Another Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please. If you would like to receive my (hopefully) regular email news, please sign up using the following link
http://eepurl.com/dAv6sX You can also follow me on Twitter @JohnQuiggin, at my Facebook public page and at my Economics in Two Lessons page
John Quiggin 
I hope the links below shed light on: “But the more fundamental problem is that none of the competing forces has an obviously compelling solution to the problems we face.”
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/02/29/the-three-party-system/
This hidden tribes site and report are another string to the solution bow and seem apt to jq above – good data analysed differently, interactive graphs and insights – plain and simple and readable imho. And I’d definitely be in the “exhausted majority”!
“”Polarization
“While the story of the Wings may be one of division and conflict, a very different story is found in the rest of America. In fact, the largest group that we uncovered in our research has so far been largely overlooked. It is a group of Americans we call the Exhausted Majority―our collective term for the four tribes, representing a two-thirds majority of Americans, who aren’t part of the Wings.”…
…”Core Belief 3: Parenting Style and Authoritarianism. Recent research has found that people’s tendency towards authoritarianism ― that is, their support for strong leaders and strict social hierarchy―is linked to their views on parenting style. “”. (Uniforms too?)
https://hiddentribes.us/
“More in common” funded “hidden tribes” above. Seems complicated to have all these sites but may be a good media strategy. “More In Common, a grassroots community-building movement” has a short publication list which looks interesting and uses ” public mobilization and storytelling to help the leading organizations, activists, businesses, and philanthropies engaged in this fight,”.
Two layers deep to find beneficial owners from hidden tribes to…
moreincommon.com/ which is funded by:
https://www.purpose.com/about/
… and Purpose partly initiated by – an Australian I’d never heard of, yet he has written a couple of economics text books (jq-any good? – board of studies promotes them) – Tim Dixon. He seems to have cashed out to do the above.
“Tim Dixon is the co-founder and managing director of Purpose Europe, based in London. Since 2015 he and Brendan Cox have been building an ambitious new initiative focused on changing hearts and minds in Europe and globally around the refugee crisis through opinion research, message development, popular movement-building and campaigning to reach mainstream audiences to counter the rising tide of xenophobia and nativism. The first initiative they have co-founded is More In Common, a grassroots community-building movement in the UK.
Purpose is a home for building movements that harness technology to engage large numbers of people and help make progress on major global problems.”
http://skoll.org/contributor/tim-dixon/
I will get newsletters and track. Somehow this machine will generate cash too but seems good.
Hi Prof JQ
I would be very keen to hear your thoughts on the Final Report on the Royal Commission. It’s clear that even if all recommendations are accepted and acted on, the banks have gotten off very easily. We’ll be back here in 10 years time with more misconduct and nothing will be done about it.
Suppose I am a retiree with a part-time job at KFC that yields me my total gross income for the year of $18,000. KFC acting as an agent for the ATO collects $6000 in PAYE tax for me each year but, at the end of each financial year, I claim this entire deduction back because my gross income is below the no-tax threshold of $18,200. My refund-inclusive income is the gross figure of $18,000 made up of post-tax income of $12,000 and the refunded PAYE deductions of $6000.
Suppose instead that, as a retiree I don’t work but hold shares in the Commonwealth Bank that yield me a total annual income of $12,000. On this dividend the firm has withheld $6000 as an imputation credit it has forwarded to the ATO. At present what I would do each year, as with the KFC case, is to seek a rebate of the withheld tax of $6000 that was deducted from my income by the CBA as a withholding tax and sent to the ATO. Currently I will receive back, as in the PAYE case, an extra $6000, my imputation credit, returning my total income to $18,000.
The Labor policy would limit the last rebate leaving me with only an income of $12,000. This seems unjustified on the grounds of horizontal equity – the principle that people in the same tax situation and with the same economic circumstances – at least in terms of income – should be treated the same.
If one argues that economic circumstances are not the same because the asset holder possesses an asset that can be disposed of to support their income then that suggests a case for taxing the asset and redistributing it. If the asset was accumulated out of income that had already been taxed even that might not be a good idea. But not directing the tax effort at the asset creates a possible injustice since a citizen holding the same quantity of assets as the retiree but earning considerable outside income – a much wealthier person than the retiree – will gain the full imputation credit on his shareholding as well as a large amount of extra outside after-tax income. The much more prosperous person gets the full imputation credit.
Is the case of the small shareholder empirically interesting? I don’t know, but the CBA has over 500,000 shareholders with less than 1000 shares. There are many small shareholders.
@JF
I agree, it would to get your opinion. Speaking to someone in the business today. Very bitter that lesser fish, small mortgage brokers etc will feel the heat while the upper level banksters will cruise on.
“it would be good to get your opinion)
John, I’d also be interested in your views on the mortgage brokers. They were the first group to be attacked in Hayne snd the only group for which the LNP said it would not adhere to Haynes’ views. Why cannot borrowers go directly to the banks and other credit institutions to get a mortgage? If the MBers do have a specific informational role couldn’t/shouldn’t that be carried out internally within banks? If his recommendation that customers pay these brokers directly was implemented wouldn’t customers just go the banks?
The problem for hc is that receiving franking credit refunds is like receiving a deduction for charitable donations; or a tax offset or rebate of any of many kinds; or any other tax reduction that doesn’t come as a credit for tax already taken from your own income. None of those is refundable, that is, none is valuable any further than your tax liability on your income. And once your tax is covered you have no further benefit from any of them.
Your income is your dividend. Nothing has been withheld from that dividend, whether there is a franking credit or not. Your dividend is paid (generally) from the company’s profits, whether they have been subject to income tax or not, and is not an allocation of particular taxed profits, nor is franking credit traced to the particular company income that led to tax liability.
A franking credit doesn’t reduce your income. If there’s a franking credit, it is added to your income; you then have a tax liability worked out taking account of all your income; and the franking credit is credited against your tax liability. If your income exemptions, and options for deferring gains, combine to make your tax liability on your income lower than your tax benefits…you’ve no different, and no better, claim to refund of the excess than those with any other similar tax offset or rebate.
The Howard giveaway to low-tax shareholders was inconsistent with the general structure of tax offsets, rebates and benefits. And it was part of the system under which superannuation tax benefits each year are already exceeding the pension cost to government…which has not declined. Superannuation tax benefits, and refunding franking credits, have not reduced pension liability at all: they have just increased outlays skewed to the most wealthy.
hc, A Marxist response is that the first retiree is working for his income, the second isn’t.
Chrishod, Much confusion here:
“Your income is your dividend. Nothing has been withheld from that dividend, whether there is a franking credit or not. Your dividend is paid (generally) from the company’s profits, whether they have been subject to income tax or not, and is not an allocation of particular taxed profits, nor is franking credit traced to the particular company income that led to tax liability”.
This is just wrong. The firm acts as a withholding tax agent for the ATO. The shareholder declares the total dividend as income then claims as a franking credit the tax already paid for him by the firm. Thus he pays tax at his MRT less the corporate tax rate. This avoids the double taxation of corporate income by only levying taxes on the individual at their individual MRT. The other bit of profits – retained earnings – are taxed in the firm at the corporate tax rate.
I tried but I could not understand the rest of your remarks or their relevance to what i wrote.
Hc. I think I understand your argument and find it intriguing but isn’t the counter argument/proposal to the possible injustice of full franking for low income earners/small shareholders treating all income the same and use a progressive income taxation scale. So why a flat tax rate for companies and dividends but not working income? Isn’t that an injustice also?
Harry, as I understand it the $6000 franking credit in your second example is not a part of the retiree’s income. It is, as you point out, a credit that is intended to avoid double taxation by enabling the retiree to offset his or her tax liability. Since, in your example, the retiree’s income from his dividend is only $12,000, he has no income tax liability, so is not entitled to a rebate of the franking credit (although under current rules he would receive it anyway – in effect, a cash handout).
So I don’t think your examples are really comparable, and the unfairness is illusory, since in the first example the retiree’s gross income is $18,000 and in the second it is only $12,000.
A better example would be if the second retiree received a dividend income of $18,000 (the same as the first retiree) with a withheld franking credit of, say, $8,000. (which, if paid out as a cash rebate, would take his income up to $26,000). Again, as his income is below the tax-free threshold, he does not (under the Labor proposal) get the benefit of the franking credit, so his income remains a tax-free $18,000, same as the first guy. Am I wrong?
Right away I am ready to do my breakfast, afterward having my breakfast coming over again to read other news.
Another consideration, hc, is treatments of earned and unearned income. The KFC income is earned, in this case by working as an employee, but the CBA dividend income is investment income. The first requires actual engagement in work, the second does not. The second, although a co-owner in the company entitled to a share of profit distribution, is a passive investor not engaged working in any way with the day to day running of the company. There is a somewaht similar distinction as this made about payment of the government super co-contribution available annually during the super accumulation phase. To qualify for the co-contribution the super account holder must during the year have earned income from engagement in some ordinarily acceptable sort of actual work above a threshold number of hours. Transferring funds from other savings/investments into super without working doesn’t wash.
On the other hand, those in receipt of a government pension, and with any assessable assets valued above certain thresholds, are subject to rather high deemed rates of return on those assets that in turn reduces their pension payment by a corresponding fractional amount. It follows that many are consequently encouraged/forced by government to invest their savings in directly held Australian fully franked shares. The ALP proposed changes to franking tax credits as originally announced were to apply to pensioners until the ALP saw the light and exempted this group of Australian company share investors from the proposed changes.
Seems fair enough.
Hi All. They will come for you one day.
I have personally, had a doctor’s certificate refused by ‘our’ govt . Just like the refugees. Shocked is not the word.
If Labor today, capitulate to the bullys who have so effectively demonised the boat people I will, for the foreseeable future ignore them. Full stop.
This is the ‘economics’ bit when you think about it… The adf personnel who are patrolling are probably only dimly aware they are getting vicarious and secondary trauma, spreading it icncidiously to their family having a detrimental effect leading to ptsd. I’d ask for compensation if I were adf.
Further, Labor and the cross benches lose a 2nd in the parliment s history chance, of defeating a standing govt. Is this correct?
And I hope, one day all of these locked up traumatised for life barganing chip refugees get substantial compensation – straight from the pockets of those who perpetrate this crime against humanity. But is us who will pay.
Just for a couple of seats – any psephologists reading? – Labor is courting division, the xenaphobes, and furthering the legacy of hate.
It will split vote further allowing divide and conquer the upper hand.
And I’ll say it again – they will come for you one day – I have had a medical certificate refused. Think about it.
HC. I’m not sure your example is quite right. The tax free threshold is 18,000. There is no obligation to pay tx at less than this amount. The only reason for the ATO collecting those amounts is a failure to tick the right box on the tax declaration to claim it.
The policy objective of imputation was always the prepayment of personal income tax through the company tax payments. This would necessarily require the person to be a tax paying entity.
Link re “they will come for you” above.
https://abc.net.au/news/2019-02-12/labor-shifts-position-on-medical-transfer-bill/10801534
Aardvark, Maybe they have changed it recently but the tax free threshhold was $18,200.
https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/working/working-as-an-employee/claiming-the-tax-free-threshold/
Maybe the KFC didn’t know my gross income and made a precautionary deduction. Even if they did not it does not change my story one iota. The gross=net salary of the employee will be $18,000.
I was, of course, trying to show the analogy between PAYE deductions and the imputation idea whereby firms act act as withholding tax agents for the ATO by prepaying that amount of dividend income that is covered by the corporate income tax.
Imputation prepays some of the tax due on dividends. There is no logical reason for a non-taxed individual to not receive this dividend imputation benefit because they earn little income. If applies to the case of PAYE deductions. If you want to disallow this benefit on the grounds that agents should pay some tax to get it back then, for consistency, you should abolish the idea of a minimum tax threshold which allows the refund of PAYE to a low income earner. Everyone should pay income tax because, if you believe your story, a return of PAYE deductions should require that you pay tax.
The thing that throws people in my example if that the asset holder has these assets which they can sell and unconsciously that is regarded as potential income. But selling assets held in Australia is subject to capital gains tax only. There is currently no tax on owning an asset – only on selling it or getting income from it. But if you don’t like the fact that retirees hold wealth then tax that. Don’t deny them reasonable imputation credits when their outside income is low.
hc, the tax due on profits that may or may not be distributed as dividends is COMPANY tax paid on those profits derived from the company trading. PAYE tax is a calculated payday incremental pre-collection of employees’ personal INCOME tax. Franked dividend imputed tax credits are meant to avoid company profits distributed as dividend payments being taxed twice, first as company tax then second as personal income tax of the shareholder.
“Imputation prepays some of the tax due on dividends.” – No, cart before horse, imputation allows that a tax paid credit, derived from and equal to the company tax paid per share dividend, can be offset against the shareholder’s personal income tax due on their total income from all sources. as originally implemented that company tax credit imputed to a shareholder may offset a shareholder’s income tax liability by the full amount, a partial amount, or not at all if the person has nil income tax to pay. The company tax paid prior to a dividend distribution is COMPANY TAX. It is not personal INCOME/profit withheld from the shareholder.
https://theconversation.com/words-that-matter-whats-a-franking-credit-whats-dividend-imputation-and-whats-retiree-tax-111423
@hc Since different taxes are applied to different things, if this is unfavirable you could always sell your shares and get a job at KFC. It was likely the ‘Market competion’ that allowed you to get those shares in the first place.
Dividends are paid after all other costs and overheads are deducted (gross profit) and tax is paid (nett profit). Dividend imputation means that the shareholder is refunded the full amount of company tax, apportioned to that share, paid to the ATO. It is the taxpayer that refunds the shareholder.
Imputation is a counterproductive distortion and should be dumped.
@rog
I mostly agree, although the shareholder isn’t “refunded” the full amount of company tax, since they didn’t pay it in the first place. If they receive it, it’s a handout.
Wow! Any constitutional experts out there?
3.56pm 15:56
Speaker tables solicitor general advice on medevac bill
4.04pm 16:04
Government legal advice says medevac ‘unconstitutional’
The gist of the advice the Speaker was talking about is the bill is a “money bill” which can not have been introduced in the Senate without offending section 53.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2019/feb/12/morrison-shorten-coalition-labor-medical-evacuation-bill-kerryn-phelps-politics-live
@KT2
I wouldn’t describe myself as a “constitutional expert”, although I have some knowledge of the subject.
The Guardian has published some extracts of the Solicitor General’s advice in question.
As far as I can make out, based on that very partial information, the issue is as follows:
The Senate amendment which establishes the six-member medical panel intended to review requests for medical evacuation to Australia would, when operational, activate a provision of the Commonwealth Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 which obliges the Remuneration Tribunal, whenever a new government office is created, to promptly make a determination as to the appropriate remuneration of the members of the new office. Once that determination is made, it has the effect of appropriating the funds necessary to pay the remuneration from Consolidated Revenue. This is then said to be contrary to the provision in section 53 of the Constitution which states that the Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.
The advice also states that the constitutionality (or otherwise) of a law with respect to section 53 is generally non-justiciable, i.e. it cannot be determined by the High Court. This is because laws covered by section 53 are concerned with the appropriation of revenue, and are essentially matters between the Senate and the House. Normally this would mean death for a Senate-originated bill, but since the Government doesn’t have a dependable majority in the House, the situation is more fluid than that.
Thanks Tim.
What if we the people or the six member panel donated the money or time?
Not happy it is “a law with respect to section 53 is generally non-justiciable,”. And let’s hope fluidity means the Hippocratic oath is not trashed by this non-ependable government.
How cares about this idiotic, lame duck government? Their days are numbered. The current game is not so much about legislation at this point. It’s about painting the government into a corner to ensure its defeat at the next election. I just hope the people have the courage to install a Labor majority in the Lower House, and a Labor-minor left parties majority in the Upper House, so that some real change can occur. I am often very critical of Labor (they are still essentially a pro-Capitalist party) but they might do a few worthwhile things under Shorten. He seems like a sensible man who actually cares a bit. Ah, hope springs eternal, even in my cynical mind.
The govt wanted the advice secret so that they could play gotcha later, I’d say. Now that it’s been tabled and the house is aware there’s only a formalism argument which… isn’t one the HC is likely to consider strong.
God christ these people are vile.
Substantive amendment to the constitution: Parliament needs to be in absolute control of its own schedule.
+ no proroguing without an affirmative vote
+ ability of parliamentarians to arrange their own summoning following rules akin to calling an sgm.
Collin Street – excellent choice Collin – “vile”. I was teetering on evil.
I am sure Shakespeare would use all these as descriptors. Come to think of it, he probably originated a few. Any idea which of his plays or greek tragedy is apt?
appalling
contemptible
depraved
despicable
disgraceful
disgusting
horrid
humiliating
immoral
miserable
nasty
noxious
repugnant
repulsive
revolting
shocking
sleazy
ugly
vicious
vulgar
abandoned
abject
bad
base
coarse
corrupt
debased
degenerate
dirty
evil
filthy
foul
ignoble
impure
iniquitous
loathsome
low
mean
nauseating
nefarious
perverted
repellent
sickening
sinful
stinking
wicked
worthless
And finallt, wretched.
Via thesaurus dot com.
And +1 to constitutional ammendments.
It has been widely reported that the Solicitor-General gave the advice as not for publication.
The reason the Solicitor-General didn’t want to be quoted is plain. If any standing appropriation in existing law turns Senate amendments into appropriations, then setting up a standing appropriation on any aspect could block Senate power. This is so unlikely to be accepted as true, were it justiciable, as to make a mockery of the Solicitor-General’s disinterested legal competence.
For a straw in the wind, note that the High Court has most recently insisted that action to provide a general appropriation – the advance to the Minister for Finance – is sufficient appropriation under the Constitution, leaving it entirely up to the Minister whether and on what to apply the money at some future time. That Ministerial decision is not an appropriation (and so not invalid).
Yet appointing someone to a statutory committee is, according to advice the Solicitor-General wanted unpublished, an appropriation, and so setting up the requirement for a committee is an appropriation, and so the Senate can’t validly require a committee to be set up.
The Solicitor-General, like the security agencies, seems wholly unable to consider obeying the requirements of the public service code of conduct. I mean, of course, apolitical disinterest.
Not if the Murdoch Press has its way. Get ready for a barking at the moon, frothing at the mouth, right wing fear campaign.
Tim. My suggestion is affermative. Have to read tomorrow to get fine print.
“Labor has circulated the amendments, and they look like the ones that Murph reported on earlier.
With this add-on:
(4) A person is not entitled to remuneration in respect of their position as a member of the panel.”
Vile Scomo: “‘I will not stand here and have this parliament give itself the excuse to weaken the border protection framework.’
Prepared are we? And an omnibus referendumnwith Colin Streets amendments.
“The Morrison government has become the first since 1929 to lose a substantive vote on the floor of the House.
The last time that happened, the Stanley Bruce government called an election the next day.”
Bring. It. On.
Served stone cold. I’d bet my house he relished posting this…Tony Windsor: “When someone asks you what can Independents do ….Medivac.”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2019/feb/12/morrison-shorten-coalition-labor-medical-evacuation-bill-kerryn-phelps-politics-live
The upcoming double election in for NSW voters (plus some council elections) begs the question about the benefits/costs of democratic elections. If you throw in an occasional double dissolution at federal level and, that even rarer event : a Referendum; then the benefits must be large to justify the costs to the taxpayer. Ancient Athens has been credited with invent8ing democracy. Yet even the progenitors of that first democracy eventually expelled the very first democrats from their city state. One reason was the extra cost imposed by allowing the selected voters to elect those who then raised taxes on the rich.
The point made by these early democrats was that it was always a messy process to get elections to come up with workable solutions. Too often their elected rulers merely raised their taxes.
So as we now stare down months of electioneering, where taxpayers money will be thrown at voters, perhaps we can ponder this question: Is there a better way to do this business of government?
Milton Friedman once famously suggested the introduction of a Negative Income Tax to make sure everyone benefited from their democracy. Ideas like this one need to be discussed in the Twenty-First Century. If voters must all vote then they should ALL benefit from a democratic governance regime.
I hope these papers are usable for any social democratic economists or researchers.
Optimal Income Taxation with Spillovers from Employer Learning [Job Market Paper]
“”I study optimal income taxation when human capital investment is imperfectly observable by employers. In my model, Bayesian employer inference about worker productivity drives a wedge between the private and social returns to human capital investment by compressing the wage distribution.” …
… “The welfare gain from this adjustment is equivalent to raising every worker’s consumption by one percent.”
https://scholar.harvard.edu/ashley-craig/publications/jmp
“Understanding insecure work in Australia …
“This discussion paper outlines the nature of insecure work in Australia. It defines how we got here, and what the impact of such widespread workplace insecurity is on Australia’s workers and its economy.
It also concludes by striking a note of optimism: while policy choices may have helped foster an Australian economy where too many feel insecure in their job, so too can different choices help arrest the trend, and provide a better deal for the Australian workforce.”
https://apo.org.au/node/218511
Wealth tax in America
“”Reagan, then Bush and Trump subsequently endeavoured to destroy this heritage. They turned their backs on the egalitarian origins of the country, by counting on historical amnesia and by fuelling identity-based divisions. With the hindsight we have today, it is obvious that the outcome of this policy is disastrous. Between 1980 and 2020, the rise in per capita national income was halved in comparison with the period 1930-1980. What little growth there was, was swept up by the richest, the consequence being a complete stagnation in income for the poorest 50%. There is something obvious about the movement of return to progressive taxation and greater justice which is emerging today and which is long over-due.””
http://piketty.blog.lemonde.fr/2019/02/12/wealth-tax-in-america/
Here is a question for all you bush constitutional lawyers to chew on. The refugee medical evacuation bill, assuming it passes the senate, doesn’t become law until and unless it receives royal assent, which is to say when the Governor General signs it.
The Governor General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister only. Not the Parliament, not the lady in the fruit shop, no one else, just the Prime Minister.
What if the Prime Minister advises the Governor General not to sign? He has to not sign. Could be the biggest punch up between the Parliament and the monarchy since Charles I.
@Smith9
If the PM did take that route he would certainly be inviting a no confidence vote.
“Urban” constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey has penned a helpful piece on this subject for The Conversation.
Professor Twomey points out some interesting complexities in the situation. She says that the actual practice with respect to bills is that the government does not advise the Governer General to assent to them – the GG simply assents to bills that have passed both houses of parliament as a matter of convention without being advised to do so. However, that does not prevent the Prime Minister from advising the GG against assenting to a bill. On this point, Professor Twomey says that, while the defeat of a government on a bill does not in itself imply that the government has lost the confidence of parliament, if the bill is of sufficient importance to the government’s agenda that the government is prepared to advise the GG not to assent to it, this would imply that the government’s loss is a de facto vote of no confidence. Which is probably why Scomo has ruled it out – possibly his only sensible decision as PM.
Oops – automod. Trying again…
Urban constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey has penned a helpful piece on this subject for The Conversation (theconversation. com/ why-a-government-would-be-mad-to-advise-the-refusal-of-royal-assent-to-a-bill-passed-against-its-will-110501).
Professor Twomey points out some interesting complexities in the situation. She says that the actual practice with respect to bills is that the government does not advise the Governer General to assent to them – the GG simply assents to bills that have passed both houses of parliament as a matter of convention without being advised to do so. However, that does not prevent the Prime Minister from advising the GG against assenting to a bill. On this point, Professor Twomey says that, while the defeat of a government on a bill does not in itself imply that the government has lost the confidence of parliament, if the bill is of sufficient importance to the government’s agenda that the government is prepared to advise the GG not to assent to it, this would imply that the government’s loss is a de facto vote of no confidence. Which is probably why Scomo has ruled it out – possibly his only sensible decision as PM.
@Smith
There’s a good article on this issue by Anne Twomey on The Conversation
I’ve tried to post a link but my posts keep disappearing, maybe into automod.
The previous anonymous was me – sorry.
The appearance of inadvertent anonymous posts indicates that the details form (below) needs some error checking. You can also inadvertently mix up your email and name entries, thus giving everyone who frequents this blog your email address. Fortunately, the people who frequent this blog are all good people and they won’t internet stalk you.
Nevertheless, these faults need to be corrected please, Mr/Ms Administrator. 🙂
@Tim Macknay
The PM says this bill endangers national security. If he means what he says then, you’d think, he’d have to advise the GG not to assent. He can then also advise the GG to dissolve parliament, call an election and let the people decide.
Indeed. Although I’m not sure if “if he means what he says” is a phrase that is logically capable of being applied to Scott Morrison, in any context.
Second process amendment: if statements in parliament are going to continue to be immune from all legal consequences outside parliament, there needs to be a process accessible to private citizens to get parliamentary statements reviewed for not only defamation but also just plain falsehood.
Collin Street. Excellect idea. Don’t the Swiss and ? have such a mechanism? 5 searches and wikip and no answer! Search seems to be getting harder.
Anyone know how can we have this in a referendum with the sooner than expected election?
“there needs to be a process accessible to private citizens to get parliamentary statements reviewed for not only defamation but also just plain falsehood.”
Gregory J. McKenzie.
A live example. An old friend know one of the backers whiteanting (bankrolling) to split vote of Nats and now wild acusations by Dugald Sauders against the independent.
If old friend went public with what they know re animal cruelty by one of the nats … thethey’d probably lose a house in deformation and whiteanter would be gone the next day.
https://www.mudgeeguardian.com.au/story/5898834/national-party-letter-to-members-sparks-anger-from-opposing-candidates/
Why do the phrases “grinning buffoon” and “complete hypocrite” always occur to me when I see Scott Morrison in the media? That’s a rhetorical question by the way.
If Scott Morrison is what a Christian is then I thank Voltaire and Hume (mainly) that I am not a Christian. I am of the opinion that a high proportion of claimed Christians in modern politics (those who profess early and often) do not actually believe a single tenet of their claimed “faith”. Pretending to believe something is a great way for charlatans to fool and exploit naive believers. I think Scott Morrison does not believe a word of what he pretends to believe, but it’s a marvelous way to fool certain kinds of people and get a lots of money, kudos and power.
Of course, he is laughing out of both sides of his face, at believers and non-believers alike. He gets an enormous payback out of fooling believers and an equally great payback out of exasperating non-believers. To the latter he is saying, “You can’t call me on belief. And you can’t use logic against me. Belief is sacrosanct, especially when it is handy for countering facts.”
Re Medical evacuations bill. As I stated previously I have had a medical certificate with backing by clinical expert. I was born here.
A clayton bill if a potato in charge, and may be ok if anthony Albanese in charge. But still doctors and therefore the Hippocratic oath and UN conventions able to be overridden Minister. I thought better of Australia.
“”What discretion does the responsible minister have?
Ministerial discretion applies in three areas.
First, the minister can refuse the transfer if he or she disagrees with the clinical assessment.
The second grounds for refusal is if the minister reasonably suspects that the transfer of the person to Australia would be prejudicial to security “within the meaning of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, including because an adverse security assessment in respect of the person is in force under that Act”.
Sticking with security, the transfer can also be knocked back if Asio advises the minister that transfer of the person to Australia may be prejudicial to security “and that threat cannot be mitigated”.
Scott Morrison suffers historic defeat as Labor and crossbench pass medevac bill
The third grounds for refusal is if the minister knows that the transferee has a substantial criminal record (I’ll give you some definitions on that in a minute) and the minister reasonably believes the person would expose the Australian community to a serious risk of criminal conduct.
The decision needs to be made within 72 hours.
If the minister denies the transfer request on health grounds (as opposed to security or criminal grounds), then the issue goes to an Independent Health Advice Panel “as soon as practicable”.
The panel then conducts a second assessment and reports within 72 hours. If the panel reports the person should be transferred on health grounds, and the other vetoes I’ve mentioned are not in force, then the view of the panel prevails.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/13/nine-facts-about-the-medical-evacuation-bill
Correction.
… had a medical certificate + REFUSED…