Thanks for the response, Trudy. Here's some further thoughts.
Trudy wrote
>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.
I don't have such trouble with that. Under the suggestion I made they would
still have that power, as a check and balance on the parliament. Under a
US-type system, all matters of rights are for the courts alone, not the
parliament/congress at all and it becomes a way for politicians, the elected
representatives, to fob off rights debates and hand it over to the Court.
I'd like to keep the best of both systems, that's all.
Trudy wrote:
>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'.
I don't understand this point, maybe because I'm not quite sure what you
mean by 'conventions'.
Trudy wrote:
>I find the argument of 'turning it into a political office' quite strange
since every public interaction is
>political to some degree.
Well yes, that's true, but the fact that you say "to some degree" suggests
that the degree of politicisation is variable, so all I'm saying is that a
non-elected President is less political than an elected one and that I
prefer that. Perhaps I should have said "party political".
Trudy wrote:
>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.
You can accept the appointment of High Court judges as legitimate, what is
the huge difference with a non-party political President?
Trudy wrote:
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.
Who's afraid of democracy? The whole thrust of my comments on a Bill of
rights was to keep the debate in the democratic parliament, for example.
Democracy isn't just defined by voting. An appointed President could act on
behalf of the people, thus making them sovereign. Laws, for example, could
be made in the name of the people as they are now made in the name of the
crown with either a directly elected or an appointed President.
Why would you accuse someone of being authoritarian because they don't agree
with your views on the matter? People of good will can have different
opinions without one side being accused of being authoritarian, can't they?
As I said, I'm not against direct election, I just think there are
disadvantages with it and that there are advantages with an appointment
model and with voting Yes in Nov. Doesn't make me authoritarian or
undemocratic.
Trudy wrote:
>There are ways of ensuring it doesn't become a 'political' battle or the
domain of the rich.
I'm sure that's true and it's one of the reasons I don't rule out a direct
election model. One for instance would be to limit a candidate's access to
paid advertising. I'd like to hear some more if anyone has them. But I
still don't see that the major parties or their proxies would not be closely
involved in any election process.
Trudy wrote:
>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.
Well okay, but I don't know how convincing it is here as a comparison.
Trudy wrote:
>
>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.
But some of us don't see it as having our rights taken away. Although I'm
inclined to have a directly elected Prez, I don't see that an appointment
model strips me of any fundamental rights - I vote for the politicians and
they represent me - I don't vote on every piece of legislation that goes
through and although I'm not always happy with the result, I don't feel my
rights have been stripped by having them do things on my behalf. The
prospect of them deciding by two-thrids majority who the non-executive Prez
is doesn't undermine my basic rights. Again the example of the High Court
judges comes to mind - they are appointed and you've agreed that they
perform a legitimate role, so it can't just be the fact of appointment that
is problem.
Trudy wrote:
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'm not sure what you mean here.
Trudy wrote:
>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.
Again, the notion that I've been duped because I don't happen to agree seems
strange. The substantive point - that a No vote will create impetus for
further change - is debateable. I hope you're right, but I don't see that
there is any guarantee or even a strong likelihood. I'm not saying you're
wrong, but why are you so sure that another referendum will take place
failry soon? And why are you so sure it would win? I know polls suggest a
vast majority prefer the direct election idea, but no direct election model
has ever been put up so we don't know what would happen in campaign - which
was why I made the point about the scare campaign that would be run against
a direct election model. As a number of elections have shown recently,
opinion polls even a couple of days out from a vote are not terribly
reliable. I just don't see the reason for people being confident that we'd
get a second referendum on the question within a reasonable amount of time
and that it would get up. And I'm yet to hear anyone speculate on what
would happen if a second referendum was lost.
Trudy wrote:
>
>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.
I agree with all of this, especially the last sentence.
>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'.
Minimal change would be bad if that was all it was - but gradual change is
also possible. Or if you like, step-by-step change. I don't see why that
can't happen.
Trudy wrote:
The US updates it's constitution on an ongoing basis and it hasn't collapsed
>in a heap yet.
I'm not sure how true this is. For instance, the second ammendment on the
right to bear arms has proved absolutely impossible to change despite
constant polls that show people want it to change. Besides, the point I
made was that I favour ongoing constitutional change. What I don't accept
is that I've been duped by some people because I happen to think that
appointing the President is okay, or that my some of my rights have been
lost because I'm happy to have two thirds of the parliament appoint a
President.
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/
