Spending our future generations wealth to prop up their mismanagement now!

Thank you hard work and dedication…what an unbelievable waste. This government is like a drunken sailor..

To take the government to the High Court in Australia, only one person (or entity) is required to initiate a case. There isn't a minimum number of people needed in the way you might think of a class action lawsuit, for example, although a group of people could certainly be involved in a single case if they are all affected by the same government action or law. The key is that an individual or organisation must have a legitimate legal reason to bring a case. This could involve challenging the constitutional validity of a law, appealing a decision from a lower court, or seeking an interpretation of the Constitution. It's important to note that the High Court generally only hears cases of major public importance, and many cases require "special leave to appeal" before they are heard. This means that a significant legal issue must be at stake.

Yes, the Prime Minister, like all members of the government, can be held to account for spending taxpayers' money. This accountability is a fundamental principle of democratic governance and is achieved through various mechanisms, particularly in a Westminster system like Australia's: 1. Parliament: * Question Time: A regular feature in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, where ministers (including the Prime Minister) are asked direct questions about government decisions and spending. * Senate Estimates: A crucial process where senators examine in detail how the government plans to spend taxpayer money. Ministers and senior public servants are questioned extensively on their departmental budgets and expenditures. * Budget Process: The government must present a budget to Parliament, outlining its spending plans. Parliament then authorizes this spending through appropriation acts. This process provides a key opportunity for scrutiny and debate. * Parliamentary Committees: Various committees investigate specific policy areas or government actions, including spending, and can summon ministers and officials to provide evidence. * Debate and Legislation: Any proposed laws or changes to spending require parliamentary debate and approval, providing opportunities for opposition and crossbench members to scrutinize and challenge government financial decisions. 2. Independent Oversight Bodies: * Auditor-General (ANAO): The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), led by the Auditor-General, conducts independent audits of government entities' financial statements and performance, providing assurance to Parliament on how public resources are managed. They release public reports on their findings. * Ombudsman: While not directly focused on spending, an Ombudsman can investigate complaints about administrative actions of government agencies, which can indirectly relate to how public funds are used. * Integrity Agencies: Various integrity bodies (e.g., anti-corruption commissions) can investigate misuse of public funds or corrupt practices. 3. Public Scrutiny and Media: * Media: Investigative journalism plays a vital role in uncovering questionable spending and holding the government, including the Prime Minister, accountable. * Public Debate: Community organizations, think tanks, and the general public engage in discussions and debates about government spending, influencing public opinion and putting pressure on the government. * Freedom of Information (FOI): Citizens can request access to government documents, including those related to spending, through FOI laws, increasing transparency. 4. Internal Government Mechanisms: * Department of Finance: This department provides policy and financial advice to the Minister for Finance and the Expenditure Review Committee (ERC) of Cabinet, aiming to ensure reliable budget estimates and sound financial management. * Codes of Conduct: Ministers are subject to codes of conduct that emphasize integrity, appropriate use of public resources, and advancing the public interest in their financial decisions. While the Prime Minister holds significant power, they are ultimately accountable to the Parliament and the public for the effective and responsible use of taxpayer money. These layered mechanisms aim to ensure transparency, prevent waste, and uphold public trust.

The public often expresses concern and frustration when parliamentarians receive pay rises, especially if there are perceived issues with government spending or economic conditions. Here's a breakdown of the common arguments and facts surrounding this issue in Australia: Parliamentary Pay Rises: * Independent Tribunal: In Australia, the salaries of federal parliamentarians are set by an independent body called the Remuneration Tribunal. This body considers various factors when making its determinations, often including economic conditions, public sector wage growth, and the complexity and demands of the roles. It's not parliamentarians directly voting on their own pay. * Recent Increases: As of July 1, 2024, federal parliamentarians in Australia received a 3.5% pay rise. This increased the basic salary for an MP to $233,660 per annum. Higher office holders, such as the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader, receive additional salaries. * Public Reaction: These pay rises frequently draw criticism, particularly when the broader public is facing cost-of-living pressures or when there are reports of government budget deficits or overspending in other areas. Overspending and Taxpayer Money: * Budget Deficits: Governments, regardless of political persuasion, often run budget deficits, meaning they spend more than they collect in revenue. This is funded through borrowing, which adds to national debt. * Spending Scrutiny: There is ongoing scrutiny of government spending by various bodies, including the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), parliamentary committees, and the media. Reports often highlight areas of overspending, inefficiencies, or questionable allocation of funds. * Public Perception of "Wasted" Money: Specific examples of government spending that are perceived as wasteful or unnecessary contribute to public anger, especially when contrasted with parliamentary pay rises. Examples might include large consultancy fees, specific projects, or administrative costs. Why the Disconnect? The frustration often stems from: * Perceived Hypocrisy: The idea that those responsible for managing public funds are increasing their own remuneration while the public feels financially constrained or sees evidence of budgetary mismanagement. * Lack of Transparency (at times): While the Remuneration Tribunal is independent, the rationale behind specific increases isn't always clearly communicated or easily understood by the general public. * Economic Context: During times of economic hardship or high inflation, any pay rise for politicians can be particularly jarring for those struggling to make ends meet. It's a recurring theme in democratic systems, where the role of elected officials, their compensation, and the management of public finances are constant subjects of debate and public opinion.

When considering whether a government has overreached its powers, several important aspects come into play, particularly within a democratic system like Australia: What Constitutes Government Overreach? Government overreach generally refers to instances where the government acts beyond the limits of its legal or constitutional authority, or where its actions unduly infringe upon the rights and liberties of individuals or entities. This can manifest in various ways, such as: * Exceeding Constitutional Limits: Acting outside the scope of powers granted by the Constitution. * Infringing on Civil Liberties: Unjustifiably restricting freedoms like speech, assembly, privacy, or movement. * Regulatory Overreach: Enacting regulations that are overly burdensome, go beyond the intended purpose of legislation, or lack proper legal authority. * Executive Overreach: The executive branch (Prime Minister and ministers) exceeding its delegated powers. * Lack of Due Process: Failing to follow fair legal procedures. * Retrospective Legislation: Creating laws that retroactively change the legal status of past actions (as was noted in one of your search results regarding Victoria's border closures). Safeguards Against Government Overreach in Australia: Australia's system of government incorporates several key principles and mechanisms designed to prevent the overreach of power: * Separation of Powers: Power is divided among the Parliament (law-making), the Executive (implementing laws), and the Judiciary (interpreting laws). This prevents any single branch from becoming too dominant. * Rule of Law: Everyone, including the government, is subject to and accountable under the law. * Parliamentary Sovereignty (with Constitutional Limits): While Parliament is the supreme law-making body, its powers are defined and limited by the Australian Constitution. The High Court has the power to review legislation and determine if it is constitutionally valid. * Responsible Government: The executive government is accountable to the Parliament. If the government loses the confidence of the House of Representatives, it must resign. * Judicial Review: The High Court of Australia has the power to review legislative and executive actions to ensure they are within the bounds of the Constitution and the law. * Federalism: Power is divided between the Commonwealth (national) government and the state governments, providing a further layer of checks and balances. * Elections: Regular elections ensure that the government is accountable to the people. * Freedom of the Press and Expression: A free media and the right to express opinions hold the government accountable. * Civil Society: Various non-governmental organizations and advocacy groups play a role in scrutinizing government actions. Examples of Potential Government Overreach (General Concepts): While your initial question was about taxes, in a broader context, examples of actions that could be considered government overreach might include: * Implementing surveillance programs that unduly infringe on citizens' privacy without proper legal authorization. * Restricting freedom of speech or assembly without legitimate and proportionate reasons. * Enacting laws that discriminate against particular groups in society. * Detaining individuals without due process or legal justification. * Using executive powers to bypass parliamentary scrutiny on significant matters. * Creating regulations that stifle legitimate business activity without clear public benefit. In Conclusion: Whether a government has overreached its powers is often a complex legal and political question. It requires careful consideration of the specific actions taken, the legal and constitutional framework, and the potential impact on individual rights and liberties. The safeguards in place within Australia's democratic system are intended to prevent such overreach, but their effectiveness is constantly subject to scrutiny and debate. If individuals or groups believe the government has acted beyond its powers, they can challenge those actions through legal channels, political advocacy, and public discourse.

Government overreaching on taxes is a significant concern for many individuals and businesses. It generally refers to situations where the government's taxation policies are perceived as excessive, unfair, or unduly burdensome, infringing upon the economic freedom and financial well-being of taxpayers. Aspects of Government Overreach in Taxation: * Excessive Tax Rates: When tax rates are deemed too high, individuals and businesses may feel that a disproportionate share of their earnings is being taken by the government, potentially hindering investment, economic activity, and overall prosperity. For instance, very high marginal tax rates could disincentivize higher income earners from working extra or taking risks. * Complex Tax Laws: Overly intricate and convoluted tax regulations can be seen as a form of overreach. Such complexity can make it difficult and costly for taxpayers to comply, often requiring them to spend significant time and money on tax advisors. This can particularly burden small businesses and individuals with limited resources. * Unfair Tax Policies: Tax policies that are perceived as disproportionately benefiting certain groups or industries at the expense of others can be viewed as unfair and an overreach of government power. For example, loopholes that allow some wealthy individuals or large corporations to avoid paying their fair share of taxes can create resentment and a sense of injustice. * Taxation of Unrealized Gains: Proposals to tax unrealized capital gains (profits on assets that have not yet been sold) are often criticized as government overreach. Opponents argue that this taxes wealth that has not been converted into cash and could create significant liquidity issues for taxpayers. * Lack of Transparency and Accountability: When the public lacks clear information about how their tax money is being spent or when the government is not held accountable for its fiscal decisions, it can fuel perceptions of overreach. Taxpayers may feel that they are being asked to contribute without sufficient oversight or understanding of the benefits they receive. * Disproportionate Penalties: Extremely harsh penalties for unintentional errors in tax filings can also be seen as government overreach, especially when the punishment does not fit the crime. Examples and Considerations: * The Australian Taxpayers' Alliance voices concerns about the "excessive growth in tax revenue" in Australia, suggesting that automatic tax increases faced annually outweigh occasional tax cuts. They advocate for indexing income tax brackets to slow this growth and for spending restraint. * The PwC tax scandal in Australia highlights a case where a consulting firm used confidential government tax plans to advise corporations on tax avoidance, raising questions about the integrity of the tax system and potential overreach in favor of certain entities. * Historically, events like the Boston Tea Party were protests against taxation policies perceived as unjust and imposed without adequate representation, illustrating how tax issues can lead to significant public discontent when seen as government overreach. * Legal limits on government taxation exist in most democratic societies, often enshrined in constitutions or through legal precedents. These limits can relate to the purpose of taxation (e.g., for public good), the fairness and equity of the tax system, and procedural rights of taxpayers. It's important to note that what constitutes "overreach" can be subjective and depend on differing political and economic perspectives. Governments levy taxes to fund public services, infrastructure, and social programs, which are considered essential for a functioning society. The debate often revolves around finding the right balance between the government's need for revenue and the taxpayers' capacity and willingness to pay.

In Australia's system of government, the Governor-General primarily acts on the advice of the elected government, led by the Prime Minister. This is a core principle of the Westminster system and responsible government, where the real power lies with the democratically elected representatives of the people. Therefore, the premise of the Governor-General "not listening to the people of Australia" is generally inconsistent with their role. Here's a breakdown of what happens and why: 1. Constitutional Conventions and Responsible Government: * Acting on Advice: For the vast majority of their functions, the Governor-General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Federal Executive Council (Ministers). This includes things like assenting to bills, issuing writs for elections, appointing ministers, and commanding the defence forces. This ensures that the executive power is exercised by those accountable to the Parliament and, ultimately, the people. * Political Neutrality: The Governor-General is expected to remain politically neutral and above party politics. Their role is to ensure the smooth functioning of government according to the Constitution and established conventions, rather than to represent or actively pursue specific public opinions. 2. The Concept of "Reserve Powers": * While the Governor-General usually acts on advice, they possess certain "reserve powers" that can be exercised independently or even against the advice of the government in exceptional circumstances. These powers are not explicitly listed in the Constitution but are derived from tradition and convention. * Examples of Reserve Powers: These generally include: * Appointing a Prime Minister if an election results in no clear majority. * Dismissing a Prime Minister who has lost the confidence of the House of Representatives. * Refusing a Prime Minister's request for an election or a double dissolution. * Dismissing a Prime Minister or Minister if they break the law. * Public Opinion and Reserve Powers: Even when exercising reserve powers, the Governor-General is generally expected to act in a way that upholds the Constitution and the principles of parliamentary democracy, which inherently link back to the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives. A controversial use of reserve powers that was widely seen as going against public sentiment or established democratic norms would likely lead to a significant constitutional crisis, as seen in 1975. 3. Accountability and Consequences: * Accountability to Parliament (indirectly): The Ministers who advise the Governor-General are accountable to the Parliament, and through elections, to the Australian people. If the government loses the support of the people, they are voted out, and a new government is formed. * Public and Political Pressure: If a Governor-General were perceived to be acting against the broad will of the people or to be engaging in partisan political activity, there would be immense public and political pressure. This could include: * Loss of Public Confidence: The office would lose its legitimacy and public trust. * Constitutional Crisis: It could trigger a severe constitutional crisis, potentially leading to widespread calls for their removal or even constitutional reform. * Call for Dismissal: While rare, a Governor-General can be removed by the King on the advice of the Prime Minister. If a Governor-General were to consistently and flagrantly disregard the principles of responsible government and public sentiment, it could lead to such a situation. In summary, the Australian system is designed so that the Governor-General generally acts in accordance with the will of the people as expressed through their elected government. While reserve powers exist for specific critical situations, their exercise is also guided by constitutional conventions and the need to maintain the stability and legitimacy of the democratic system. A Governor-General consistently "not listening to the people" would indicate a breakdown of these fundamental principles and would have severe consequences for the office and the functioning of government.

Who is there appointed to keep the govt accountable or do they get a free run to defraud us daily.

Where's the money coming from , last I heard we're 1 trillion in debt , vary little manufacturing exists , no more automotive industry , making coffee and cleaning toilets won't pay debt off ,

youtu.be/sA8JK4Lt0J4?si=BzHVk11-V6nQ9l-Z

Yet they’ve just signed us up to an amended version….

The response will be snubbed and him called a conspiracy theorist or something nastier

Australia needs out too! Immediately.

Looks like I am moving to America

UK needs out!

What an absolute legend 👏. Take note and wake up Australia..

Australia needs to get out right NOW...ALSO !!!!

We need to do the same one nation

This is the best news 👏well done RFK absolute legend! Thanks to trump the deepstate plans are being destroyed!

I love it! Hopefully some of this fortitude & common sense makes it way down under. Sadly I’m not very confident it will.

Australia need to wake up and exit the WHO

Brilliant man.. thank you RFK and President Trump 🙏❤️

We all need to get out before it's to late.

Trumps needs to come down hard on our piss weak politicians. Put them in a corner they can't weasel out of!

Wonderful man, we need to listen!

The common sense that has been missing for 50 years!

Namaskar thank you so much to the WHO

It's about time! Pity Albo doesn't have the balls to follow

We need to get out, but how do we do that with labor being in government Especially the USA is out ,it’s costing us WHO - Australia in 2023 pledges 100 million Cause the USA is out it’s going to cost us more

The Australian Government will not join America, we have a very Corrupt Government.

Nothing is ever going to happen in Australia. Labour and liberal are controlled by these same beurocrats. we will always be screwed.

Australia needs to exit the WHO.

Australia needs to get out

yes he did omit that, I wonder why?

Excellent decision