Extradite Putin on MH17 dead

So when Bishop says that "we have attributed the responsibility of the state to Russia", she really means Putin. In the words of Louis XIV of France: "The state? I am the state." In modern Russia, Putin is the state

For extradition, the United States must have similar laws, and several US states define offenses against US citizens abroad to the same way.

our intelligence services and the police should gather evidence with the help of international agencies and accuse Putin of murder or manslaughter.

As Advocate Geoffrey Robinson pointed out, attaching responsibility and guilt to individuals rather than to nation-states can be very effective.

Sanctions against individual Russian oligarchs bite. They can not profit from their ill-gotten gains outside of Russia. Putting personal responsibility on Putin also has merit. As with individuals and the criminal law, this creates a deterrent effect. Putin should know that he is a prisoner in his own country.

On the other hand, a visit to the US state of Putin would amount to an exemption and would be an insult to the families of Australian victims.

not good to try to stop the visit by appealing to Trump's best instincts because he does not have one. Rather, we must put pressure on Putin's lowest instincts: protect against arrest.

Great Britain has evidence that Putin has directed some, if not all, 14 murders of people related to Russia on British soil. it is clear that from the moment Putin sets foot in a democratic and liberal nation, he will be arrested.

(On this subject, I wrote last week that one of the victims in Britain had been poisoned by plutonium ….)

Treasurer Scott Morrison badumed he could change the way the GST money is distributed to the states. The Coalition's political antenna tells him that Western Australia is a crucial part of its base and that Western Australians view the GST distribution as a major problem, unlike residents of the West. Other states

. The GST division had a big impact on WA. The mining boom gave WA a lot of royalties in which the other states or the federal government did not share, and they counted in the GST repatriation formula. The distribution of WA is reduced to only about 40% of the GST that has been increased in Australia-Columbia.

Unfair, WA, cried, having wasted money from the mining boom rather than storing it when it would inevitably affect its distribution of the GST. Enter Morrison. As part of its remit, each state would receive at least 70 per cent of the GST collected in its state from the Commonwealth, which would amount to 75 per cent of the debt.

The legality of the Commonwealth doing this unilaterally is suspect, namely

The 1999 GST Act provides that the distribution must be made according to the principles of misallocated horizontal fiscal equalization. According to these principles, Australians, regardless of the state or territory in which they reside, should have equal access to government services. The ability to generate income (such as mining royalties) and disabilities (distances, isolation, low population density, high Aboriginal population, etc.) are all taken into account when spreading the GST.

The ability of a federal treasurer to unilaterally change this formula will invite a challenge from the High Court.

Moreover, a protesting state might well argue that there is a binding contract in the present case. After all, states have agreed to waive certain taxes (such as filing and withdrawal taxes and wholesale sales tax) as part of the arrangement.

Remember that during the Howard government, whenever Labor set up a campaign of fear The government's response was that it could not happen without the agreement of all the states and territories that were part of it. of the original agreement.

All that has been said, it is doubtful that a contract between the states and the federal government could prevent the government from legislating contrary to this contract. The Constitution grants the Commonwealth the exclusive power to increase excise taxes, and the GST is an excise duty. The Commonwealth could legislate to increase the GST, expand its base, or change the redistribution formula without states and territories agreeing. But, given the 1999 GST Act, it's hard to see how the Commonwealth could change these things without a new law.

So, if Morrison can not get the agreement of all states and territories (and good luck) to legislate, which means Senate approval (and good luck with that), his new plans of GST redistribution is likely to melt on the stone of one or more state challenges to the High Court.

crispinhull.com.au [19659024] [ad_2]
Source link