Much has been made of possible wall-to-wall Labor governments across Australia should the Labor Party win a majority of seats in the House of Representatives at the forthcoming Federal election. Some fear the possible increase in the GST which is currently set at 10%. Others have additional fears in respect of the Australian Constitution being legitimately changed without the holding of a referendum.
While any political mix of Federal and State Parliaments could accomplish the same thing, it is more likely for that to happen if all of the Federal and State Parliaments are controlled by a socialist conglomerate; the socialists are far more aggressive than the conservatives when making changes without consultation with the people!
But there is another aspect to this use of power.
It is also possible for an Act of the federal parliament to be passed at the request or with the concurrence of the six state parliaments to amend both the Australia Act 1986 (UK) and the Australia Act 1986 (Cwlth) to change Section 7 of both of those Acts relating to the powers and functions of Her Majesty and Governors in respect of the States so that the States could become republics.
No federal referendum would be required for this process; indeed, in 1999 all of the six states did exactly that but because the commencement date of those six Acts was tied to the result of the republic referendum and because the republic referendum failed, the six state Acts had no effect. Since then, some of those state Acts have been repealed. There is nothing in law that would prevent this from happening again even if it were not tied to the outcome of a future federal republic referendum. In other words, we could find ourselves one morning with six state republics without the people ever being consulted!
But a more alarming aspect and potential time bomb is that, and by a similar process, an Act of the federal parliament can be passed at the request or with the concurrence of the six state parliaments to amend the Statute of Westminster 1931.
When the Statute of Westminster 1931 was being drafted additional provisions were inserted in the Statute to safeguard the position of the states of Australia.
In Section 8 of the Statute, it was provided that 'nothing in this Act shall be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the Constitution or the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia otherwise than in accordance with the law existing before the commencement of this Act'.
In 1999, there was an attempt to amend Section 8 of the Statute of Westminster to provide that "Nothing in this section prevents the amendment of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act by omitting the Preamble or by repealing sections 2 to 8. This would have left the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia containing only Clause 1 (Short Title) and Clause 9 (The Constitution of the Commonwealth).
Because there was no unanimity between the six States the proposal was abandoned.
Section 128 of the Constitution states that 'This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner'. That said, one might presume that the procedure for change detailed in Section 128 of the Constitution was the only way that the Constitution could be amended. Additionally, some would claim that while Section 15(1) of The Australia Acts could be used to allow amendment of the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia, the same provision would not allow for amendment of the Constitution itself!
Now, the Australia Act 1986 (Cwlth) gained its authority from Section 51 (xxxviii) of the Constitution.
This power lets the Commonwealth, in co-operation with the States, do anything for Australia which only the United Kingdom could do at the time of federation.
At the time of Federation, the United Kingdom could have amended the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth (which includes the Constitution) because that Act was an Act of the United Kingdom.
A High Court judgement summarises the effect of s 51 (xxxviii) of the Constitution as it was interpreted in Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen's Assn Inc v South Australia (1989) 168 CLR 340 thus: 'The effect of s 51 (xxxviii) is to empower the Parliament 'to make laws with respect to the local exercise of any legislative power which, before federation, could not be exercised by the legislatures of the former Australian colonies'. It represents an actual enhancement of the legislative powers of the States because 'it confers, by implication, power upon the Parliament of a State to participate in the legislative process which the paragraph requires, namely request (or concurrence) by a State Parliament and enactment by the Commonwealth Parliament'. There is a potential enhancement of State legislative powers because the Parliaments of the States are the potential recipients of legislative power under a law made pursuant to the paragraph. Any room for an inhibition against giving to the grant in s 51 (xxxviii) its full scope and effect by reason of what was once the status of the Commonwealth itself within the British Empire no longer applies'.
The Australia Act 1986 (UK) is a British statute. It is a fundamental or higher law which prevails over ordinary laws and it cannot be altered by any one Australian legislature acting unilaterally. Its force in Australia now must rest on the authority of the Australian legislatures empowered to alter the Act under S15 of the Act.
This Act has its source in the Statute of Westminster (section 4 of the Statute was then available) and was passed in case the Australia Act 1986 (Cwlth) was found to be invalid.
Because the Australia Act 1986 (UK) is a higher law and because the High Court of Australia has found that 'any room for an inhibition against giving to the grant in s 51 (xxxviii) its full scope and effect by reason of what was once the status of the Commonwealth itself within the British Empire no longer applies' it would seem self-evident that the collective force of the Federal and State Parliaments could amend the Australian Constitution without holding a referendum.
The following quote from the late Richard McGarvie's book "Democracy; choosing Australia's republic" provides a profound summary: 'With the power from the Australia Acts, the Commonwealth Parliament, by Acts supported by the state Parliaments, can amend the Statute of Westminster that precludes it from amending the Commonwealth Constitution, the covering clauses or the preamble'.
Richard McGarvie was a former Supreme Court Judge and Governor of Victoria.
For further information on this subject, go to http://www.statusquo.org to read "Is Our Constitution Safe?".
Email Address: support@statusquo.org
Website: http://www.statusquo.org
Showing posts with label McGarvie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McGarvie. Show all posts
Thursday, 13 September 2007
Friday, 22 April 2005
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT (PLEDGE OF LOYALTY) BILL 2004 (NSW)
Next month, the New South Wales (NSW) Legislative Council will be considering a Bill that amends the NSW Constitution. This Bill, if passed, would require Members of the NSW Parliament and NSW Ministers to take a pledge of loyalty to Australia and the people of NSW instead of swearing allegiance to the Queen of Australia. A similar Bill is underway in Western Australia.
The ever increasing willingness for most State Parliaments to amend their Constitutions without reference to the people is anachronistic in modern Australia. State Constitutions should only be changed by referendum by the people of a State!
That said, there are other issues. For example, the late Richard McGarvie in his book "DEMOCRACY choosing Australia's republic" stated:
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.
(Further reading on this issue can be viewed at http://www.statusquo.org/aru_html/html/const_safe.html)
Clearly, the Commonwealth Parliament should use its power under Section 15(3) of the Australia Acts to either remove the obnoxious Section 15(1) of the Australia Acts or amend it to require a referendum in each State.
To further enhance Australia's collective democracies, Section 106 of the Australian Constitution should also be amended to require that State Constitutions only be changed by State referenda.
(Further reading on this issue can be viewed at http://www.statusquo.org/aru_html/html/const_change.html )
A letter relating to the NSW Constitution Amendment (Pledge of Loyalty) Bill 2004 which has been delivered to each of the Members of the NSW Legislative Council yesterday is shown below for your information:
In May 2005, yourself and other members of the NSW Legislative Council will consider the abovementioned bill to amend the NSW Constitution. This Bill, if passed, would require Members of Parliament and Ministers to take a pledge of loyalty to Australia and the people of NSW instead of swearing allegiance to the Queen of Australia.
A similar change to the Australian constitution would require a referendum; in other words, the people of NSW do not enjoy total sovereignty over their parliament as do the people of Australia federally. Accordingly, the NSW Constitution is light years behind the Australian Constitution in terms of "democracy for the people by the people"!
Until the introduction of the Australia Acts (1986), all laws in NSW weresubject to theUnited Kingdom's Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865. The Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 constrained the NSW parliament in its ability to amend the NSW constitution. However, since the introduction of the Australia Acts, much of the NSW Constitution can now be changed without a referendum or without external constraint. Additionally, section 106 of the Australian Constitution provides no further protection for the State Constitutions other than confirming that they remain unaltered until changed in accordance with the Constitution of the State! In the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 January 2001, Professor Cheryl Saunders in her article "Updating Our Democracy" stated:
Clearly, changing a constitution without a referendum does not conform which such sentiment.
That said, and whether or not the Council chooses to approve the Bill in its current form is dependent on whether or not Council members believe they are above the sovereignty of the people of NSW. Alternatively, if the Council votes to approve the Bill with an amendment to require a referendum to let the NSW people also have their say on this issue then democracy in NSW will be considerably enhanced. Such action would also allow for the Legislative Assembly to either abandon the Bill or allow for the procedure at section 5B of the NSW Constitution to systematically take place.
Accordingly, I commend to all members of the Council to add an amendment to require a referendum should they choose to approve the changes provided for in the Bill so that the people of NSW can also have their democratic say. If not, what other parts of the NSW Constitution will be changed in the future without the will of the people of NSW?
The ever increasing willingness for most State Parliaments to amend their Constitutions without reference to the people is anachronistic in modern Australia. State Constitutions should only be changed by referendum by the people of a State!
That said, there are other issues. For example, the late Richard McGarvie in his book "DEMOCRACY choosing Australia's republic" stated:
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.
(Further reading on this issue can be viewed at http://www.statusquo.org/aru_html/html/const_safe.html)
Clearly, the Commonwealth Parliament should use its power under Section 15(3) of the Australia Acts to either remove the obnoxious Section 15(1) of the Australia Acts or amend it to require a referendum in each State.
To further enhance Australia's collective democracies, Section 106 of the Australian Constitution should also be amended to require that State Constitutions only be changed by State referenda.
(Further reading on this issue can be viewed at http://www.statusquo.org/aru_html/html/const_change.html )
A letter relating to the NSW Constitution Amendment (Pledge of Loyalty) Bill 2004 which has been delivered to each of the Members of the NSW Legislative Council yesterday is shown below for your information:
In May 2005, yourself and other members of the NSW Legislative Council will consider the abovementioned bill to amend the NSW Constitution. This Bill, if passed, would require Members of Parliament and Ministers to take a pledge of loyalty to Australia and the people of NSW instead of swearing allegiance to the Queen of Australia.
A similar change to the Australian constitution would require a referendum; in other words, the people of NSW do not enjoy total sovereignty over their parliament as do the people of Australia federally. Accordingly, the NSW Constitution is light years behind the Australian Constitution in terms of "democracy for the people by the people"!
Until the introduction of the Australia Acts (1986), all laws in NSW weresubject to theUnited Kingdom's Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865. The Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 constrained the NSW parliament in its ability to amend the NSW constitution. However, since the introduction of the Australia Acts, much of the NSW Constitution can now be changed without a referendum or without external constraint. Additionally, section 106 of the Australian Constitution provides no further protection for the State Constitutions other than confirming that they remain unaltered until changed in accordance with the Constitution of the State! In the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 January 2001, Professor Cheryl Saunders in her article "Updating Our Democracy" stated:
- 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.
Clearly, changing a constitution without a referendum does not conform which such sentiment.
That said, and whether or not the Council chooses to approve the Bill in its current form is dependent on whether or not Council members believe they are above the sovereignty of the people of NSW. Alternatively, if the Council votes to approve the Bill with an amendment to require a referendum to let the NSW people also have their say on this issue then democracy in NSW will be considerably enhanced. Such action would also allow for the Legislative Assembly to either abandon the Bill or allow for the procedure at section 5B of the NSW Constitution to systematically take place.
Accordingly, I commend to all members of the Council to add an amendment to require a referendum should they choose to approve the changes provided for in the Bill so that the people of NSW can also have their democratic say. If not, what other parts of the NSW Constitution will be changed in the future without the will of the people of NSW?
Friday, 3 September 2004
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
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)