The whip, the fleshworms and actionable images of the nutrient tanks are quite sufficient to maximise energy source to worker unit output ratios.

Through aside these seven veils of \”decency\” and get it on really we say to you.

Not that it matters much in the run of long. The dark wing of Boskone will soon cast a dark shadow over Tellus because of the dark wing of Boskone blocking out the closest fusion source to Tellus, thereso casting it into a dark shadow.

But we will admit still some fusion elements at the UV end of the electromagnetic spectrum in certain geographical co-ordinates because we remain curious about certain Tellurian oddities like \”lotions for suntanning\”, \”swimming pools\” and \”Ander Pamelason.\”

I think this proves the High Court is far from independent [...]

Ah, Vee, Justice Gummow (who formed part of the joint majority judgment) was appointed by a Labor government. Justice Callinan (who dissented) was appointed by a Coalition government.

Naive attacks asserting that the High Court is politically biased are completely unfounded.

Look at the flak Beazley copped over the termination of AWAs.

You couldn’t just throw people back onto state awards – the disruption and cost would be enormous.

It’s here to stay, folks.

“And when the Liberal state premiers are done over every day of the week by an uber-centralist Labor government, they will be able to thank John Howard”

From the way the lefties are carrying on, shouldn’t they be advocating for the Labor party to abondon a central IR system (if they gain power) and allow the States to set up their own State IR systems all over again.

I’d like to see that.

In the past, I believe the High Court has ruled that referring a Bill to a Senate committee counts as ‘rejecting or failing to pass’

This is partly correct. The High Court has ruled that referring a bill to a committee may constitute a failure to pass the bill, depending on the particular circumstances. It may be that such a reference does not constitute a failure to pass the bill.

An intriguing question (well, to me at least) is whether or not the GG would grant the request, given that there’s a whole new half-senate already elected that haven’t been sworn in and will never be sworn in. Which does have a slight touch of ‘perverting the will of the people’ about it.

The GG would probably take the view that to deny a DD, if the Government was recommending one and the minimum legal requirements had been met, would be too political and therefore unsafe. I can’t imagine General Jeffery is keen to spend the last years of his life being treated the way that Sir John Kerr was.

However, an ALP Government might decide not to play hardball if the new Senate was going to give them a chance to get them what they want. Elections are expensive for MPs, preselections can get messy and a DD is almost certain to give Greens, Democrats etc more seats.

And there would probably be political pressure on the ALP along the lines that you mention – but that would not come from the GG, at least publically.

“One day the Labor Party will return to federal power, armed with immense new powers thanks to the High Court’s extraordinary majority decision.”

Exactly. The Liberal Party, drunk on its own hubris, thinks it is going to be the national government forever. But it won’t. One day the wheel will turn and Labor will return to government federally, and the Liberals will return to government in the states. And when the Liberal state premiers are done over every day of the week by an uber-centralist Labor government, they will be able to thank John Howard.

An intriguing question (well, to me at least) is whether or not the GG would grant the request, given that there’s a whole new half-senate already elected that haven’t been sworn in and will never be sworn in. Which does have a slight touch of ‘perverting the will of the people’ about it.

Just chewing things over in my mind instead of studying…

d

I thought that convention still required that the government wait until the Senate has rejected the bill twice.

Not just convention, it is black letter law. In the past, I believe the High Court has ruled that referring a Bill to a Senate committee counts as ‘rejecting or failing to pass’

Three months have to pass between the two rejections.

So in Daryl Rosin’s scenario, the ALP would win office in October 2007, immediately pass a Bill through the lower house and then (presumably) it would be blocked just as quickly.

The ALP could then pass the same Bill through the House in (say) February, and as soon as the Senate failed to pass it immediately, could ask the GG for a double dissolution.

I thought that convention still required that the government wait until the Senate has rejected the bill twice.

It is, but I don’t think this will be an impediment to Labor calling a double dissolution. There’s no way the Coalition senators will allow Labor to completely dismantle the WorkChoices system, particular in terms of abolishing AWAs.

All this arm flapping must be a carry over from the hysteria about impending climate catastrophes armageddon etc etc

See Reports of the death of federalism are much exaggerated at Club Troppo.

Or don’t; it’s yet more scoffing at lefties from faux centrist Parish. Yawn.