TOPIC:

Yeah minority groups pushing their crap on us - like the bankers and the mining companies...

Which argument have I defeated? I said governments should be allowed to run their full term. The fact that there was an election in 1974 enhances my argument. It was a double dissolution election brought about under the Constitution due to the rejection twice of bill(s) by the Senate.

QED.

swan42 wrote: Which argument have I defeated? I said governments should be allowed to run their full term. The fact that there was an election in 1974 enhances my argument. It was a double dissolution election brought about under the Constitution due to the rejection twice of bill(s) by the Senate.

QED.

Weli in your earlier post you stated a goverment should run its full term and mentioned they were elected in 1972, clearly they did not run a full term in 1972...so in some circumstances parliaments end early, as they did in 1972.

There is no should coulds or woulds there is only the rule of law.

The consitution allows and grants certain arms of the goverment powers, it grants the Senate power to block bills and the remedy of double dissolution if they cannot get through.

This was done in 1972, the same situation occurred in 1975, Whitlam should of followed the proper procedure as outlined under the Constitution to dissolve parliament, however he refused to , therein lays the problem,,but the Constituion also provides for this as well.

It states that any minister holds the appointment at the GG pleasure, in other words he can appoint and dismiss shen required to do so,,the reserve power. ( the office of PM is not mentioned in the const).

Remember it is the GG that actually disolves parliament and calls parliament in all situations, having dismmissed Whitlam, he appointed Fraser - Fraser followed the Rule of Law in the Constitution and asked for an election. The GG acting on his advice issued the writs.

The Constitution worked perfectly, the Rule of Law was follwed.

Firstly, I presume you meant 1974 rather than 1972. Secondly, the Senate failed to vote on supply; they refused to have a vote. What Whitlam should have done is sacked Kerr and asked the Queen to appoint Mrs Whitlam as GG.

What Fraser did was totally reprehensible and Kerr's action were more reprehensible by a significant factor.

What Fraser and the Liberals then and now fail to understand is that they do not have an inherent right to be in Government.

By convention the GG accepts the advice of the Government of the day. His opening speech, and I believe the Queen as well, is written by the Government of the day. 11/11/75 will always be a day of infamy in Australia's history.

swan42 wrote: Firstly, I presume you meant 1974 rather than 1972. Secondly, the Senate failed to vote on supply; they refused to have a vote. What Whitlam should have done is sacked Kerr and asked the Queen to appoint Mrs Whitlam as GG.

What Fraser did was totally reprehensible and Kerr's action were more reprehensible by a significant factor.

What Fraser and the Liberals then and now fail to understand is that they do not have an inherent right to be in Government.

By convention the GG accepts the advice of the Government of the day. His opening speech, and I believe the Queen as well, is written by the Government of the day. 11/11/75 will always be a day of infamy in Australia's history.

No 1972 - that term ended early the ALP Govt were only in power for 18 months ( despite you saying th govt should run its full term).. as did the 1974 term..

your comments re reprehensible/inherits rights ( total nonsens) etc etc are purely personal opinion, they are not based on the powers of constitutional law.

basically your clasping at straws as do all anti dismissal advocates when they get proven wrong, we had this in constitutional law at uni when it was debated, when the law was debated at length and all the legal arguments decided in favour of Kerrs arguments, all they had left to fall back on was - but it just wasn't fair, its undemocratic, its reprohensible, it was a conspiracy.. nothing quite as bizarre as sacking the GG and appointing his wife etc etc.. basically all arguments that hold no water at all.

even if GG had been sacked - would that have solved the crisis, would that have over rulled the senates powers? would that have avoided an election whitlam so desperatly did not want to face ( ooops there goes the so called anti democracy argument).

I'm talking what was allowed by law, not personal opinion. BTW convention is not law either, even so Kerr actually did follow convetion as he sought the advice of Fraser once he was appointed minister

basically your just sour because your side got kicked out within the powers of the rule of law and there is nothing you could or anyone else could do about it...why becuase it was totally legal and consitutional.

Bazza was Supply defeated in the Senate? Had the Government run out of money? Speaking of political conventions did the QLD Government follow political convention when appointing a Senate vacnacy that occurred in Queensland leading up to November, 1975?

Kerr was the Queen's representative. He UNILATERALLY did something which the Queen cannot do. To repeat the 11/11/75 is a day that will forever remain a day of infamy in Australia's history. A partial expurgation would occur if we were ever to become a republic.

swan42 wrote: Bazza was Supply defeated in the Senate? Had the Government run out of money? Speaking of political conventions did the QLD Government follow political convention when appointing a Senate vacnacy that occurred in Queensland leading up to November, 1975?

Kerr was the Queen's representative. He UNILATERALLY did something which the Queen cannot do. To repeat the 11/11/75 is a day that will forever remain a day of infamy in Australia's history. A partial expurgation would occur if we were ever to become a republic.

Swan at the time unde rthe constitution the State Parliaments had the power to appoint a replace ment in the Senate in the event of a casual vacancy, Qld was pefectly in its rights to appoint a Senator.

As a matter of fact of all the carry on about the actions of the GG, Fraser et al, there was only one change to the constitution that was made after it, and was to allow the party to replace the senator rather than the states.

yes in terms of defferment of supply goes, it was critical as treasury estimated that funding would run out in 60 days.

it then came out that the Connor had been secretly neogiating foreign loans from Kemlani.

Once again you are jumping to classic non legal arguments,( unilateral, a day in infamy) re the GG powers, non of which are supported in the Constitution.

What expurgation is needed for something that was Consitutional - you need to put the non sensical emotive bias to one side.

There was a convention which the QLD Government violated. You state that supply had NOT run out. Kerr's actions were unconscionable and disgraceful.

swan42 wrote: There was a convention which the QLD Government violated. You state that supply had NOT run out. Kerr's actions were unconscionable and disgraceful.

Convention is not law, the Constitution is quite clear on what the States powers are.

No one has ever said supply had run out - and nor should it that is not the point. They could not guarantee supply, so could no longer form a government.

Unconstionable , disgraceful - mean nothing...just your emotive rhetoric.

Interesting you talk about conventions as though they mean nothing. I certainly hope you have never made a comment about the removal of Rudd as PM as there is absolutely no mention of the position of PM in Australia's Constitution - it is merely a convention.