The Triple "C" Factor = (1).
"Parliamentary Conventions & Customs & Changes represent the Triple "C" Factor that Impact upon the prescribed mandates of the Parliament & Constitution.
The Immediate QUESTIONS are -;
"Should Australia operate under the "Australian Rule of Law" -- OR -- "Operate under the mandates of a Foreign Interpretation" ??
Plus -; "Is OR Should the Constitution be sacrosanct" ??
These are the considerations of the -; "Realm of Distortions" for the Three "C"s
Such an innocuous thought, yet it resonates with distinct alarm when considered against the backdrop of the momentous ideal -; "Held to a Higher Standard"
There are many aspects of the Australian Political scene that have been exploited over the decades, yet the Politicians who engage at the Federal Level have not seen fit to confront these "Distortions" of Parliamentary actions.
Therefore -; The Question arises -; "Should the Public Demand that "Political Stability" be instigated & made de-rigueur across the entire framework of both Parliamentary Procedure PLUS the operation & interpretation of the Constitution" ??
As has been noted several times -; "The Constitution was deliberately written to be vague on the process of government formation. The intent was for the written constitution to be a simple framework within which Australia could inherit the unwritten constitutional "conventions" that applied in the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster"
"The conventions of the 'Westminster' system evolved over several centuries. Where the French and the Americans engaged in revolutions and set down written constitutions, the United Kingdom muddled through with an unwritten constitution built on conventions as the society transformed itself from a feudal to a constitutional monarchy"
"According to the writings of a Governmental "FACT SHEET" -- "The Prime Minister is the leader of the Australian Government and the leader of the nation. By "convention", the Prime Minister is a member of the House of Representatives who leads the parliamentary party, or coalition of parties, with the support of the majority of members in the House"
"The Prime Minister is chosen by a vote of the members of the government. The Prime Minister can keep their job as long as they are a member of parliament and retain the support of the government.
"Australia has no maximum period of service for a Prime Minister, unlike countries such as the United States, where the President can only serve for two four-year terms"
HOWEVER -; The role is not mentioned in the Australian Constitution.
The Prime Minister works according to practices and customs that developed over hundreds of years in the British Parliament"
"What has angered many Voters is the False assumption of voting for a particular Leader as seen by the presence of Kevin Rudd OR Tony Abbott. Both were deposed by Political Party Doctrine which caused much angst within the Public arena.
Many people are of the view -; "If it ain't broke then don't fix it" -- & the current Constitution has served Australia well since 1901 -- BUT -- is that really True ??
The above information does cast doubt on that premise but is it enough to warrant change ??
If the Voted for Leader by the Public cannot be secure because of internal bickering among Politicians that are supposed to be the Peoples Representatives --- then should EVERY Politician be subject to the same criteria & held to the same standard. ??
Arguing that the Public can have their say at Election Time does NOT equate to the same level as Leader dismissal, especially when leveled at the Leader of the Country. This act at any level only portrays the vision of Australia as an unstable Country of dubious intent that is orchestrated by Politicians who only serve their own interests above those of the General Public.
As such, their actions are just another example of following a Foreign Mandate for their own benefit.
"Correspondingly, one should consider other aspects of the Constitution such as -;
"COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 81
"Consolidated Revenue Fund
"All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form -;
"one Consolidated Revenue Fund", to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution
"--- formed from all revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth"
That seems straight Forward -- BUT is it ??
"Compact of 1965 = an agreement made in 1965 between the Senate and the government as to what proposals for expenditure contained in appropriation bills would NOT be considered part of the ordinary annual services of government, and thus amendable by the Senate"
See = https://www.aph.gov.au/Help/Glossary
"However -; Section 53 States -;
"The Senate may "NOT" amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government"
Further -;
"The Senate may "NOT" amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed "CHANGE" or burden on the people."
"Plus this -; Section 54 States -;
"The proposed law which appropriates revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government shall deal only with such appropriation"
"In order to settle the question of which matters fit within the term ‘ordinary annual services of the government’ and those which do not, The Compact (as altered in 1999 for the introduction of accrual budgeting) determines the allocation of items between the annual appropriation bills"
"Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2005-2006 provides for matters that are considered to be the ordinary annual services of the government and hence cannot be amended by the Senate under section 53 of the Constitution -- amounts are appropriated according to whether they are -;
1 = administered or 2 = departmental.
Administered expenses are those administered by the agency on behalf of the Government. They are normally related to activities governed by eligibility rules and conditions established by the government or Parliament such as grants, subsidies and benefit payments
Agencies have no discretion over how administered expenses are spent.
The detail on appropriations in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2005-2006 is set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill.
Departmental expenses are expenses over which an agency has control
They represent the ordinary net operating costs of government agencies.
Departmental expenses include -;
"salaries; accruing employee entitlements; and operational expenses including depreciation"
See = http://www.budget.gov.au/2005-06/bp4/html/bp4_introduction.htm
"
"
,,,,,
The Immediate QUESTIONS are -;
"Should Australia operate under the "Australian Rule of Law" -- OR -- "Operate under the mandates of a Foreign Interpretation" ??
Plus -; "Is OR Should the Constitution be sacrosanct" ??
These are the considerations of the -; "Realm of Distortions" for the Three "C"s
Such an innocuous thought, yet it resonates with distinct alarm when considered against the backdrop of the momentous ideal -; "Held to a Higher Standard"
There are many aspects of the Australian Political scene that have been exploited over the decades, yet the Politicians who engage at the Federal Level have not seen fit to confront these "Distortions" of Parliamentary actions.
Therefore -; The Question arises -; "Should the Public Demand that "Political Stability" be instigated & made de-rigueur across the entire framework of both Parliamentary Procedure PLUS the operation & interpretation of the Constitution" ??
As has been noted several times -; "The Constitution was deliberately written to be vague on the process of government formation. The intent was for the written constitution to be a simple framework within which Australia could inherit the unwritten constitutional "conventions" that applied in the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster"
"The conventions of the 'Westminster' system evolved over several centuries. Where the French and the Americans engaged in revolutions and set down written constitutions, the United Kingdom muddled through with an unwritten constitution built on conventions as the society transformed itself from a feudal to a constitutional monarchy"
"According to the writings of a Governmental "FACT SHEET" -- "The Prime Minister is the leader of the Australian Government and the leader of the nation. By "convention", the Prime Minister is a member of the House of Representatives who leads the parliamentary party, or coalition of parties, with the support of the majority of members in the House"
"The Prime Minister is chosen by a vote of the members of the government. The Prime Minister can keep their job as long as they are a member of parliament and retain the support of the government.
"Australia has no maximum period of service for a Prime Minister, unlike countries such as the United States, where the President can only serve for two four-year terms"
HOWEVER -; The role is not mentioned in the Australian Constitution.
The Prime Minister works according to practices and customs that developed over hundreds of years in the British Parliament"
"What has angered many Voters is the False assumption of voting for a particular Leader as seen by the presence of Kevin Rudd OR Tony Abbott. Both were deposed by Political Party Doctrine which caused much angst within the Public arena.
Many people are of the view -; "If it ain't broke then don't fix it" -- & the current Constitution has served Australia well since 1901 -- BUT -- is that really True ??
The above information does cast doubt on that premise but is it enough to warrant change ??
If the Voted for Leader by the Public cannot be secure because of internal bickering among Politicians that are supposed to be the Peoples Representatives --- then should EVERY Politician be subject to the same criteria & held to the same standard. ??
Arguing that the Public can have their say at Election Time does NOT equate to the same level as Leader dismissal, especially when leveled at the Leader of the Country. This act at any level only portrays the vision of Australia as an unstable Country of dubious intent that is orchestrated by Politicians who only serve their own interests above those of the General Public.
As such, their actions are just another example of following a Foreign Mandate for their own benefit.
"Correspondingly, one should consider other aspects of the Constitution such as -;
"COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 81
"Consolidated Revenue Fund
"All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form -;
"one Consolidated Revenue Fund", to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution
"--- formed from all revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth"
That seems straight Forward -- BUT is it ??
"Compact of 1965 = an agreement made in 1965 between the Senate and the government as to what proposals for expenditure contained in appropriation bills would NOT be considered part of the ordinary annual services of government, and thus amendable by the Senate"
See = https://www.aph.gov.au/Help/Glossary
"However -; Section 53 States -;
"The Senate may "NOT" amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government"
Further -;
"The Senate may "NOT" amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed "CHANGE" or burden on the people."
"Plus this -; Section 54 States -;
"The proposed law which appropriates revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government shall deal only with such appropriation"
"In order to settle the question of which matters fit within the term ‘ordinary annual services of the government’ and those which do not, The Compact (as altered in 1999 for the introduction of accrual budgeting) determines the allocation of items between the annual appropriation bills"
"Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2005-2006 provides for matters that are considered to be the ordinary annual services of the government and hence cannot be amended by the Senate under section 53 of the Constitution -- amounts are appropriated according to whether they are -;
1 = administered or 2 = departmental.
Administered expenses are those administered by the agency on behalf of the Government. They are normally related to activities governed by eligibility rules and conditions established by the government or Parliament such as grants, subsidies and benefit payments
Agencies have no discretion over how administered expenses are spent.
The detail on appropriations in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2005-2006 is set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill.
Departmental expenses are expenses over which an agency has control
They represent the ordinary net operating costs of government agencies.
Departmental expenses include -;
"salaries; accruing employee entitlements; and operational expenses including depreciation"
See = http://www.budget.gov.au/2005-06/bp4/html/bp4_introduction.htm
"
"
,,,,,
I have a couple of general ideas emanating from numerous issues outlined in this thread (and a few other general ideas).
ReplyDelete1. No more deposing of party leaders post election. EG: Once a PM is installed in an elected government, they must remain there until either they resign their position or the party is deposed of in a general election. If a party is to depose their leader during an elected term, a new election must be held.
2. Simplify the election process and reduce the cost. Voting should be as simple as logging into a MyGov account and making a selection of who to vote for (some manual votes would still need to be made available for those (Eg. The elderly) who are unable to use the MyGov service. This would reduce the significant cost of elections and allow fast and accurate tallying of the results. This method could easily enable access to referendums and plebiscites giving the public more control in policy formation and implementation.
3. No application to run for a seat in an electorate can be considered without meeting the citizenship requirements.
4. NGO's and unions must publicly declare any funding/donation's source when the amount received is greater than $1000 (declaration page could be easily created on their website. EG: Getup! would have to declare donations from any NGO funded by George Soros. The same should apply to any currently elected or non elected party running for a seat in an electorate.
5. "The Senate may "NOT" amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed "CHANGE" or burden on the people." Should this not include the burden of high levels of immigration? House prices, traffic congestion, increasing welfare dependency?
6. "The Senate may "NOT" amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed "CHANGE" or burden on the people." Should this not include the burden of electricity costs? Mandate a fixed mix of fossil, nuclear and renewable energies by percentage as a total mix of energy production. The current direction is not sustainable for the average Australian to continue to afford. Make each state responsible for 90% of their own energy production, any purchased electricity from other states comes at a cost of 5 times the standard mw/h. States producing above their needs and receiving income from the wholesale of electricity to other states should be automatically applying the additional revenue back onto consumer electricity bills equally as a discount.
Regards,
Neil