due to the fact of indoctrination at an early age. in a basic sense, religions are the anti-thesis of REASON & justice.

    we had better make the changes people, else we are all headed into a greater hell or tragedy than is our systems of social genocide of the human mind.

    even such ‘religions’ as buddhism [a theory of reason] & science [especially social sciences] are dogmatic & coersive.

  25. My view is if it ain’t constitutionally valid it is worthless. ignore constitutional limits and you have a DICTATORSHIP!
    QUOTE
    The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
    The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
    Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . .
    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
    No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
    Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
    Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
    END QUOTE

    WORKCHOICES FOR EXAMPLE REMAINS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA LACKS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS TO CHANGE THE APPLICATION OF SUBSECTION 51(XX).
    With the Cross Vesting Act it took years before the High Court finally accepted it was unconstitutional, I expect the same again!

  26. And further;
    For those who take the view that the constitution is outdated, they should keep in mind that it is not. After all we, the people, decide time and again to veto amendments sought by the Parliament, and that proves it is “contemporary” as only if we lack this veto power would it be subject to whatever the federal parliament dictated.

    It is the Constitution that dictates what powers, if any, the Parliament can have to legislate, and only within those powers can a Federal Government operate.

    I do not seek to promote political views of some political party rather that as a “constitutionalist” my concern is the organic application of the constitution regardless of any political views.

    My view is that Senators should never be a Minister in the Government, as this is contracting their position to represent the States interest. Indeed the framers of the Constitution intended Ministers should be of the House of Representatives and answerable to it.

    For this also I view a political party in the House of Representatives should not operate in the Senate, as it blurs the Senates position.
    The Senate was specifically created to be a State House, representing the States!

    If a Senator vote along party lines because their political leader in the House of Representatives dictate so, then I view they are so to say selling themselves out. They then fail to represent the State!

    In my view, the GST was constitutionally floored in that the States purportedly gave up certain legislative taxation powers albeit unconstitutionally as without State referendum to approve this, this could not be done. That is another long story.

    I respect any Senator who acts truly as the Framers of the Constitution intended a Senator should act!

  27. i have just finished a review of “elements of justice”; what an incredible mish-mash pole of cr*p.

    i have given andrew a COMPLETE history course for ANY nation, at a global level.

    i gave VERY extended list of comments on problems with the history of BIG ideas, thru both books by peter watson, 2006 & 2000.

    i have NOT heard back, so i shall assume he feels it is all nonsense.

    so, i will not bother with u any more on history. are u advisors up to the task?

    a coomon way to avoid issues is silence?

    i note u deleted another one of my comments – was that u andrew?

    do u have a voice or is some one else doing u replies/edits?

Comments are closed.