Gillard tells miners they don't own minerals

[IQS.RLOW]

So if it doesn't make it to the high court you will admit that your furphy about the minerals belonging to the Feds is just a load of bullshit and Liebor party spin...

Goodo

[Jovial Monk]

No, idiot, it would mean the opposite. Fuck me but you are thick! Must be all the codeine abuse!

[mantra]

Can we leave the personal crap out of these political threads please and try to aim for some sense of normality.

[Plough]

You reckon Plough?

We will see what the HC says if a challenge actually makes it that far.

Never happen. If those guys in Canberra thought they could get their hands on the multible billions of Royalties that the collective states are collecting this challenge would have happened years ago.

[IQS.RLOW]

Our resident mersyndol maniac is too drugged up to pay any attention to facts and history

Too busy swallowing pills, alcohol and spin

[Jovial Monk]

And IQ just swallows codeine, booze and semen.

[Jovial Monk]

Plough, how about quoting the bit in the Constitution where it says the States own the minerals?

[IQS.RLOW]

Plough, how about quoting the bit in the Constitution where it says the States own the minerals?

How about you go and advise Dullard and the rest of the states how they have got it backwards and let us know how that goes?

I'm sure Wayneker will be delighted at your take on the constitution and historical fact

[Jovial Monk]

No response from Plough. So I will make a start:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-20/s ... .svl=news1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the arguments is whether the tax breaches section 114 of the Constitution which prohibits federal taxes on state property.

But Professor Anne Twomey from Sydney University says the Commonwealth could argue that it actually owns the minerals, not the states.

"You certainly don't own the minerals beneath your land, that belongs to the Crown," she said.

"Now the difficulty in Australia is, well, how do you divide that up when you've got different crowns?

"The general view has been taken in the past that it is the states that get the sort of property rights, so control of the soil and the subsoil and the minerals... That may change in the future.

There's an argument to be made that any crown rights in minerals anywhere in Australia belongs to the Commonwealth of Australia.

Dr Margaret Kelly
"There was some suggestion in a High Court case recently that the rights of the states in relation to minerals and royalties may have been wrongly distributed, and that indeed the Commonwealth may well have some rights to royalties which it didn't ever suspect that it did."

Dr Margaret Kelly from Macquarie University says the states have always said they have their own individual crowns.

"Australia, of course, is a constitutional monarchy under the headship of Elizabeth II, and there is only one crown," she said.

The section of the Constitution mentioned in the article reads:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 114

States may not raise forces. Taxation of property of Commonwealth or State
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.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/ ... /s114.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Next time try not talking out of your arse, Plough.

[Plough]

I think you will find a royalty is not a tax you simpleton. Arse speaking is is your specialty! Once again if the commonwealth could get their hands on these royalties, royalties that the states have been collecting since federation, you think they would have done it.

Remember any state in the federation can, if its citizens decide to, remove themselves from the federation. Now I am not saying that will happen, but it can. So it makes sense that the assets are assets of each individual state. So the section you quote is irrelevant as the mineral assets are the property of each individual state, not the commonwealth. So they can if they wish tax them. In fact the section you quote flys in the face of your argument. It says that the comm cant levy a tax on the asset of the state. So if the MRRT is a tax on the mineral assets it could be deemed unconstitutional.

As for the other stuff you have put in your post, I see you are back to your cut and paiste ways, some things never change!! Do you have any views or thoughts that are original? Worse than just cutting and paisting you are selectivly cutting and paisting leaving out the entirety of the article so as to make your point look valid. So I think you should get some toilet paper and wipe your mouth as you are speaking shit.