Monday Message Board

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

75 thoughts on “Monday Message Board

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. It has been widely reported that the Solicitor-General gave the advice as not for publication.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.

  5. How cares about this idiotic, lame duck government? Their days are numbered.

    Not if the Murdoch Press has its way. Get ready for a barking at the moon, frothing at the mouth, right wing fear campaign.

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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/

  10. 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.

  11. “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.

  12. 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.

  13. @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.

  14. 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. 🙂

  15. @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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.”

  19. 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/

  20. 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.”

  21. 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

  22. 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”.

    Since almost every verse in the good book is contradicted by another verse, these guys can believe anything.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s