tdunlop wrote:
> 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.
Well, there is no need to go to a US type system. They aren't the only ones with a
Bill of Rights. And
having a Bill of Rights does not take away anything from parliament in the way it
legislates. The only
caveat on that is that they cannot take away a person's right to something under the
Bill of Rights. It is
there to protect people from having their human rights taken away by the government.
If we'd had a Bill of
Rights, Howard's Wik amendment would have been more likely to bite the dust.
As for US politicians fobbing of rights debates...our politicians do that also without
a Bill of Rights.
> 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'.
The conventions under the Westminster system, the traditional rules that are not
written down anywhere but
are adhered to, mostly.
> 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".
I cannot agree. Sir William Deane was appointed and he has been a very political GG.
You are assuming that a
directly elected president would be party political. Why? There is no need for that at
all.
> 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?
How can you assure that the 'non-party political' president is non-party political.
Non membership is not a
reliable criterium.
Appointing a president is fine as long there is honesty involved in labelling. It
seems to me that the
people who push this model are really afraid of a real republic. What they seem to
want is a monarchy
without the monarch.
> 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?
When I said that it was in general. My comments were not a description of you so don't
take it personal. I
am expressing my point of view as it relates to how the arguments of groups of people
appear to me.
> 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.
A dictator can act on behalf of the people too but it doesn't make it a democracy.
Sovereignty is not something you give to the people. It is theirs to bestow.
> 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.
True.
> Why would you accuse someone of being authoritarian because they don't agree
> with your views on the matter?
Where did I do that? I said that only authoritarians are afraid of letting the people
decide. It is about
control. If the people decide, then the people who want to have control won't have it
and that is what they
want to avoid at all costs.
> People of good will can have different
> opinions without one side being accused of being authoritarian, can't they?
Why are you taking this personally? If my statement above is not logical then please
shoot me down in
flames....
> 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.
Please look at what I wrote and see that I didn't accuse you of anything like it.
If that isn't clear to you then I am sorry because I didn't mean to convey anything of
the sort.
You are right, of course, everything has advantages and disadvantages. I just get very
suspicious when a
group of politicians and their corporate mates decide for us what we should have and
then won't let us have
a say in it.
Other questions need to be asked and they are: how much needs to be changed if we
become a republic? It will
cost how much? Who stands to gain from the contracts? Who will they end up with?
I think most of us can guess the answers very well. This isn't a reason not to become
a republic but it does
need to be kept in mind when we are being pushed by those who stand to gain.
> 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.
I agree, but I think their influence could be limited if the rules are clear and
enforced.
I think one way it could be done is that people send in nominations, they could pick a
certain number with
the most nominations and ask those people if they are willing to run. That would
whittle it down some more
and then they could put a photo with a cv for the rest and let the people vote.
Relatively cheap and simple.
There may be many more ways of doing it so it's not limited to the ones with funds.
> 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 -
You don't and that is your right. The problem is that the wishes of the majority of
Australians are being
ignored and that is undemocratic.
> I vote for the politicians and
> they represent me -
Not really. They represent their party. They would only represent you if there was
voting by conscience in
parliament.
> 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.
It's the sacrifice we make...;-)
> 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.
It was a continuation of the political/party political misunderstanding.
> 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?
Because a majority of Australians want a republic.
> 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 -
The Club made sure of that!
> 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.
That may be so but the republican/direct election polls have consistently shown the
same preference for a
considerable length of time now.
> 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.
That is a matter of personal judgement. My view is that it would be presented again
within a relatively
short period of time. Whether it would succeed or not I think would depend on whether
the people are
consulted the second time. It is also my view that the likelyhood of that happening
are far greater if
Howard wasn't running the show for an outcome he wants.
> 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.
Minimal change is what is being advertised right now. Although I have read that we
will need 65 amendments
so I don't think they are quite telling us everything.
Personally I don't care whether it happens fast or gradually. Whatever is wrong
whenever needs to be fixed.
> 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
That is because it doesn't need to be changed. It doesn't give the right to bear arms
to every citizen but
only to a citizen militia in times of need.
It's not the constitution that needs changing but the power of the NRA.
Trudy
> 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/
-------------------------------------------------------
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/
