Society/Culture Clive Palmer

Remove this Banner Ad

O

Old Spice

Guest
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.
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?
 

The_Reaper

Hall of Famer
Jan 26, 2006
40,410
31,650
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
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?
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).
 
O

Old Spice

Guest
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).
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.

The_Reaper

Hall of Famer
Jan 26, 2006
40,410
31,650
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
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?
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.
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.
 
O

Old Spice

Guest
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.
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.
 

Messenger

No, I’m just disappointed
Jun 16, 2007
32,151
29,302
Nearby
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Minnesota Timberwolves
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.
That's it in a nutshell. Are the miners assuming Crown Land belongs to the states?
 

Slax

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 13, 2001
15,883
6,902
Waiting at the door for the pub to reopen
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Man City
Clive has also proved that the National Trust is run by idiots, they named him as one of the 100 National Living Treasures.

But then again the list was full of whack jobs - Bob Brown, Pat Dobson, Germaine Greer, Dick Smith to name a few.
 

Monniehawk

Premiership Player
Apr 1, 2008
3,525
637
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore, St Alba
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...
 

Happy Mastenator

Chris Masten's Sock Puppet
Apr 16, 2010
16,425
20,304
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
That's it in a nutshell. Are the miners assuming Crown Land belongs to the states?
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.
 

Clay Davis

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 16, 2006
19,991
1,855
ge
AFL Club
Fremantle
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.
 

Hill2Pav

Club Legend
Jun 14, 2011
1,253
188
AFL Club
Fremantle
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mcveigh

All Australian
Apr 1, 2010
835
464
AFL Club
Sydney
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.
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.
it has never been challenged before but there is potential there for the Commonwealth to take back all of the states land/crown rights.
 

Mcveigh

All Australian
Apr 1, 2010
835
464
AFL Club
Sydney
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.
 

Happy Mastenator

Chris Masten's Sock Puppet
Apr 16, 2010
16,425
20,304
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
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.
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 sh*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.
 

ralphmalph

Club Legend
Jul 24, 2004
1,986
738
milwaukee
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
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.
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.
 

blackcat

antony green psephologist esqu
Dec 29, 2003
27,636
13,752
melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
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
 

Donners

Cancelled
Sep 1, 2002
4,681
1,829
AFL Club
Sydney
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
Indeed, my first thought was that he had adapted a QT thread.
 

Radical Roo

Club Legend
Sep 8, 2009
2,152
18
Thornbury
AFL Club
North Melbourne
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.
 

holy diver

ΑΩ
Jan 30, 2012
9,395
8,730
AFL Club
Fremantle
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
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.
 
O

Old Spice

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

That's it in a nutshell. Are the miners assuming Crown Land belongs to the states?
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.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad