Society/Culture Clive Palmer

Remove this Banner Ad

The Reaper said:
That the Federal government can not raise taxes on state property?

Minerals are owned by the state.

Thus a tax on minerals could plausibly be in breach of this and this is where any legal challenge on the mining tax would be made.

The Federal government would probably win the case by arguing that the tax was on the profits made from state property and not on state property itself.
Click to expand...

A federal govt can't raise taxes on resoucres extracted from their own property! WHAAAAT?

So this court case will be state V itself? Who will be first to make the move? The state or the state?
 
Old Spice said:
A federal govt can't raise taxes on resoucres extracted from their own property! WHAAAAT?

So this court case will be state V itself? Who will be first to make the move? The state or the state?
Click to expand...

A federal government can't raise taxes on resources from the property of the state government.

It could in theory by Western Australia (the state government) vs the Commonwealth of Australia (the federal government).
 
The Reaper said:
A federal government can't raise taxes on resources from the property of the state government.

It could in theory by Western Australia (the state government) vs the Commonwealth of Australia (the federal government).
Click to expand...

Right. There are a few moves you need to produce here.

The first is what on gods earth does your original clause have to do with commonwealth or state powers and the rights of a mining proprietor?

The second, actually the first, is what Act is primary? A commonwealth or state act?

Finally, actually, a good job for first point also is what relevance does your clause have to anything?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Old Spice said:
Right. There are a few moves you need to produce here.

The first is what on gods earth does your original clause have to do with commonwealth or state powers and the rights of a mining proprietor?

The second, actually the first, is what Act is primary? A commonwealth or state act?

Finally, actually, a good job for first point also is what relevance does your clause have to anything?
Click to expand...

This of course has nothing to do with the rights of a mining proprietor. It's a state-federal issue.

114. A State shall not,without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.
Click to expand...

The bolded bit is the relevant part of this issue.

Minerals are owned by the state government and not by the Commonwealth government. If someone for instance (Forrest or Colin Barnett) wished to challenge the mining tax through court, this would probably be the most logical way to do so.

The question would be, by levying a tax on the profits of mining companies (which they get from state property), be legally considered levying a tax on state property. If it is considered to be a tax on state property then it would be unconsititional.
 
The Reaper said:
This of course has nothing to do with the rights of a mining proprietor. It's a state-federal issue.



The bolded bit is the relevant part of this issue.

Minerals are owned by the state government and not by the Commonwealth government. If someone for instance (Forrest or Colin Barnett) wished to challenge the mining tax through court, this would probably be the most logical way to do so.

The question would be, by levying a tax on the profits of mining companies (which they get from state property), be legally considered levying a tax on state property. If it is considered to be a tax on state property then it would be unconsititional.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. Federal governments have jurisdiction over taxes and crown land. The national govt also has the power to make laws for Aust territories (section 122).

In addition legislature is primary. The tardandos of WA are happy to support Palmer for political reasons but they know he will lose.
 
Old Spice said:
Good luck with that. Federal governments have jurisdiction over taxes and crown land. The national govt also has the power to make laws for Aust territories (section 122).

In addition legislature is primary. The tardandos of WA are happy to support Palmer for political reasons but they know he will lose.
Click to expand...

That's it in a nutshell. Are the miners assuming Crown Land belongs to the states?
 
CIA plot? Obama orchestrating legislation in Oz? The Greens in bed with the CIA?
And we take this man seriously?
Is he mining cheese from the moon next?

Palmer by name, palmer by nature...
 
Messenger said:
That's it in a nutshell. Are the miners assuming Crown Land belongs to the states?
Click to expand...

Control of crown land does belong to the states...

The argument that the fed gov can't raise taxes on state property is a joke here. If this was applicable the states would have been in court already. The tax is levied on miners profits. By the logic of it being the states area only no miner would pay any federal taxes on their mining operations. That's clearly not going to happen.

Also as to the equitable argument of targeting an industry this already happens. Te luxury car import tax is an obvious example.
 
Crown land is state land and has been since federation. Surprised people don't know that.

Only crown land the Feds own is in NT and ACT and a few other pockets here and there.
 
Bob Brown is a patriot according to Palmer now!!!

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...way-from-colourful-claims-20120321-1viok.html

Mining billionaire Clive Palmer has stepped back from some of the colourful remarks he made yesterday about the Greens and conservationists, insisting party leader Bob Brown is a patriot and most environmentalists are well-meaning.
Clarifying yesterday's broad spray in which he claimed the Greens and the environmental group Greenpeace were tools of the CIA in a plot to undermine Australia's coal exports, Mr Palmer narrowed his accusations late last night to elements of the Green movement in Queensland.
Click to expand...
 
Clay Davis said:
Crown land is state land and has been since federation. Surprised people don't know that.

Only crown land the Feds own is in NT and ACT and a few other pockets here and there.
Click to expand...

Well I do now.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Clay Davis said:
Crown land is state land and has been since federation. Surprised people don't know that.

Only crown land the Feds own is in NT and ACT and a few other pockets here and there.
Click to expand...

I heard an expert on the radio saying that the state would never mount a challenge themselves because the part of the constitution re: the states

106. The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission of establishment of the State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State.
Click to expand...

it has never been challenged before but there is potential there for the Commonwealth to take back all of the states land/crown rights.
 
If the WA state took the Commonwealth to the high court over the MRRT, on its own accord, then there is a risk that the commonwealth could take it all from them...
I'm no lawyer I'm just repeating what a constitutional lawyer said on the radio.

It makes sense as that is a pretty open description of what a constitutes a "state" and what they own or have rights to. Not saying that is what would happen, just repeating what i heard, that it's "unknown territory" in the courts.
 
Mcveigh said:
If the WA state took the Commonwealth to the high court over the MRRT, on its own accord, then there is a risk that the commonwealth could take it all from them...
I'm no lawyer I'm just repeating what a constitutional lawyer said on the radio.

It makes sense as that is a pretty open description of what a constitutes a "state" and what they own or have rights to. Not saying that is what would happen, just repeating what i heard, that it's "unknown territory" in the courts.
Click to expand...

Con law was a few years ago for me now but I think you may have either misunderstood what the expert was saying or the expert is full of s**t. That clause only says that existing state constitutions continue upon establishment of the commonwealth constitution, and can be changed as per the state constitution allows.

There have been plenty of issues where te states have challenged the cth and no ones ever run that arguement to my knowledge.
 
Mcveigh said:
If the WA state took the Commonwealth to the high court over the MRRT, on its own accord, then there is a risk that the commonwealth could take it all from them...
I'm no lawyer I'm just repeating what a constitutional lawyer said on the radio.

It makes sense as that is a pretty open description of what a constitutes a "state" and what they own or have rights to. Not saying that is what would happen, just repeating what i heard, that it's "unknown territory" in the courts.
Click to expand...

It might have been this radio piece from PM yesterday:

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3459748.htm

States have always said that they have their own individual crowns. Australia of course is a constitutional monarchy under the headships of Elizabeth II and there is only one crown.

So there's an argument to be made that any crown rights in minerals anywhere in Australia belongs to the Crown of Australia, which of course is the Commonwealth of Australia.

And in fact one could argue that there is no such thing as a crown of a state because the state, as defined in covering clause to the constitution, the only definition given to a state that it is a part of the Commonwealth.

So it is the Commonwealth crown, there's an argument to be made that has the right to all and any royalties in any event. Mind you this argument has never been made before and who knows how far it might go.
Click to expand...
 
does not Gina fund the IPA, makes Chris Berg's reading a little funnier in that context, cos Berg aint funny
damn, wont ctrl C and P it for me.


Berg is retweeting an Andy Landeryou VexNews piece on GetUp funding the greens Drew Hutton litigation against Palmer.

Landy and Bergy, good to bring the laffs
 
Cthublhu said:
Usually it's the frothing gibbering loons of the Left who accuse the CIA, or Americans in general, of everything wrong with the world. Good to see some equal opportunity paranoia from the Right.:D
Click to expand...

Indeed, my first thought was that he had adapted a QT thread.
 
too easy, as rich as he is, gov can just squash him like a bug. nail him with any one of tax evasion, sexual harrassement, consorting with enemy, trading industry secret to foreign power, pervasion of justice, terrorism etc.
 
Cthublhu said:
Usually it's the frothing gibbering loons of the Left who accuse the CIA, or Americans in general, of everything wrong with the world. Good to see some equal opportunity paranoia from the Right.:D
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say Clive is of the right. More like he's from a different galaxy to anyone at the moment. He is either having a troll or is a complete nutter, maybe both.
 
Clay Davis said:
Crown land is state land and has been since federation. Surprised people don't know that.

Only crown land the Feds own is in NT and ACT and a few other pockets here and there.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that idea from? That's not correct.

Messenger said:
That's it in a nutshell. Are the miners assuming Crown Land belongs to the states?
Click to expand...

This is the other issue. Quite apart from the question of who owns the crown land in a state like WA, the issue is whether a renter like Palmer has any rights to determine the terms of a rental tax which is what the MRRT is. He is certainly not an owner, so his rights are severly diminished.

Quite apart from all that, people seem to forget that there is an order of things in law. The judiciary might interpret the law, but the legislature take precedence over interpretaton of law from the judiciary. The judiciary seek in other words to interpret precedence or the meaning of a laws intent as framed by the parliament. But law through precedence or interpretation is second fiddle to clear legislation passed through parliament.

That is one of the hallmarks of the democratic system. Law has existed much longer than parliamentary democracy, but the democratic project was about making the people, via their elected representatives, the ultimate abiters. The judiciary is a check on that, but that is all.

It would take all of one week, if by some miracle Palmer won in the courts, to introduce through parliament legislation which clarified the situation of the Commonwealth on this issue.

If the law is anything, it is an evolving body. In short, fatso can't win this and there is no way that the WA govt would prosecute the case on behalf of Palmer because they know it's a lost cause, politically and legally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top