tdunlop wrote:
> I actually sort of disagree, Trudy; that is, I'm still thinking it through.
>
> A bill of rights, although it enshrines certain rights as inalienable, also
> puts the power to decide any given case within the legal system, that is, by
> a group of unelected judges. In other words, it takes such questions out of
> the political system where at least the politicians are elected by people
> and gives it to unelected judges. So while I'd like to see a document of
> rights, I'd prefer (I think) to see its jurisdiction remain within the
> parliament, perhaps under the control of a Senate committee.
A Bill of Rights would be tested by the High Court of the land - the *legitimate third
arm* of government
(why do people have such trouble with that?) - just as it tests constitutional
and other matters now. There would have been no Mabo decision or a Native title act
without it. It is fine
to have elected officials but they are not perfect and some check and balances are
needed to protect the
people from their excesses.
> As to this PM and a republic - well, a PM with his own agenda has the power
> now to appoint whoever he wants - no holds barred. Howard could install a
> mate and is probably inclined and sneaky enough to do it. At least under
> the system proposed in the referendum, he would be constrained by needing a
> two-thirds majority of the parliament, so it's an improvement in that sense.
I wasn't talking about Howard's appointments. I meant his penchant for authoritarian
rule which would lose
the brakes of 'convention' under a republic with no Bill of Rights. He has already
eliminated most bodies of
review and criticism and has taken away the people's voice in many matters already.
Imagine what he could
think up without the restrictions of 'convention'.
> If the President was popularly elected, I don't really see how it wouldn't
> just turn it into a political office, with the parties running candidates
> and thus opening the way for a President with his/her own agenda. A John
> Howard, it seems to me, is more likely to elected to President than be
> appointed by two-thirds of the parliament. And a John Howard is more of a
> threat under the current system.
I find the argument of 'turning it into a political office' quite strange since every
public interaction is
political to some degree. I don't see that swapping an elite monarchy for another
'elite judge, lawyer,
or-what-have-you' by another group of elites is an improvement. Sovereignty resides
with the monarch at the
moment by consent of the people. When that Sovereignty is taken away from the monarch
by the will of the
people the Sovereignty should return to where it belongs - with the people. Why is
everyone so afraid of
democracy? Only authoritarians are afraid of letting the people decide.
There are ways of ensuring it doesn't become a 'political' battle or the domain of the
rich.
A good example of what can go wrong is Indonesia right now. One party received the
greater number of votes
and then backroom wheeling and dealing succeeded in subverting the will of the people
as expressed at the
ballot box. The only reason Megawati got anything at all is because of the need to
stem the rioting.
> Personally, I'd rather the office of President stay non-political, because I
> think they are of more use in encouraging the institutions of civil society
> than they are in being involved in the political process. So although
> people make fun of the GG as office for a fete-opener, I think opening
> fetes, making speeches at funerals, encouraging community projects etc is a
> good and useful role for a President to play, especially if he/she is doing
> it independent of the political parties.
I agree but there is no reason why the people can't elect the fete-opener directly.
That would be the
democratic thing to do and the people should demand it as their right. The fact that
the political/corporate
clique don't trust us to do it should make us that much more determined not to have
our rights taken away. A
former politician with brakes on is no more worrying than anyone else for president.
There have been GGs in
the past and they did the job well.
> I have to admit too, that I would really just like to see the nexus with the
> British monarchy broken, which is the main reason I'll vote Yes. And I
> don't see that a No vote will guarantee a second referendum anytime soon -
That is what they would like you to believe. The problem is that if the 'Yes' vote
makes it this time there
is no impetus left to change anything. The Political/Corporate Club will have what
they want and we can go
whistle. They're not about to share their power with us.
I think we should fight the Australian inclination to say 'she'll be right' and not
accept a camel when we
could have a proper model for a republic. One that is inclusive and protects all of
the people.
> and you can imagine the scare campaign that will come from all quarters
> against a direct election model. So I worry about the prospect of anything
> ever changing and of living and dying in colonial times. But I don't see a
> Yes vote as the end of the matter and I'm certainly open to further
> constitutional change, including to direct election.
Well, the constitution certainly needs changing. It is not supposed to be a dead
document enshrined for all
time but is supposed to reflect the system of government a majority of Australians
agree on. It should be
changed whenever an inequity is found. I can't see that having a constitution that
reflects the morality and
worldview of a century or more ago will necessarily reflect all those things that we
have learnt since then.
We have a constitution that doesn't mention the Prime Minister, contains two racist
clauses just as an
example. I am no legal expert but I think it would reflect badly on us if we just left
it like that in the
interests of 'minimal change'. The US updates it's constitution on an ongoing basis
and it hasn't collapsed
in a heap yet.
Trudy
>
>
> Trudy wrote:
>
> >And it illustrates very clearly why we need a Bill of Rights. If the
> republic gets up there will be no
> >'convention' to put a brake on a PM with his own agenda. I find it very
> scary to even contemplate a republic
> >under Howard.
> >
> >Trudy
> >
> >tdunlop wrote:
> >
> >> I couldn't put my hands on it last night, but the full quote from the
> >> Kingston book is as follows:
> >>
> >> "When the stakes are high the politicians get heavy, and John Howard
> >> personally lobbied my editor-in-chief and editor, alleging pro-black bias
> by
> >> myself in particular and the paper in general. Some Liberals called the
> >> Herald the 'Aboriginal Morning Herald', in protest at the number of black
> >> faces and stories in the paper. I argued that the Wik debate was similar
> to
> >> the movement for black civil rights in the United States and that our
> >> coverage must be factual but uncompromising when blatant injustice was
> >> perpetrated on a minority with no clout but the justice of their cause."
> >>
> >> For a guy who apparently beleives in the monarchy and parliamentary
> >> democracy, Howard is the most presidential of politicians. He has
> >> personally blocked drug trials in the ACT, labelling of GMOs, has had a
> >> remarkable influence on appointments to various govt and quasi-govt
> bodies,
> >> and guides debates in a deliberate, though often invisible way, such as
> the
> >> Republic and, obviously, Indigenous matters. That it extends to
> pressuring
> >> editors shouldn't be a surprise, though it is a surprise to hear that it
> >> works so effictively. He was also rumoured to have rung Lachlan Murdoch
> >> about what he felt was pro-Republic bias in The Australian. Anyone who
> >> thinks that the office of PM isn't powerful should probably think again.
> So
> >> much of the tone of social/political debate is set by politicians that if
> >> the most powerful of them gets it into his head to put a finger in the
> >> various pies, then it is going to have a big influence. The most obvious
> >> example is his tacit endorsment of hansonism. As Keating said in his
> last
> >> speech before the 1996 election: "When the government changes, so does
> the
> >> country." Ain't it the truth.
> >>
> >> Tim
> >>
> >> -------------------------------------------------------
> >> RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived
> at http://www.mail-archive.com/
> >> To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in
> the body
> >> of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
> >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
> >> This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without
> permission from the
> >> copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and
> research under the "fair
> >> use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be
> distributed further without
> >> permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
> >>
> >> RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
> http://www.mail-archive.com/
> >To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the
> body
> >of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
> >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
> >This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without
> permission from the
> >copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and
> research under the "fair
> >use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed
> further without
> >permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
> >
> >RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
>http://www.mail-archive.com/
> To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
> of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
> This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
>from the
> copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
>the "fair
> use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
>without
> permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
>
> RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
