SENATOR BROWN REMAINS SILENT ON THE NSW GREENS DECISION TO VOTE TO CHANGE THE NSW CONSTITUTION WITHOUT A REFERENDUM

NSW Legislative Council member Lee Rhiannon has described the Australian peoples' record on producing affirmative referendum results as being "poor". "Astute" would have been a better word to describe our referendum results as Australians will not support changes that will give elected public servants more powers and/or do not provide tangible benefits to the people themselves!


Ms Rhiannon has also indicated that the Greens support a two-stage process to establish a republic. That includes an initial non-binding plebiscite followed by a consultative process to determine the model for the republic and the method by which the Head of State should be elected.


That said, Ms Rhiannon doesn't believe in any consultative process before changing the NSW Constitution; she believes that most people in NSW would support the change to the Oath of Allegiance despite the fact that she has no tangible and overwhelming evidence to arrive at that conclusion.



Obviously, Ms Rhiannon does not subscribe to Professor Cherryl Saunders' sentiment that "Fundamental rules about the acquisition of power cannot confidently be left to those who presently hold power or who have regular prospects of doing so"!



But not all people think the same way as does Ms Rhiannon.



The Federal Independent Member for New England, Mr Tony Windsor, has now written to the Prime Minister (see attached PDF) asking for his consideration in respect of initiating the process to require States to conduct referendums in relation to such proposals.



Meanwhile, Senator Brown - who leads the Greens - remains abnormally silent on this issue!

Email Address: support@statusquo.org


Website: http://www.statusquo.org

Tony Windsor.pdf

OUT OF HOUSE AND HOME AND NOW OUT OF CYBERSPACE; WHAT NEXT?

Not content with kicking the Governor out of Government House, Premier Bob Carr appears now to have removed any mention of the Governor from the New South Wales Parliament's web site. The Governor of New South Wales is the only Governor who does not have her own independent web site. All of the the other 5 states provide substantial - and stand alone - web sites for their Governor. In the main, these sites carry a wealth of information about the functions they attend and the speeches they have made. The Governor-General also has an independent and significant web site. No such service is provided to the people of New South Wales. They have no way of knowing what their Governor is doing and has done. They are not able to get any of the speeches she has made in an easy and quick manner. It would make one wonder if the Governor has been locked away in "the Tower". But maybe there is something more sinister down the track for New South Wales!

If the Labor Party wins the forthcoming federal election it will mean coast-to coast Labor dominated legislatures across the nation. That in itself is not the issue. The issue is that it would be far more likely for all State Labor Parliaments to resurrect their "Australia Acts (Request) Act 1999" to request the Commonwealth Government to amend Section 7 of the Australia Acts (Clth & UK) so that the States can become republics independently of the Commonwealth and without the will of the people.


While New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia have since repealed those Acts, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia have no plans to do so. This would mean that Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia could easily amend the commencement date of those Acts to some other date that is convenient to the States. New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia could easily reintroduce new similar legislation in quick time. It is interesting to note that in New South Wales it took less than one month from when their Australia Acts (Request) Act 1999 was introduced to when it received Royal Assent!


But even more sinister and and equally convoluted is that a similar action (as explained by the late Richard McGarvie in his book "Democracy - choosing Australia's republic") could lead the Commonwealth Parliament with power from the Australia Acts, and by Acts supported by the state Parliaments, to amend the provision in the Statute of Westminster that precludes it from amending the Commonwealth Constitution, the covering clauses or the preamble. That means the Commonwealth constitution could be amended without the will of the people. Accordingly, and if a Labor wins the next federal election, Labor could hold a plebiscite to simply ask the people if they want a republic and if the people indicate "yes" then the Government could amend the constitution to make Australia a republic without any further consultation with the people.


And what next you may ask! As we well know the NSW Government intends removing the requirement for Ministers of the Crown to make an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen of Australia! And after that! Don't be surprised if you see "Bob the builder" down at Government House making some renovations before he moves in!


Email Address: support@statusquo.org

Website: http://www.statusquo.org

CARR USES REPUBLIC TO HIDE HEALTH AND TRANSPORT PROBLEMS

The report in the Sunday Telegraph of 2 May that NSW Premier Bob Carr will reintroduce a Bill to change the oath that our elected public servants will take in lieu of swearing allegiance to the Queen of Australia is a ruse to try and hide the mismanagement of the health, education and transport portfolios in NSW. A similar Bill didn't get off the ground when it was dumped in the Upper House in the mid 1990s.


The Report in the Sunday Telegraph alluded that our elected public servants swear allegiance to Queen Victoria. Of course, that is not the case as Section 6 of the Oaths Act 1900 provides for the substitution of the name of the incumbent Sovereign. This is consistent with the Australian Constitution in which a similar oath makes reference to Queen Victoria. The Oath contained in the Australian Constitution also provides for the substitution of the incumbent Sovereign's name in lieu of Queen Victoria!


However, a more disturbing issue about Mr Carr's proposal is that the Section 12 of the NSW Constitution Act 1902 may also have to be changed. Although that section states that an oath of allegiance will be taken in the form prescribed by the Oaths Act 1900, that section also provides for certain procedures relating to the demise of the Sovereign in respect of the Successor to the Crown.


The people of New South Wales do not own their constitution; in the main, it belongs to the elected public servants. Most of the NSW Constitution - including Section 12 - can be amended or repealed without reference to the people of NSW. If Mr Carr was serious about making our State more democratic he would make sure that no part of the New South Wales Constitution could be amended or repealed without a State referendum.


Mr Carr should take note of a statement made by Professor Cheryl Saunders in her article about the Australian Constitution in the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 January 2001 viz: "Fundamental rules about the acquisition of public power cannot confidently be left to those who presently hold power or who have regular prospect of doing so". Surely that premise applies to the New South Wales Constitution as well!

If Mr Carr really believes in democracy, the first thing he would do is have a referendum to allow the NSW people to gain ownership of their constitution. No changes to our State Constitution should be made until that happens! 

MR CARR WON'T HOLD A REFERENDUM ON PROPOSED CHANGE TO NSW CONSTITUTION

Bob Carr won't be holding a referendum on the latest proposed change to the New South Wales Constitution. In not holding a referendum, Mr Carr's commitment to full and open democracy falls well short of that of his federal counterpart, Mr Latham. Unlike the Commonwealth Constitution which requires a referendum for change, the anachronistic NSW constitution - apart from a few sections which protects the backsides of the NSW elected public servants - does not require a referendum for change at all! At the federal level, opposition leader Mark Latham has repeatedly indicated that he is developing plans to give democracy back to the people. Why don't we see any similar brainstorming by Bob Carr?


Professor Cheryl Saunders in her article "Updating our democracy" in the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 January 2001 stated "Fundamental rules about the acquisition of public power cannot confidently be left to those who presently hold power or have regular prospects of doing so". The NSW constitution dismally fails to meet the same the high standard of its Commonwealth counterpart in this respect. Even any incorporated association or company requires that a majority of its members approve of any changes to its rules. The NSW Constitution should be updated so that no changes can be made to that document without the approval of the people of NSW voting at a referendum. The way in which the NSW Parliament is required to operate should only be approved by the people of NSW and not by those who currently hold power.


That said, Mr Carr is continuing in his rush to break down our existing system of government without reference to the people; he booted the Governor out of Government House and now he intends to thumb his nose at the Queen of Australia by doing away with the oath of allegiance to her. As a Minister of the Crown he owes that allegiance; if he can't give that to our Queen then the people will never be able to believe him on anything at all even if they do so now!


With the Constitution Amendment (Pledge of Loyalty) Bill 2004 having progressed to the Ministerial second reading stage, it is now time for the Commonwealth Parliament to crack the whip and bring NSW into line as a fully democratic member of the Australian federation. Accordingly, the Commonwealth Government should hold a referendum in conjunction with the next federal election to amend section 106 of the Australian Constitution to require the States to only change their constitutions by referendum. The Commonwealth Government should also put an additional question to amend Section 15(1) of the Australia Acts to require that any changes to the Statute of Westminster and/or the Australia Acts only be changed by referendum. Proposed wording for these two changes can be obtained at http://www.statusquo.org/aru_html/html/const_change.html (the PDF version can be downloaded at http://www.statusquo.org/aru_home/html/research.html#edoc ). These changes would also require any new state to be similarly constitutionally bound.


Mr Carr is only making these changes because he can!


Email Address: support@statusquo.org


Website: http://www.statusquo.org

LATHAM'S LOST REPUBLIC WILL REMAIN SO

Labor leader Mark Latham's processes for an Australian republic will fail before it gets off the ground.
Mucking around with "indicative plebiscites" is a dangerous game to play when dealing with matters that should be addressed only by s128 of the Australian constitution. There are two things that Mr Latham would be wise to consider before going down this path.

Firstly, there is an aspect about the conduct of a plebiscites that should be considered carefully. That is, if a plebiscite shows that a majority of Australians wish to have a republic, Latham's Labor could be faced with the prospect of their republic being rejected at a subsequent referendum. This situation could occur because an indicative plebiscite to give the government approval to proceed with a referendum may only be passed by the smallest of majorities i.e. 50.01%. However, a referendum itself, which will also require a majority of states to approve, may not be endorsed. This would present a predicament of Gilbertian proportions to the rest of the world as well as embarrass those who seek the establishment of a republic. 


Noting that all of the 8 referenda passed to date have achieved more than 54.38% Australia-wide, 4 additional proposed referenda, which achieved more than 50% overall, did not gain the necessary majority of states in each case. Sustained polling on the republic issue to date doesn't appear to guarantee endorsement by the Australian people. While it is acknowledged that a referendum could be passed with the smallest of margins it may require that each of the 6 states approve the referendum. Historically, this seems an unlikely event.

Another and more sinister scenario is that if a plebiscite indicates that a majority of Australians support the general concept of a republic then constitutional change could take place without the will of the Australian people. In his book "DEMOCRACY choosing Australia's republic", the late Richard McGarvie correctly asserts that: "With the power from the Australia Acts, the Commonwealth Parliament, by Acts supported by the state Parliaments, can amend the provision in the Statute of Westminster that precludes it from amending the Commonwealth Constitution , the covering clauses or the preamble".

Clearly, and with the "moral" support of a successful plebiscite, the combined Australian parliaments could alter the Australian constitution to convert Australia's current stable form of government to that of a republic without further consulting the Australian people. This may not seem so crazy if Latham's Labor wins the next federal election; that could see all of the Australian states and the Federal government under control of Labor. It should also be remembered that the Australia Acts were, principally, a child of the Hawke Labor Government. There is nothing in law that prevents constitutional change in this manner.

Australians should be very wary of any plebiscite that seeks opinion on any proposed constitutional change. See "Is Our Constitution Safe?" for further reading on this subject at www.statusquo.org.

Email Address: support@statusquo.org

Website: http://www.statusquo.org