How long does it take to re-introduce and pass an idea through parliament?

I do believe that after three months a double dissolution can be called. Or something like that.

 

Salmon fillets with chips - none of which is grown by me - but will taste delicious none the less.

I was just reading this...looking for info on how long legislation takes to get passed Grrrr

It carries on about the procedure for double dissolution
http://thoughtundermined.com/tag/australia/

---

@bluecat*dancing wrote:

There is good and bad in each and every budget that is handed down but I am close to being speechless at the callousness exhibited in this budget. Creating a surplus means nothing if its at the expense of social services. It means nothing if unneccessary hardship is created for those who are most vulnerable. It means nothing if even more people are pushed into poverty. It means nothing if the majority of people lose. A surplus gained under such conditions is worthless. Society needs to thrive not suffer to be deemed successful. People are not numbers or statistics but real living and breathing individuals.It is about time that those in power realise this.

---

this is such a good post that I want to repeat it. What is the point of having a budget surplus if people are homeless and our health and education systems are carp??

Health & education will suffer when the states get less federal govt funding in 2017... But wait we will have a world class medical $20b research fund, funded by taxpayers & pensioners (aged, unemployed, disabled).

Hello, everyone. Remember to stay on-topic when you post. This thread is about budget. If you want to talk about something else, you're welcomed to start a new thread. Thanks. 🙂

oops ^^^ Stay on topic Nero_wulf 

---

@debra9275 wrote:

---

@bluecat*dancing wrote:

There is good and bad in each and every budget that is handed down but I am close to being speechless at the callousness exhibited in this budget. Creating a surplus means nothing if its at the expense of social services. It means nothing if unneccessary hardship is created for those who are most vulnerable. It means nothing if even more people are pushed into poverty. It means nothing if the majority of people lose. A surplus gained under such conditions is worthless. Society needs to thrive not suffer to be deemed successful. People are not numbers or statistics but real living and breathing individuals.It is about time that those in power realise this.

---

this is such a good post that I want to repeat it. What is the point of having a budget surplus if people are homeless and our health and education systems are carp??

---

 thats always been the situation, the libs won't spend money on australians . then they boast as if its a good thing.

"to em:
I repeated what I heard JOE HOCKEY saying during his address to the press club, which was:
riiiiiight. ....now we are being peddled 'tsunamis of expenditure'......'left by the previous govt'......and 'this is why'.....we've basically delivered this budget.....which is not a hardlined as it should be in the first few years.



*wow. if anyone believes this hard sell carp then heaven help me and my kids.
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

you said:
Every time I hear 'previous government' it sets my teeth on edge. Stop whining about what went before. It lowers your credibility.
............................................................................................................................................................................................................

my credibility is quite intact thank you. That of Joe Hockey's and his mob is not though."

Sorry paint sew, I wasn't commenting on your credibility. It was clumsy phrasing expecting you to read between the lines and realise the whole post was about Joes credibility.