In reply to Interim Neither Executive message Omega wrote:


This may be of interest. It is from a newsletter: Western Australia
Secession 2001 Association (Inc.) ph. (08) 9444 9243.

To bring you up to date with the campaign: the committee discovered that
the secession referendum, held in 1933,had no record of having been
completed.


In 1934 a Secession Act was assented to and tabled in the British
Parliament.
No decision to support or reject it was made.  A Joint Select Committee
advised that secession was a matter for the Australian Federal Government to
decide
through a national referendum.  Because this has not yet taken place, our
Association took-up the issue and petitioned the Legislative Council of W.A.
on
Wednesday 2nd December 1998, to recognise the 1933 secession referendum as
unfinished business.  We are impressing on the W.A. Government that it is
now their duty to make representation to the Federal Government to hold a
national referendum to release W.A. from the Federation.  Regardless of what
arguments have been put forward, for or against the case for secession, the
Secession Act remains an acknowledgment of a successful referendum and a
democratic right to secede through the desire of Western  Australians as
expressed in that referendum.
A further move by the Association is to have the proposed republic
referendum treated as a new formulated Federation and not an amendment to
the existing one.  This means that to form a republic is a new
constitutional arrangement where all the States of Australia need to be
asked independent of each other if they wanted to belong to a new
Federation.  It would be an opportunity for W.A. to say NO!  Whereas, in an
amended constitution W.A. as a member state could be taken into a change on
the weight of vote of the other States.


[JS]
Yes, linking Western Australia Secession and the republic referendum could
be very effective if it can get enough publicity.  That means high profile
supporters who can't be ridiculed or ignored by the media.  Suggestions?
Volunteers?

Also treating the proposed republic referendum as a new formulated
Federation and not an amendment to the existing one would allow NZ to be
re-polled (as provided in the Constitution).  This would not even happen
unless the new republic restores all and more of the State powers usurped by
Canberra.  While no such draft will ever be submitted by Canberra, media
publicity could make more Australians aware of the price we are paying since
the original states agreed to a flawed constitution retaining the monarchic
powers now exercised by prime ministers.

The 'minimalist' republic is intended to perpetuate and extend monarchic
powers, and its interesting to see the lengths its supporters are going to
in order to stop direct election.  It would be interesting to get NZ
participation in the debate, specially since they have had time to learn to
use (and abuse?) their new electoral system.  Any readers in or from NZ?
What do you think?

Cheers

Jim


----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion.

To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe

For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
For archives
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]

Reply via email to