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
Showing posts with label Mark. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark. Show all posts
Sunday, 11 April 2004
Friday, 12 December 2003
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)